Control

Control with the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and Intel Arc B370 presents a stark picture of hardware limitation. The data shows a combination that struggles significantly, placing in the 2657th position out of 2888 tested combos, which puts it in the bottom portion of the database. The measured frames per second across all resolutions and settings reveal a system that is consistently bound by its graphics processor, offering playable results only at the most modest configurations. This analysis will break down the performance metrics, focusing on how the system scales with resolution, the specific roles of the CPU and GPU, and what the data implies for users of this particular hardware pairing.

Resolution Scaling

The progression from 1080p to 4K shows a predictable, yet severe, decline in frame rates, confirming that the Intel Arc B370 is the primary performance bottleneck. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 59 FPS. This is the only configuration in the entire dataset that approaches a standard 60 FPS target. Moving up to 1440p at the same Low settings, the average FPS drops to 45, a reduction of 14 frames, or roughly 24%. The scaling to 4K is even more punishing, with the average falling to 30 FPS, which is exactly half of the 1080p Low result.

This pattern intensifies when looking at higher graphical presets. At High settings, the average FPS at 1080p is 37. This drops to 28 at 1440p and then plummets to 19 at 4K. The performance loss from 1080p to 4K at High settings is 18 FPS, a 49% reduction. The data indicates that the gap between 1080p and 1440p is not as large as the gap between 1440p and 4K, suggesting that the GPU's memory bandwidth and processing power are being exhausted more rapidly as the pixel count increases. The Ultra preset at 4K yields an average of just 17 FPS, making it essentially unplayable.

The fact that the frame rate nearly doubles when moving from 4K High (19 FPS) to 4K Low (30 FPS) highlights how sensitive this GPU is to pixel shader load. The scaling is not linear; it is steep and consistent, pointing to a GPU that has a limited pixel throughput. The benchmarks indicate that the Intel Arc B370 has a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s, which are modest figures that align with the observed performance collapse at higher resolutions. The system is not CPU-limited in this game; it is entirely constrained by the graphics solution's ability to fill pixels.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve in Control?

A: The highest average FPS recorded in the measured data is 59 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K resolution?

A: Performance at 3840x2160 is very poor. The average FPS ranges from 30 at Low settings to 17 at Ultra settings, with High and Medium presets averaging 19 and 21 FPS, respectively.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 a strong performer compared to other CPUs?

A: Yes, the CPU data indicates it is a capable processor. It scores in the 89th percentile when compared to all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 46062 is nearly identical to rivals like the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and the Intel Core i9-13900HX.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 rank against other GPUs?

A: The GPU is in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, indicating very low relative performance. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 is comparable to older cards like the ATI Radeon HD 5770.

Q: What is the difference in performance between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 45 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 25 FPS. This is a 20 FPS difference, showing a significant performance cost for higher visual fidelity.

Q: Does the system provide a smooth experience at Medium settings in 1080p?

A: The data shows an average of 42 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, with reported minimum and maximum frames of 36 and 48, respectively. This suggests a playable, though not perfectly smooth, experience.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is decisively the limiting factor in this configuration. Its specifications paint a clear picture of an entry-level integrated graphics solution. The GPU operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, and it has 1280 shading units. More critically, its memory is "System Shared," meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and relies on the system's main memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This architecture is a major reason for the poor performance, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory access.

The GPU's benchmark scores confirm its weak standing. It is in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 is only slightly better than the ATI Radeon HD 5770, a card from a much older era. The nearest rivals listed, such as the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M, are all legacy parts, underscoring the B370's lack of modern gaming capability. The measured frame rates in Control are consistent with a GPU that offers approximately 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance; it has the compute power for light loads but is overwhelmed by the demands of a modern action-adventure title at higher settings.

The interaction between the CPU and GPU is one of severe imbalance. The CPU has a high average benchmark score of 46062, placing it near the top of the database, while the GPU's score is near the bottom. In Control, this means the CPU is frequently idle, waiting for the GPU to finish rendering frames. The data supports this, as the FPS drops consistently with resolution increases, a classic sign of GPU limitation. The game's engine is not being hindered by the 14 cores and 14 threads of the Ultra 5 235; it is being bottlenecked by the Arc B370's inability to process geometry and pixels quickly enough.

How This Combo Ranks

The combined performance of this CPU and GPU in Control is poor. The combo ranks 2657 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 8% of all systems in the database. This ranking is a direct reflection of the GPU's severe weakness, as the CPU is a high-performing part that would rank much higher on its own. The data shows that this pairing is not suitable for playing Control at any resolution above 1080p with high graphical fidelity.

The CPU's individual ranking is excellent; it is in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, and its average score of 46062 is within 0.2% of the AMD EPYC 4364P and the AMD EPYC 7303. This shows that the processor is not the issue. In contrast, the GPU is in the 5th percentile. This massive discrepancy between the CPU's capability and the GPU's weakness is the defining characteristic of this combo. The overall ranking of 2657 is dragged down almost entirely by the graphics component.

This rank implies that a user with this system is getting a fraction of the potential performance their CPU could offer. In gaming workloads that are heavily GPU-dependent, like Control, the system will perform like a very low-end machine, despite having a modern, high-tier processor. The benchmark results indicate that this is not a balanced gaming platform. The data suggests that the combo's performance is directly tied to the GPU's 3DMark score, as the game's frame rates are consistently low across all settings, matching the expectation set by a GPU in the 5th percentile.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system's performance envelope across all settings. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings average 59 FPS, Medium settings average 42 FPS (with a minimum of 36 and maximum of 48), High settings average 37 FPS, and Ultra settings average 32 FPS. This shows a clear and consistent decline as the preset quality increases.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are 45 FPS for Low, 32 FPS for Medium (with a minimum of 27 and maximum of 37), 28 FPS for High, and 25 FPS for Ultra. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings is 14 FPS, while at Ultra settings the drop is 7 FPS. This indicates that at higher presets, the frame rate is already so low that the additional resolution has a smaller absolute, but still proportionally significant, impact.

At 3840x2160, the system is overwhelmed. The average FPS figures are 30 for Low, 21 for Medium (with a minimum of 18 and maximum of 25), 19 for High, and 17 for Ultra. The minimum FPS of 18 at Medium 4K shows that the frame pacing is very poor, likely leading to stuttering. The data reveals a system that is only viable for gaming at 1080p with Low or Medium settings, and even then, the 42 FPS average at Medium may not provide a consistently smooth experience for all users. The 59 FPS at Low is the only configuration that approaches a standard target.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the only sensible recommendation for a playable experience is to use the Low preset at 1920x1080 resolution, which yields an average of 59 FPS. This is the only setting combination that comes close to a standard 60 FPS target. While the Medium preset at 1080p offers a higher visual quality, its average of 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36, may be acceptable for some, but it represents a significant compromise in smoothness.

For users who prioritize a steadier frame rate over visual fidelity, the Low preset at 1440p, which averages 45 FPS, could be considered. However, the 1080p Low setting provides the best balance of speed and resolution, as the higher resolution does not overcome the lower frame rate in terms of perceived smoothness. The data strongly suggests that any setting above Medium at 1080p, or any preset at 1440p or 4K, will result in a sub-30 FPS experience, which is generally considered unplayable for an action game like Control.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution. The average FPS of 32 at 1080p is the only time it breaks 30, but the visual gain over High is likely minimal compared to the performance cost. Given the GPU's limitations, the data indicates that the Low preset at 1080p is the only configuration that delivers a consistently smooth gameplay experience. Users should accept the lower visual quality to achieve functional performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 plays a minimal role in this game's performance, as it is far more powerful than the GPU can utilize. The CPU has 14 cores and 14 threads, based on the Arrow Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its benchmark results, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14769 and a single-core score of 2085, place it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs. These are strong numbers that indicate it can handle any modern game's logic and physics processing.

In Control, the CPU's high performance is irrelevant because the GPU is the bottleneck. The measured FPS is consistently low across all resolutions, and the scaling pattern, where FPS drops proportionally with resolution, is a clear indicator that the frame rate is limited by the graphics hardware. The CPU is not being stressed; it is waiting for the Intel Arc B370 to complete its work. Data from the Passmark tests, such as a multi-thread score of 37816 and a single-thread score of 4516, confirm that the processor has ample headroom for gaming tasks.

The data implies that the CPU is essentially over-qualified for this pairing. Its performance is comparable to the Intel Core i9-13900HX, a high-end mobile processor, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375. This means that if the GPU were upgraded, the CPU would not be a limiting factor in most games. However, in the specific case of this combo in Control, the CPU's role is to simply feed the GPU with data, a task it performs with ease. The system's poor combo ranking is due to the GPU, not the CPU, and the processor's 14 threads remain largely underutilized during gameplay.