Control

Control pairs Intel’s 24-core Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with AMD’s Radeon RX 6650 XT, a combination that lands in the 65th percentile for GPUs and the 96th percentile for CPUs. In this 2019 action-adventure title, the measured frame rates reveal a system that is decisively GPU-bound at higher resolutions, yet capable of delivering smooth 1080p gameplay across most presets. The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p is playable at every setting, 1440p demands compromises, and 4K is only viable on Low settings. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS, settings recommendations, and the distinct roles each component plays in shaping the experience.

FAQ

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

A: Based on the measured FPS, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where every preset—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—exceeds 60 FPS on average. The 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 resolutions both fall below 60 FPS at High and Ultra settings.

Q: How does the RX 6650 XT’s 8 GB VRAM affect gameplay?

A: The 8 GB GDDR6 memory with a 280.3 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p in this title. At 3840x2160, the average FPS drops to 34 on Ultra, indicating that the GPU’s compute limits, rather than VRAM capacity alone, are the primary constraint at 4K.

Q: What is the CPU’s contribution to gaming performance here?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and single-core score of 7303 suggest it is far ahead of what Control requires, meaning the CPU is unlikely to bottleneck the RX 6650 XT in this game.

Q: Which settings preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance?

A: At 1920x1080, Medium provides an average of 87 FPS with a minimum of 74 FPS, offering a solid buffer above 60 FPS. High settings at 1080p yield 77 FPS, which is also acceptable, but Medium’s higher minimum frame rate makes it the safer choice for consistent smoothness.

Q: Is this combo capable of 4K gaming in Control?

A: Only at Low settings, where the measured average FPS is 63. At Medium, the average drops to 44 FPS, and at Ultra it falls to 34 FPS. The data suggests 4K is only playable with significant visual compromises.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 1875th out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. This ranking reflects the GPU’s mid-range standing (65th percentile) rather than the CPU’s high-end positioning.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of which presets deliver the best experience at each resolution. At 1920x1080, the system has enough headroom to run Ultra settings at an average of 67 FPS, but the jump from Medium to Ultra only increases visual fidelity while reducing performance by 20 FPS. Medium at 1080p is the standout choice: 87 FPS average with a 74 FPS minimum ensures that even in demanding scenes, the frame rate stays well above the 60 FPS threshold. High settings at 1080p are also viable at 77 FPS, but the minimum frame rate is not recorded, making Medium the more reliable option for consistent pacing.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation changes. Low settings produce 93 FPS, while Medium drops to 66 FPS with a 56 FPS minimum. High and Ultra settings fall to 58 FPS and 51 FPS respectively. For 1440p, the recommendation is Medium if you prioritize smoothness, as the 56 FPS minimum is close to the 60 FPS target but still playable. However, if you prefer higher visual quality, High settings at 58 FPS average are borderline, and the lack of a recorded minimum makes it a riskier proposition. Low settings at 1440p are the only preset that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the options are stark. Low settings achieve 63 FPS, which is the only playable preset at this resolution. Medium drops to 44 FPS, High to 39 FPS, and Ultra to 34 FPS. The data indicates that 4K gaming with this combo requires accepting Low settings, and even then, the 63 FPS average leaves little room for fluctuation. For the best overall experience, the data points to 1080p Medium as the sweet spot: it balances visual fidelity with a 74 FPS minimum, ensuring a responsive and smooth session. If resolution matters more than settings, 1440p Low at 93 FPS is the clear winner, but it sacrifices the visual enhancements that Medium and above provide.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the primary performance limiter in this configuration, as evidenced by the FPS scaling across resolutions. The GPU’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for 1080p and 1440p but becomes a constraint at 4K. The measured FPS drops from 77 at 1080p High to 58 at 1440p High, a 25% reduction, and further to 39 at 4K High, a 49% reduction from 1440p. This scaling pattern is typical of a mid-range GPU like the RX 6650 XT, which sits in the 65th percentile of all GPUs.

The GPU’s clock speeds—2055 MHz base, 2410 MHz game, and 2635 MHz boost—are relatively high for its class, but the silicon’s raw compute throughput of 10.79 TFLOPS FP32 limits its ability to maintain high frame rates at demanding resolutions. The 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs are sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, where the GPU delivers 67-122 FPS depending on settings. At 4K, the GPU’s pixel rate of 168.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 337.3 GTexel/s are overwhelmed, causing the average FPS to fall below 45 on Medium and above.

The GPU’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (deltaPct -0.6%) and AMD FirePro W7000 (deltaPct -0.7%), which are both older professional cards. This indicates the RX 6650 XT performs in line with those products in general benchmarks, though its gaming-specific results in Control are what matter here. The 8 GB VRAM is not the bottleneck at 1080p or 1440p, as the drops between Medium and Ultra are consistent with compute-bound rendering rather than memory exhaustion. At 4K Ultra, the 34 FPS average suggests the GPU is hitting its architectural limits, with the 32 RT cores offering no benefit in a title that does not rely heavily on ray tracing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a comprehensive view of the combo’s capabilities. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings deliver an average of 122 FPS, Medium 87 FPS (minimum 74, maximum 100), High 77 FPS, and Ultra 67 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 45% performance drop, but even the lowest preset remains well above 60 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 74 FPS is particularly notable because it demonstrates that the GPU can sustain high frame rates during demanding scenes, whereas the High and Ultra presets do not have recorded minimums, leaving their consistency unverified.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS values are: Low 93, Medium 66 (minimum 56, maximum 76), High 58, and Ultra 51. The Medium preset’s minimum of 56 FPS is below the 60 FPS target, indicating occasional stutter in heavy moments. High and Ultra both fall short of 60 FPS averages, making them less desirable for smooth gameplay. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across all presets, with an average reduction of approximately 25-30%, which aligns with the increased pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the results show a significant performance cliff: Low 63 FPS, Medium 44 FPS (minimum 38, maximum 51), High 39 FPS, and Ultra 34 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 38 FPS is notably low, suggesting that even moderate scenes can cause frame drops. The gap between Low and Medium is 19 FPS, while the gap between Medium and Ultra is only 10 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at higher settings. The 4K results confirm that this combo is not suited for high-fidelity gaming at this resolution, with only Low settings providing a playable experience. Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently shows the most complete data with minimum and maximum values, allowing for a more accurate assessment of frame time consistency.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT ranks 1875th out of 2888 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the 35th percentile of all combos. This ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU’s mid-range position, as the RX 6650 XT’s general benchmark score of 19765 and 65th percentile ranking among GPUs pull the overall combo down. In contrast, the CPU ranks in the 96th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 84003, but its high compute performance does not translate into a better gaming rank because Control is not CPU-intensive at the tested settings.

The GPU’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database—the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (avgScore 19885, deltaPct -0.6%), AMD FirePro W7000 (avgScore 19905, deltaPct -0.7%), AMD FirePro D300 (avgScore 19637, deltaPct 0.7%), and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (avgScore 19602, deltaPct 0.8%)—all have similar average scores within 1% of the RX 6650 XT. This clustering suggests that the GPU’s performance is typical for its class, and in Control, the measured FPS reflects this mid-tier standing. The combo’s rank of 1875 means that 1013 tested combinations performed worse, while 1874 performed better, placing it solidly in the lower half of the database.

The ranking also highlights the imbalance between the CPU and GPU. A CPU in the 96th percentile paired with a GPU in the 65th percentile creates a system where the GPU is the bottleneck in most gaming scenarios. In Control, this is evident from the FPS scaling: at 1080p Low, the CPU could theoretically push higher frame rates, but the GPU caps performance at 122 FPS. The combo’s rank is therefore a reflection of the GPU’s limitations, not the CPU’s capabilities. For users considering this pairing, the data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield significant gains in Control, while the CPU would remain underutilized.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on TSMC’s 3 nm process. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.80 GHz provide substantial single-thread performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303. In multi-threaded workloads, the CPU excels, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a PassMark multithread score of 60860. These numbers place the CPU in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84003, making it one of the fastest processors in the database.

In Control, the CPU’s role is minimal because the game’s engine is not heavily threaded and the GPU is the limiting factor. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (122 FPS) is the highest recorded, but it is still constrained by the GPU’s compute capabilities rather than the CPU’s processing power. The CPU’s 24 cores and 24 threads are far more than Control can utilize, and its 36 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support are more than adequate for gaming workloads. The CPU’s PassMark single-thread score of 4823 and Cinebench R15 single-core score of 736 indicate strong per-core performance, which is beneficial for games that rely on a few fast threads.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database—the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (avgScore 83807, deltaPct 0.2%), AMD EPYC 4584PX (avgScore 83090, deltaPct 1.1%), AMD EPYC 9135 (avgScore 82980, deltaPct 1.2%), and AMD EPYC 7F72 (avgScore 85072, deltaPct -1.3%)—show that the 290K Plus is competitive with other high-end processors. However, these rivals are all within 1.3% of the 290K Plus’s score, meaning the CPU’s performance advantage is marginal in synthetic benchmarks and irrelevant in Control. The data shows that the CPU does not bottleneck the RX 6650 XT at any resolution or setting, as the FPS differences between presets are consistent with GPU scaling. For this game, the CPU is a silent partner, providing ample headroom that goes unused due to the GPU’s mid-range positioning.