Control

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 lands at rank 819 out of 2,888 tested combos in Control. That places this setup in the top 28% of all combinations tested for this game, which is a solid result for a pairing that leans heavily on the GPU side of the equation. The combo rank reflects the balance between a top-tier CPU and a mid-high-range GPU, and the data shows that the CPU is rarely the limiting factor at the resolutions where this game is typically played.

What makes this rank notable is the gap between the CPU's percentile standing and the GPU's. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms 96% of processors tested across the database. The RX 9070, by contrast, is in the 69th percentile among all GPUs. That disparity matters: the combo rank of 819 suggests that the GPU is holding the pairing back from the very top tier, but the CPU headroom means there is no bottleneck at lower resolutions. In practical terms, this is a build where the processor is ready for a future GPU upgrade without needing a platform change.

FAQ

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compare to its nearest CPU rivals in overall benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus posts an average benchmark score of 84,003, which is 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83,807), 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83,090), and 1.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9135 (82,980). It trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85,072) by 1.3%. These are marginal differences, so the 290K Plus is effectively in the same performance class as its closest competitors.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 182 avg FPS, while the Ultra preset delivers 100 avg FPS. That is an 82 FPS drop from Low to Ultra, representing a 45% reduction in average frame rate. Medium sits at 129 avg FPS and High at 115 avg FPS, so the scaling is not linear—the biggest single step down comes when moving from Medium to High.

Q: Does the RX 9070's performance in Control align with its overall GPU percentile?

A: The RX 9070's passmark G3D score is 25,381, which places it in the 69th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (24,170, 1.2% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 6800S (24,063, 0.8% behind). In Control, the card delivers playable frame rates at all tested settings, but the 4K Ultra result of 51 avg FPS shows it is not a 4K ultra-class GPU for this title.

Q: What is the CPU's multi-threaded performance like in synthetic tests?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores 51,731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 21,727 in Cinebench R20 multi-core. In Passmark's multithread test, it scores 60,860. These numbers reflect the 24-core, 24-thread configuration, which is heavily weighted toward throughput rather than simultaneous multithreading.

Q: How does the GPU's memory bandwidth affect its performance in this game?

A: The RX 9070 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. That is sufficient for Control at 4K, where the Medium preset shows 66 avg FPS with a minimum of 56 FPS. The card's memory configuration is not a limiting factor in the measured results, as the FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck when playing Control?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck at all tested resolutions. From 1080p Low (182 FPS) to 4K Low (93 FPS), the FPS drops by 49%, which tracks with GPU rendering load. The CPU's Passmark single-thread score of 4,823 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7,303 are strong enough that Control's engine is unlikely to be starved for CPU work even at high frame rates.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor built on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, using a 3 nm process from TSMC. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, and it carries 36 MB of shared L3 cache alongside 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

For Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics updates without becoming a bottleneck. The game is an Action Adventure title from 2019, and its engine is not known for being particularly CPU-heavy at high resolutions. The 290K Plus's single-thread performance—evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7,303 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4,823—ensures that even at 1080p Low, where the GPU is producing 182 FPS, the CPU can keep up. The multi-threaded scores (Cinebench R23 multi-core: 51,731; Passmark multithread: 60,860) are far beyond what Control can utilize, but they matter for other workloads and for maintaining frame pacing in scenes with many physics objects.

The CPU's 96th percentile ranking among all processors confirms that it is a top-tier part. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, is only 0.2% behind in average benchmark score, which suggests that the 290K Plus is a minor refresh rather than a generational leap. For Control specifically, the CPU side of this pairing is overkill—the measured FPS at 1080p Low (182) and 1440p Low (137) are high enough that any modern mid-range CPU would likely produce similar results. The benefit of the 290K Plus is consistency: it avoids any frame-time spikes that could occur on lower-core-count parts in busy scenes.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160) across four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra). At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 182 avg FPS, Medium drops to 129 avg FPS with a minimum of 110 and maximum of 148, High lands at 115 avg FPS, and Ultra reaches 100 avg FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 53 FPS drop, which is the largest single-settings jump at this resolution.

At 1440p, the pattern holds with lower absolute numbers. Low produces 137 avg FPS, Medium yields 98 avg FPS (min 83, max 112), High comes in at 87 avg FPS, and Ultra drops to 75 avg FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is roughly a 25% reduction across all settings, which indicates a GPU-bound scenario where resolution scaling affects the frame rate proportionally.

At 4K (3840x2160), the card starts to struggle with the highest presets. Low delivers 93 avg FPS, Medium produces 66 avg FPS (min 56, max 76), High falls to 59 avg FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 51 avg FPS. The 4K results show that the RX 9070 is not a 4K Ultra card for Control, but it remains playable at Medium with a 66 avg FPS and a 56 FPS minimum. The gap between 1440p High (87 FPS) and 4K High (59 FPS) is 28 FPS, which is a 32% reduction—again consistent with a GPU-limited workload.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the nature of the limiting component in this combo. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 182 FPS at 1080p to 137 FPS at 1440p (a 25% reduction) and then to 93 FPS at 4K (a 32% reduction from 1440p). At Ultra settings, the drop is from 100 FPS at 1080p to 75 FPS at 1440p (25% reduction) and then to 51 FPS at 4K (32% reduction from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings presets is a hallmark of GPU-bound performance: the CPU is not influencing the scaling, because the same proportional reduction occurs regardless of how much load is placed on the GPU.

The specific numbers tell a clear story. Going from 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by 45 FPS at Low (182 to 137), 31 FPS at Medium (129 to 98), 28 FPS at High (115 to 87), and 25 FPS at Ultra (100 to 75). The absolute drop decreases as settings increase, which is expected because lower FPS numbers have less room to shrink. Going from 1440p to 4K, the drops are 44 FPS at Low (137 to 93), 32 FPS at Medium (98 to 66), 28 FPS at High (87 to 59), and 24 FPS at Ultra (75 to 51). The 4K Low result of 93 FPS is notable—it shows that even at the lowest settings, the GPU is still the limiting factor, because the CPU has ample headroom at that frame rate.

This scaling pattern indicates that the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is not a constraint in Control at any resolution or settings combination. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would not scale so predictably with resolution; instead, the frame rate would plateau at lower resolutions (e.g., 1080p Low would be similar to 1080p Medium). The data does not show that plateau—every resolution/settings combination produces a distinct FPS number, which is the signature of a GPU that is fully utilized.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience for this combo in Control depends on the target resolution and the user's priority for frame rate versus visual fidelity. At 1080p, the Ultra preset delivers 100 avg FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. High at 1080p gives 115 avg FPS, and Medium gives 129 avg FPS. Since the game is an Action Adventure title where fast camera movement and particle effects are common, the extra headroom from Medium or High can help maintain consistent frame times. The data shows that Medium at 1080p has a minimum of 110 FPS, which is the highest minimum across all tested settings at this resolution—this suggests that Medium is the safest choice for avoiding any perceptible stutter.

At 1440p, the Ultra preset produces 75 avg FPS, which is playable but leaves little margin for demanding scenes. High at 1440p delivers 87 avg FPS, and Medium yields 98 avg FPS with a minimum of 83 FPS. For a 1440p monitor with a 120 Hz refresh rate, Medium is the recommended preset because the 98 avg FPS and 83 FPS minimum keep the frame rate above the 80 FPS threshold most of the time. High is also viable at 87 avg FPS if the user prefers better shadows and reflections, but the 28 FPS gap between High and Medium suggests that the visual difference may not justify the frame rate cost.

At 4K, the situation is more constrained. Ultra delivers 51 avg FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target and will feel sluggish in combat. High produces 59 avg FPS, which is borderline—it hits near 60 but with no minimum data to confirm consistency. Medium at 4K gives 66 avg FPS with a minimum of 56 FPS, which is the only 4K preset that maintains playable performance throughout. The recommendation for 4K is clearly Medium: it offers a 10 FPS advantage over High (66 vs 59) and a 15 FPS advantage over Ultra (66 vs 51), while the visual downgrade from High to Medium is less impactful than the frame rate gain. Low at 4K produces 93 avg FPS, but the visual quality drop is severe enough that it defeats the purpose of running at 4K resolution. For the best balance of fidelity and fluidity, Medium at 4K is the only sensible choice from the measured data.