Control

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows for Control with the Intel Core i9-14900K and Intel Arc B390 reveal a clear pattern: the GPU is the limiting factor, and settings choices have a dramatic impact on playability. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 65 FPS, which is the only configuration across all resolutions that approaches a fluid, competitive frame rate. Medium at 1080p drops to 46 FPS, High to 41 FPS, and Ultra to 36 FPS. The data suggests that Low is the only viable preset for a consistently smooth experience at 1080p, as the jump from Low to Medium costs 19 FPS (from 65 to 46), a 29% reduction, while High and Ultra continue to degrade performance further.

At 2560x1440, the situation worsens. Low produces an average of 50 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced action. Medium falls to 35 FPS, High to 31 FPS, and Ultra to 27 FPS. None of the 1440p presets reach the 60 FPS threshold, so users seeking smoother motion should stay at 1080p. At 3840x2160, all presets are essentially unplayable for action gameplay: Low averages 33 FPS, Medium 24 FPS, High 21 FPS, and Ultra 18 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K is the worst performer in the entire dataset, with an average of 18 FPS.

Given the measured data, the recommended experience is the Low preset at 1920x1080, which is the only combination that yields an average above 60 FPS. For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, the Medium preset at 1080p (46 FPS) offers a balanced alternative, but the data indicates that the GPU's performance ceiling is quickly reached as settings increase. The Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, confirming its entry-level positioning. The benchmark results indicate that any preset above Low at 1080p, or any preset at higher resolutions, will result in sub-60 FPS averages, making the Low/1080p combination the best measured experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the best frame rate achievable with this CPU-GPU combo in Control?

A: The highest average FPS recorded in the measured data is 65 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This is the only configuration that surpasses the 60 FPS mark; all other measured combinations fall below it.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390's performance compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390's average benchmark score of 1482 is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443). These deltas are minimal, indicating that the Arc B390 sits in a similar performance tier to these older entry-level GPUs.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 4K at the same settings?

A: At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 65 at 1920x1080 to 50 at 2560x1440 and 33 at 3840x2160. This represents a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the average drops from 41 at 1080p to 31 at 1440p and 21 at 4K, a 49% reduction as well.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this configuration?

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the limiting component. The Intel Core i9-14900K has 24 cores, 32 threads, and a boost clock of 6.00 GHz, while the Arc B390 has a 3DMark score in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Frame rates scale heavily with resolution and settings, which is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios, not CPU-bound ones.

Q: How does the Core i9-14900K compare to its nearest CPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i9-14900K has an average benchmark score of 79097. The Intel Core i9-14900KF scores 79371 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 79574 (0.6% higher), the AMD EPYC 7413 scores 80041 (1.2% higher), and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 77740 (1.7% lower). These differences are small, placing the i9-14900K in a tight performance cluster.

Q: At 1440p, which settings preset provides the highest average FPS?

A: The Low preset at 2560x1440 yields an average of 50 FPS, which is the highest among all 1440p configurations. Medium produces 35 FPS, High produces 31 FPS, and Ultra produces 27 FPS.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a pronounced and consistent scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 65 FPS at 1080p to 50 FPS at 1440p, then to 33 FPS at 4K. This represents a 23% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 34% reduction from 1440p to 4K, for a total 49% drop across the full range. The pattern is nearly identical at High settings: 41 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K, again a 49% total reduction. Medium settings show 46 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 24 FPS at 4K, a 48% total drop. Ultra settings go from 36 FPS at 1080p to 27 FPS at 1440p and 18 FPS at 4K, a 50% total reduction.

The near-uniform ~50% performance penalty from 1080p to 4K across all settings presets is a strong indicator of GPU-bound rendering. The number of pixels at 4K is 4 times that of 1080p, but the frame rate does not quarter; instead, it halves. This suggests that the Intel Arc B390, with its 1536 shading units and 24 ROPs, is saturated at even the lowest settings, and that the CPU is not a limiting factor in this workflow. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would show less variation across resolutions, as the CPU workload would remain constant while pixel count changes. The data shows the opposite: FPS scales predictably with pixel count, confirming that the GPU's fill rate and shading capacity dictate performance.

The 4K results are uniformly poor, with no preset exceeding 33 FPS. Even at Low, the 33 FPS average at 3840x2160 is below the threshold for smooth gameplay in an action-adventure title like Control. The 1440p results are marginal, with Low achieving 50 FPS but all other presets falling into the 27-35 FPS range. Only at 1080p does the combo approach playable frame rates, and only with the Low preset does it cross 60 FPS. This scaling behavior indicates that users targeting higher resolutions would need to drastically reduce settings, but even then, the GPU's low absolute performance (9th percentile) prevents a satisfactory experience at 1440p or above.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i9-14900K paired with the Intel Arc B390 ranks 2551 out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 12% of all configurations. This low ranking is entirely attributable to the GPU, as the CPU is a top-tier part. The i9-14900K sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79097, while the Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 1482. The massive disparity between the CPU's high percentile and the GPU's low percentile creates a severely imbalanced system where the GPU cannot leverage the CPU's computational power.

The combo's rank of 2551 out of 2888 means that roughly 337 other combinations perform worse in Control, but the vast majority of tested systems outperform it. This ranking is consistent with the measured FPS data, which shows that even at the most favorable settings (1080p Low), the combo only achieves 65 FPS, while higher settings and resolutions quickly degrade into unplayable territory. The GPU's nearest rivals — the GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710 — are all legacy, entry-level parts from previous generations, and the Arc B390 only outperforms them by 1.3% to 2.7%. This places the GPU in a performance tier that is fundamentally unsuited for demanding modern titles like Control at high settings.

The combo rank is not a reflection of the CPU's capabilities. The i9-14900K's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks — the i9-14900KF, Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, EPYC 7413, and Ryzen AI Max+ 395 — all perform within 1.7% of it, indicating that the CPU is a high-end part that would rank much higher if paired with a more capable GPU. The data shows that the i9-14900K's 24 cores and 32 threads are more than sufficient for Control's CPU demands, but the Arc B390's 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are insufficient to drive the game at competitive frame rates.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i9-14900K is a 24-core, 32-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 6.00 GHz. It has a 36 MB shared L3 cache and 2 MB L2 cache per core, along with 80 KB L1 cache per core. The CPU's synthetic benchmark results are strong: it scores 39399.5 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 2262.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core, 20793 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 2935 in Cinebench R20 single-core. In Geekbench, it scores 21697 multi-core and 2655 single-core. These numbers place the CPU in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that it is more than capable of handling the computational demands of Control.

However, the measured FPS data shows that the CPU's power is largely untapped in this configuration. Control is a game that benefits from strong single-core performance, and the i9-14900K delivers that with a 6.00 GHz boost clock and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2262.5. Yet the frame rates at 1080p Low (65 FPS) are not indicative of a CPU bottleneck; rather, they show that the GPU is the limiting factor. The Arc B390's low pixel rate (60.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (120.0 GTexel/s) mean that even at the lowest settings, the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to stress the CPU.

The CPU's 24 cores and 32 threads are far more than Control requires, as the game was released in 2019 and is not known for heavy multi-threading. The i9-14900K's PassMark multi-thread score of 58674 and integer math score of 210622 demonstrate its massive throughput, but these capabilities are irrelevant when the GPU delivers only 18 FPS at 4K Ultra. The data indicates that the CPU is never the bottleneck in this combo, as evidenced by the consistent frame rate scaling with resolution changes. If the CPU were limiting, the FPS would remain flat across resolutions; instead, it drops approximately 50% from 1080p to 4K, a hallmark of GPU saturation. The i9-14900K's 125W TDP and 10 nm process node are irrelevant to the gaming experience here, as the CPU is effectively idle waiting for the GPU to complete its work.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are as follows: Low settings produce 65 FPS, Medium produces 46 FPS with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 53 FPS, High produces 41 FPS, and Ultra produces 36 FPS. The 1080p Low configuration is the only one in the entire dataset to exceed 60 FPS, and it does so by a margin of 5 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p has a recorded min FPS of 40, indicating that even the average of 46 FPS is accompanied by dips that could cause stutter in action-heavy scenes. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p, at 41 FPS and 36 FPS respectively, are below the 60 FPS threshold and would likely feel sluggish in Control's combat sequences.

At 2560x1440, the average frame rates are: Low at 50 FPS, Medium at 35 FPS (with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS), High at 31 FPS, and Ultra at 27 FPS. The 1440p Low preset is the only one that remains above 48 FPS, but the 50 FPS average is still 10 FPS short of the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset's minimum of 30 FPS is particularly concerning, as it represents a 43% drop from the average of 35 FPS, suggesting significant frame time variance. High and Ultra at 1440p are both below 32 FPS, making them unsuitable for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are: Low at 33 FPS, Medium at 24 FPS (with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS), High at 21 FPS, and Ultra at 18 FPS. None of these configurations approach playability for an action-adventure game. The 4K Medium preset has the most complete data, with a min FPS of 20 and a max FPS of 27, illustrating a wide variance that would result in inconsistent frame pacing. The 4K Ultra preset's 18 FPS average is the lowest recorded value in the entire dataset, confirming that the Arc B390 is completely overwhelmed at this resolution. The step from 1080p Low (65 FPS) to 4K Low (33 FPS) represents a 49% performance drop, and the step from 1080p Ultra (36 FPS) to 4K Ultra (18 FPS) is exactly 50%, showing a highly predictable scaling behavior driven by the GPU's fixed shading and ROP throughput. The data clearly shows that the only viable configuration for this combo is 1080p Low, with all other settings and resolutions resulting in sub-60 FPS averages.