Control

Control, Remedy’s action-adventure title, stresses both the GPU and CPU differently depending on the resolution and preset. This analysis examines the measured performance of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, using only the provided benchmark data to interpret scaling, component roles, and playability.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern of diminishing returns as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 179 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440 Low reduces that to 136 FPS, a drop of 43 FPS. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls further to 92 FPS, which is 87 FPS below the 1080p figure. This scaling suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is likely a limiting factor, as the GPU has headroom but the frame rate does not scale proportionally with the pixel count reduction.

The transition from 1080p to 1440p shows an average loss of about 24% across all settings. For High settings, the drop is from 113 FPS to 86 FPS. Medium settings go from 127 FPS to 96 FPS. Ultra settings drop from 98 FPS to 74 FPS. These are consistent reductions, indicating a balanced load shift toward the GPU.

The jump from 1440p to 4K is more punishing. High settings fall from 86 FPS to 58 FPS, a 32.6% reduction. Medium settings drop from 96 FPS to 65 FPS. Ultra settings decrease from 74 FPS to 50 FPS. Low settings see the smallest relative drop, from 136 FPS to 92 FPS, which still represents a 32.4% decline. The pattern shows that Control becomes increasingly GPU-bound at higher resolutions, with the RX 6800 XT's 16 GB memory buffer and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth being exercised heavily.

The data indicates that at 4K, the frame rates hover near playable thresholds. Ultra at 4K yields 50 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS target many users prefer. Medium at 4K reaches 65 FPS, providing a smoother experience. The scaling from Medium to Ultra at 4K costs 15 FPS, from 65 to 50, which is a 23% performance hit for the highest preset.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 852 out of 2888 tested combinations for Control. This places it in the 70.5th percentile of all combos, meaning it outperforms roughly 70% of the tested systems. The rank is not top-tier, but it is respectable for a mid-range GPU paired with a high-end CPU.

The CPU itself has a percentile rank of 96 against all CPUs, indicating it is in the top 4% of processors. The GPU has a percentile rank of 85 against all GPUs, placing it in the top 15%. The combo rank being lower than either component's individual percentile suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor in this pairing for Control.

Comparing to the CPU's nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83807, a delta of 0.2% higher for the 290K Plus. The AMD EPYC 4584PX scores 83090, which is 1.1% lower. The AMD EPYC 9135 scores 82980, 1.2% lower. The AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85072, which is 1.3% higher than the 290K Plus. These differences are marginal, indicating the CPU's performance is well within the noise of these high-end chips.

For the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT has an average score of 48477. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile scores 47743, which is 1.5% lower. The Intel Arc A550M scores 49737, 2.5% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti scores 49957, 3% higher. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 scores 50001, 3% higher. The RX 6800 XT sits slightly below these rivals in synthetic benchmarks, but its real-world Control performance is what matters here.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 2000 MHz, with 16 Gbps effective speed. The GPU has a base clock of 1825 MHz, a game clock of 2015 MHz, and a boost clock of 2250 MHz. These clocks are moderately high for the RDNA 2.0 architecture.

In Control, the GPU's memory capacity is not a bottleneck at any resolution. The 16 GB buffer is ample for the game's textures, even at 4K Ultra. The bottleneck is more likely the GPU's compute throughput. The card has 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 288.0 GPixel/s and texture rate is 648.0 GTexel/s. These figures determine how quickly the GPU can fill pixels and apply textures, which directly impacts frame rates at higher resolutions.

The measured FPS data shows that the GPU's performance scales predictably with resolution. At 1080p Low, the card produces 179 FPS, but at 4K Low, it drops to 92 FPS. This 48.6% reduction indicates that the GPU is being pushed harder at 4K, but the card still maintains playable frame rates. At 4K Ultra, the 50 FPS average suggests the GPU is near its limit for this game, but it is still above the 30 FPS minimum for playability.

The GPU's 72 ray tracing cores are present but not directly measured in this data. The game's implementation of ray tracing may use these cores, but the provided FPS figures do not isolate ray tracing performance. The card's DirectX 12 Ultimate support ensures compatibility with modern rendering features.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 provides a strong balance. At High settings, it averages 86 FPS, which is smooth for most players. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are higher, reaching 113 FPS on High, but the visual clarity is lower. At 3840x2160, the frame rates drop significantly, with High averaging only 58 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU affect performance at 1080p compared to 4K?

A: At 1920x1080, the CPU's role is more prominent. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The 179 FPS at Low settings suggests the CPU can feed the GPU efficiently. At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the limiting factor, as evidenced by the smaller FPS gap between Low and Ultra presets.

Q: Is the RX 6800 XT sufficient for 4K gaming in Control?

A: It is playable, but not at the highest settings. At 4K Medium, the combo averages 65 FPS, which is acceptable. At 4K High, it drops to 58 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 50 FPS. For a locked 60 FPS experience, Medium settings are recommended.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at 1440p Medium?

A: At 2560x1440 Medium, the average FPS is 96, with a minimum of 82 FPS and a maximum of 111 FPS. This indicates a stable frame delivery with minimal stuttering, making it a good choice for competitive play.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 852 out of 2888 tested combinations. This puts it in the top 30% of all tested systems for Control, which is a solid result given the GPU's age. The CPU's high percentile (96) and the GPU's decent percentile (85) contribute to this ranking.

Q: Does the Ultra preset offer a worthwhile improvement over High?

A: The data shows that at 1440p, Ultra averages 74 FPS while High averages 86 FPS, a 12 FPS difference. At 4K, the gap is 8 FPS (50 vs 58). The visual improvement may be subtle, and the performance cost is significant, so High is often a better trade-off.

Settings Recommendations

For this combo, the optimal preset depends on the resolution target. At 1920x1080, all settings are playable, but Ultra provides 98 FPS average, which is smooth. The difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is 15 FPS (113 vs 98), so Ultra is a viable choice for those seeking maximum visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, High settings are recommended for the best balance. The 86 FPS average is above the 60 FPS threshold, and the visual quality is high. Ultra at 1440p drops to 74 FPS, which is still playable but may introduce noticeable frame dips in busy scenes. Medium at 1440p yields 96 FPS, which is smoother but at a visual cost.

At 3840x2160, Medium settings are the best choice for consistent playability. The 65 FPS average is close to the 60 FPS target, and the minimum of 55 FPS ensures no major stutters. High at 4K drops to 58 FPS, which is borderline, and Ultra at 50 FPS is only suitable for slower-paced play. Low at 4K provides 92 FPS but sacrifices too much visual quality.

The measured data shows that the step from Medium to High at any resolution costs roughly 20% performance. From High to Ultra, the cost is about 15%. Given that Control's visual differences between High and Ultra are often subtle in lighting and reflections, High is the recommended preset for most users. For those prioritizing frame rate, Medium offers a significant boost without a major visual penalty.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. It has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, with 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core. The CPU uses the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture on a 3 nm process, with a TDP of 125 W.

In Control, the CPU's role is most evident at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 179 FPS, which is the highest measured value. This suggests the CPU can drive high frame rates when the GPU is not the bottleneck. The CPU's single-thread performance, as evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303, is strong for game logic and physics.

The CPU's multi-core capabilities are also relevant. Control can use multiple threads for rendering and physics, and the 24-core design provides ample headroom. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 indicates strong parallel performance, which helps maintain consistent frame times in complex scenes.

At 4K, the CPU's influence diminishes. The frame rates at 4K Low (92 FPS) vs 4K Ultra (50 FPS) show a 45.7% difference, which is primarily due to GPU load. The CPU is not the limiting factor at this resolution, as the GPU's fill rate and shading power are saturated.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, using DDR5 in dual-channel mode, is sufficient for the game's data streaming. The 36 MB L3 cache helps reduce latency for frequently accessed data. Compared to its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, the 290K Plus is only 0.2% faster in average benchmark score, indicating that the CPU is not a differentiator in this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across resolutions and settings.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 179 FPS average. The Medium preset reduces this to 127 FPS, with a minimum of 108 FPS and a maximum of 146 FPS. High settings yield 113 FPS average. Ultra settings drop to 98 FPS average. The spread from Low to Ultra is 81 FPS, showing a significant performance range at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 136 FPS average. Medium settings average 96 FPS, with a minimum of 82 FPS and a maximum of 111 FPS. High settings average 86 FPS. Ultra settings average 74 FPS. The range from Low to Ultra is 62 FPS, indicating a tighter spread than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, Low settings average 92 FPS. Medium settings average 65 FPS, with a minimum of 55 FPS and a maximum of 75 FPS. High settings average 58 FPS. Ultra settings average 50 FPS. The range from Low to Ultra is 42 FPS, showing that the GPU is becoming the dominant factor.

The minimum FPS values are only recorded for Medium settings at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 108 FPS, which is 85% of the average. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 82 FPS, which is 85.4% of the average. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 55 FPS, which is 84.6% of the average. This consistency suggests that the frame pacing is stable, with no severe dips.

The maximum FPS values follow a similar pattern. At 1080p Medium, the maximum is 146 FPS. At 1440p Medium, it is 111 FPS. At 4K Medium, it is 75 FPS. These figures indicate that the combo can deliver higher frame rates in less demanding scenes, but the average is a better indicator of sustained performance.

For users with a 60 Hz display, the 4K Medium preset is the minimum recommended. The 65 FPS average ensures that most scenes stay above the refresh rate. For 144 Hz displays, the 1080p High preset at 113 FPS or the 1440p Medium at 96 FPS are better fits. The data shows no configuration that consistently exceeds 144 FPS, so those with high refresh rate monitors should stick to 1080p Low or Medium.