Control

Control is a game that frequently appears in hardware analyses due to its demanding rendering pipeline and its tendency to expose the weakest link in a system. This particular combination, an Intel Core Ultra 7 265K paired with an Intel Arc B390, produces a distinctive performance profile that is heavily weighted by the graphics processor. The data reveals a system where the CPU has significant headroom, while the GPU operates as the primary constraint across all tested settings and resolutions. The measured frame rates are consistently modest, and the scaling patterns between quality presets and pixel counts offer a clear view into the architectural relationship between this processor and this integrated graphics solution.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a pronounced and predictable decline as resolution increases, which is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with Low settings, the combination achieves an average of 65 FPS. Moving to 1440p at the same settings drops the average to 50 FPS, a reduction of 15 FPS. At 4K with Low settings, the average falls to 33 FPS, which is roughly half of the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern suggests that the rendering workload is expanding in a way that directly taxes the graphics unit's fill rate and shading capacity.

The trend becomes even more telling when examining the High preset across resolutions. The average frame rate at 1080p High is 41 FPS, which drops to 31 FPS at 1440p and further to 21 FPS at 4K. The delta between 1080p and 4K at High settings is a 20 FPS loss, which is a significant percentage reduction. This behavior indicates that the Intel Arc B390's compute resources are being saturated by the increased pixel count, and the scaling is not linear but rather reflects the growing memory bandwidth and shading demands.

A closer look at the Medium preset reveals a similar story, with the average FPS at 1080p being 46, at 1440p being 35, and at 4K being 24. The minimum FPS data for Medium settings also shows a corresponding drop, from 40 at 1080p to 30 at 1440p and 20 at 4K. These numbers suggest that the limiting component is not the CPU, which has a high core count and boost clock, but rather the integrated GPU's ability to process fragments and pixels as the resolution increases. The data implies that at 1080p, the system is closer to a playable state, while at 4K, it is firmly in the field of a slideshow.

The scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution further reinforces this. At 1080p, the jump from Low to Ultra costs 29 FPS (from 65 to 36). At 1440p, the same settings jump costs 23 FPS (from 50 to 27). At 4K, the cost is 15 FPS (from 33 to 18). The shrinking absolute delta at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is already so constrained by pixel throughput that the additional shading work from higher presets has a diminishing marginal impact on frame rate. This is a sign of a component that is overwhelmed by the base workload, not one that is gracefully scaling with quality options.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a 20-core, 20-thread processor with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. Its architecture is Arrow Lake, built on a 3 nm process. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 35,850 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 2,020 in single-core, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. However, in this game, the CPU's role appears to be secondary. The measured FPS figures do not show any sign of a CPU bottleneck, as the frame rates are uniformly low across all settings.

The data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor because the frame rates scale so heavily with resolution and settings, which are primarily GPU responsibilities. If the CPU were the constraint, the FPS would remain relatively flat regardless of resolution. Instead, we see a steep decline from 1080p to 4K, which points to the GPU being the sole bottleneck. The CPU's 30 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support provide ample bandwidth for feeding the GPU, but the GPU itself cannot keep up.

The processor's high single-thread performance, evidenced by its 2,020 score in Cinebench R23, is sufficient to handle the game's logic and draw calls. The benchmark results show that the CPU is operating well within its capabilities, leaving performance headroom unused. This is a case where a powerful desktop processor is paired with an integrated graphics unit that is far less capable, resulting in a mismatch that leaves the CPU idle for most of the frame time. The data implies that upgrading the GPU would yield immediate and substantial FPS gains, while upgrading the CPU would have no measurable effect on this game's performance.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured rows, the most balanced experience comes from the Low preset. At 1080p Low, the system averages 65 FPS, which is the only configuration that approaches a smooth frame rate. At 1440p Low, the average drops to 50 FPS, still playable but with a noticeable reduction in fluidity. The Low preset at 4K yields 33 FPS, which is borderline for gameplay.

The Medium preset offers a modest visual improvement but at a steep cost. At 1080p Medium, the average is 46 FPS, a 19 FPS drop from Low. The minimum FPS at this setting is 40, which suggests some stutter may be present. At 1440p Medium, the average is 35 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it is 24 FPS. These numbers indicate that Medium is only viable at 1080p, and even then, it is a compromise.

The High and Ultra presets are not recommended for any resolution. At 1080p High, the average is 41 FPS, which is below the threshold for a consistent experience. The Ultra preset at 1080p manages 36 FPS, but the visual gains are unlikely to justify the performance loss. At higher resolutions, High and Ultra become unplayable, with 4K Ultra averaging 18 FPS. The data shows that the best experience per the measured rows is achieved by playing at 1080p with Low settings, where the frame rate is highest and the system is not strained. For users who prioritize visuals over speed, 1080p Medium is the maximum acceptable setting, but it comes with a risk of dips below 40 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2551 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 12% of all configurations, which is a poor showing. The rank reflects the GPU's limitations more than the CPU's capabilities. The CPU alone performs in the 94th percentile, but when paired with a GPU that scores in the 9th percentile, the overall combo suffers.

The GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which has a delta of 1.3% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce 800M, which is 1.5% higher. These are very low-end parts, and the Arc B390 is only slightly behind them. This puts the GPU in a performance class that is not suited for demanding titles like Control. The combo rank is dragged down by this weak link, and the data suggests that most other tested combinations, even those with older or less capable CPUs, would perform better if they had a more powerful discrete GPU.

The rank also indicates that this is not a viable setup for a modern action game. The low ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's inability to maintain adequate frame rates, and it highlights that the CPU's strength is irrelevant when the graphics processor is this constrained. In the context of this game, the combo is near the bottom of the barrel, and the measured FPS confirms that it is only suitable for low-resolution, low-detail gaming.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. It has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Its memory is system shared, which means bandwidth is system dependent. The GPU's synthetic benchmark score is 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs.

In Control, the GPU's role is to render the game's complex environments and physics effects. The data shows that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as the frame rates are low across all settings. The GPU's pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, but these figures are insufficient for the game's demands. The FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS, which is modest for a modern title.

The GPU's system shared memory architecture is a significant limitation. Since it relies on the CPU's DDR5 memory, the bandwidth is shared and not dedicated, which can cause performance dips when the memory controller is under load. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra is 18, which is a clear sign that the GPU cannot handle the pixel fill rate required. The GPU's low ROP count of 24 also limits its ability to output pixels at high resolutions.

The data implies that the GPU is the sole reason for the poor performance. The CPU has enough power to feed it, but the GPU cannot process the data fast enough. This is a classic case of an entry-level integrated GPU being paired with a high-end CPU, resulting in a system that is unbalanced for gaming. The GPU's 80 W TDP and IGP slot width indicate that it is designed for power efficiency, not raw performance, and Control is a game that demands raw performance.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Control with this hardware?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 with Low settings is the only configuration that achieves an average FPS above 60 (65 FPS). Higher resolutions result in significantly lower frame rates.

Q: How much FPS is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at Low settings?

A: At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 65 at 1080p to 33 at 4K, a loss of 32 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The frame rates scale heavily with resolution and settings, which indicates a GPU bottleneck. The CPU has high benchmark scores and is not the constraint.

Q: What is the average FPS at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The average FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings is 35, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all tested combos?

A: This combo ranks 2551 out of 2888 tested combos, placing it near the bottom of the list.

Q: Can this hardware run Control at Ultra settings?

A: Technically, it can run at Ultra settings, but the performance is poor. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 36, and at 4K Ultra, it drops to 18 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and Intel Arc B390 combination is as follows:

At 3840x2160 (4K), the High preset averages 21 FPS. The Low preset averages 33 FPS. The Medium preset averages 24 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. The Ultra preset averages 18 FPS.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the High preset averages 31 FPS. The Low preset averages 50 FPS. The Medium preset averages 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. The Ultra preset averages 27 FPS.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the High preset averages 41 FPS. The Low preset averages 65 FPS. The Medium preset averages 46 FPS, with a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 53. The Ultra preset averages 36 FPS.

The data shows a clear progression where each increase in resolution or settings reduces the average frame rate. The only configuration that meets a 60 FPS target is 1080p Low. The minimum FPS values for Medium settings provide additional context, showing that the frame pacing can dip below the average, which may lead to noticeable stutters. Overall, this combination is best suited for low-resolution, low-detail gaming, and its performance in Control reflects the GPU's limitations as an integrated solution.