Control

Control is an action-adventure title from 2019 that stresses both CPU and GPU in different ways depending on resolution and settings. The data measured for this specific combination of an Intel Core i7-14700F and an Intel Arc B390 reveals a system that is heavily skewed toward CPU capability, with the GPU acting as the clear limiting factor in almost every scenario. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS rows, contextualizes the performance against the component benchmarks, and answers common questions about how this pairing behaves in this particular game.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i7-14700F is a 20-core, 28-thread processor from the Core 14th Gen series, based on the Raptor Lake architecture. Its base clock is listed at 2.10 GHz, with a boost clock reaching 5.40 GHz. The processor carries a 33 MB shared L3 cache, with 2 MB of L2 cache per core and 80 KB of L1 cache per core. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU posts strong numbers: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35122 and a single-core score of 4958, while Geekbench results show 19620 multi-core and 2429 single-core. The Passmark multi-thread score sits at 41317, with a single-thread score of 4257.

What does this mean for Control? The game's physics and destruction systems are known to be demanding on processor resources, but the benchmark data here suggests the CPU is not the bottleneck at any measured setting. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 65 FPS average. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see that frame rate plateau or drop as settings increase, because higher settings would load the GPU more. Instead, we see the opposite: at 1080p Medium the average drops to 46 FPS, at High it drops to 41 FPS, and at Ultra it falls to 36 FPS. This pattern indicates that the GPU is the component determining performance, not the CPU.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 91 versus all CPUs places it in the top tier of processors tested. Its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Xeon 6505P with an average score of 53701 (0.2% higher), the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 at 53469 (0.3% lower), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 53288 (0.6% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7313P at 53206 (0.8% lower). The i7-14700F's average benchmark score of 53620 puts it right in that competitive band. In Control, this level of CPU performance is more than sufficient to feed the Arc B390 at every resolution tested, meaning the 20 cores and 28 threads are effectively idle headroom while the GPU struggles to keep up.

The boost clock of 5.40 GHz is particularly relevant for a game like Control that has single-threaded elements in its rendering pipeline. Even at 4K Ultra, where the average FPS is 18, the CPU is not holding back the GPU. The data implies that the i7-14700F could easily support a much more powerful graphics card in this title, as its compute capabilities are nowhere near exhausted. The 65 W TDP also suggests this is a power-efficient part, though the measured FPS data does not include power consumption figures, so that remains a qualitative observation based on the listed TDP.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process. It features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, with 12 ray tracing cores. The base clock is 300 MHz with a boost clock of 2500 MHz. Memory is listed as "System Shared," meaning the GPU uses system RAM rather than dedicated VRAM, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The GPU's FP32 compute is rated at 7.680 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s with a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s.

The measured 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score for this GPU is 1482, which places it in the 9th percentile versus all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in that benchmark are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX with a score of 1463 (1.3% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M at 1460 (1.5% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1446 (2.5% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 at 1443 (2.7% lower). This is an extremely low-end performance tier, and the Control benchmark results reflect that reality.

In Control, the Arc B390's performance is uniformly low across all settings. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 65, which is the highest recorded value for this combo. Moving to 1080p Medium drops the average to 46 FPS, with a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 53. High settings produce 41 FPS average, and Ultra yields 36 FPS. The pattern is consistent: every increase in settings costs roughly 5 to 19 FPS, which is a direct indicator of GPU-bound performance. The boost clock of 2500 MHz is likely being utilized fully, but the small number of shading units and the shared memory bandwidth cap the GPU's ability to render Control's complex scenes.

The lack of dedicated VRAM is a significant factor. With system-shared memory, the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, and Control's textures and effects can consume substantial memory. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 18, which is barely playable. At 4K Medium, the average is 24 FPS with a minimum of 20 and maximum of 27. The data suggests that this GPU is simply not designed for modern game rendering at high resolutions, and Control's demanding visual effects push it to its absolute limits. The 80 W TDP is low, but that does not compensate for the architectural limitations visible in the measured FPS.

FAQ

Q: Why does the FPS drop so much when going from Low to Ultra settings at the same resolution?

A: The FPS drops are consistent with a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p, the average FPS goes from 65 on Low to 36 on Ultra, a 29 FPS reduction. This happens because higher settings increase the GPU workload, and the Arc B390's limited compute resources (1536 shading units, 7.680 TFLOPS) cannot maintain higher frame rates as the rendering complexity grows.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-14700F a bottleneck in this game?

A: No, the data indicates the CPU is not the limiting factor. The CPU has a high synthetic benchmark score of 35122 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and ranks in the 91st percentile. If the CPU were the bottleneck, frame rates would be similar across different settings. Instead, FPS scales inversely with settings, which is the hallmark of GPU limitation.

Q: How does this combo compare to other tested combinations in Control?

A: This combo ranks 2551 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 12% of systems. This ranking is driven almost entirely by the GPU's low performance, as the CPU is in the top 10% of processors. The GPU's 9th percentile ranking versus all GPUs aligns with the overall combo ranking.

Q: What is the best resolution for this system in Control?

A: Based on the measured data, 1080p is the only resolution where the average FPS exceeds 60, and that is only on Low settings (65 FPS). At 1440p, the best average is 50 FPS on Low. At 4K, the highest average is 33 FPS on Low, which is below playable thresholds for most users.

Q: Why does the 4K Medium setting show min and max FPS but other settings do not?

A: The data set includes min and max FPS values only for the Medium settings at each resolution. For 4K Medium, the min is 20 FPS and the max is 27 FPS. For 1440p Medium, min is 30 and max is 40. For 1080p Medium, min is 40 and max is 53. The absence of min/max values for other settings means the data was not captured for those rows, not that the performance was stable.

Q: Does the CPU's 20 cores and 28 threads provide any benefit in Control?

A: In this specific test, the CPU's high core count does not translate to higher FPS because the GPU is the constraint. The CPU's single-core performance (4958 in Cinebench R23) is strong, but Control's frame rate is capped by the GPU at every settings and resolution combination measured.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of this system's capabilities in Control. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the system achieves its best results. On Low settings, the average FPS is 65. Medium settings produce an average of 46 FPS, with a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 53. High settings yield 41 FPS average. Ultra settings drop to 36 FPS average. This represents a spread of 29 FPS between the lowest and highest settings, showing that the GPU's workload scales significantly with visual quality.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops across the board. Low settings average 50 FPS. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. High settings average 31 FPS. Ultra settings average 27 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 23 FPS, slightly less than at 1080p, but the absolute numbers are all lower. The highest average at 1440p (50 FPS on Low) is 15 FPS lower than the highest average at 1080p (65 FPS on Low).

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes marginal for playability. Low settings average 33 FPS. Medium settings average 24 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High settings average 21 FPS. Ultra settings average 18 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is only 15 FPS, which suggests that the GPU is so heavily loaded at this resolution that even reducing settings cannot recover sufficient performance. The minimum FPS of 20 at 4K Medium indicates that the system can dip below 30 FPS even at moderate settings, which would be noticeable as stuttering in gameplay.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling behavior is a textbook example of GPU-bound performance. Looking at Low settings across resolutions, the average FPS goes from 65 at 1080p, to 50 at 1440p, to 33 at 4K. That is a 23% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 34% drop from 1440p to 4K. For Medium settings, the progression is 46, 35, and 24 FPS, representing a 24% drop and then a 31% drop. For High settings, the numbers are 41, 31, and 21 FPS, with drops of 24% and then 32%. For Ultra settings, the averages are 36, 27, and 18 FPS, with drops of 25% and then 33%.

These consistent percentage drops indicate that the GPU is the limiting component at every resolution. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see smaller FPS differences between resolutions, because the CPU workload does not change as much with resolution. The fact that FPS scales inversely with pixel count in a nearly linear fashion points to the GPU's fill rate and shading capacity being exhausted. The Arc B390's pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are fixed hardware limits, and higher resolutions require more of those resources per frame.

The data also shows that the FPS drops are not perfectly proportional to the pixel count increase. From 1080p to 4K, the pixel count quadruples, but the FPS on Low settings drops from 65 to 33, which is roughly a halving. This suggests that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound; other factors like memory bandwidth (listed as "System Dependent") and texture fetching also play a role. The shared memory system likely suffers from increased latency and contention as resolution rises, compounding the raw compute limitations.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Given the measured data, the best experience for this system in Control depends on the target resolution. At 1080p, Low settings provide the only average FPS above 60 (65 FPS), which is the standard for smooth gameplay. Medium settings at 1080p average 46 FPS, which is playable but may exhibit framerate dips to 40 FPS. High settings at 41 FPS and Ultra at 36 FPS are below the 60 FPS threshold and may feel less responsive. For users prioritizing frame rate at 1080p, Low is the clear choice. For users who want better visual quality and can tolerate 40-46 FPS, Medium is a reasonable compromise.

At 1440p, no setting achieves 60 FPS average. Low settings at 50 FPS is the highest result, with Medium at 35 FPS and High at 31 FPS. Ultra at 27 FPS is borderline unplayable. The recommendation here is to use Low settings if the goal is maximum fluidity, as the 50 FPS average is closest to the 60 FPS target. Medium settings at 35 FPS are acceptable for slower-paced exploration, but the minimum of 30 FPS suggests potential stutter in combat-heavy scenes.

At 4K, all settings produce averages below 35 FPS. Low settings at 33 FPS is the most playable option, but even this is marginal. Medium at 24 FPS, High at 21 FPS, and Ultra at 18 FPS are all below the threshold for comfortable gaming. The data suggests that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo in Control, regardless of settings. The best experience at 4K would be Low settings, but users should expect significant performance compromises.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset offers the most balanced data, as it is the only setting with recorded min and max FPS values. At 1080p Medium, the range is 40-53 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 30-40 FPS; at 4K Medium, it is 20-27 FPS. These ranges show that Medium settings provide a consistent, if modest, frame rate envelope. For users who want a single settings choice across resolutions, Medium is the most predictable option, though it sacrifices the highest FPS available on Low.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core i7-14700F and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2551 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. That places it in the bottom 12% of all systems tested, which is a low position driven almost entirely by the GPU. The CPU is in the 91st percentile globally, but the GPU is in the 9th percentile, creating a massive imbalance. The combo rank of 2551 reflects the GPU's dominance in determining gaming performance for this title.

The nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks are all NVIDIA parts from the early 2010s era: the GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710. These are all integrated or entry-level discrete GPUs that would struggle with modern games. The Arc B390's average benchmark score of 1482 is just 1.3% higher than the GT 520MX, which is a very narrow margin. In Control, this translates to frame rates that are comparable to what those older GPUs would achieve, though the exact comparison is not in the measured data.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are server and high-end desktop parts: the Xeon 6505P, Xeon Phi 7290, Ryzen 9 7900X, and EPYC 7313P. The i7-14700F's average score of 53620 is within 0.8% of all these parts, showing that it performs at a level consistent with much more expensive processors. However, this CPU performance is largely wasted in this combo because the GPU cannot translate it into higher frame rates in Control. The data implies that pairing this CPU with a significantly more powerful GPU would yield much better results in this game, as the CPU has ample headroom to support higher frame rates.