Control

Control is a demanding Action Adventure title from 2019, and the benchmark data for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B390 paints a clear picture of a system that is severely constrained by its graphics component. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings indicate that this combination is positioned at the very bottom of the performance spectrum, struggling to deliver playable results even at 1080p. The data shows a hardware pairing where the CPU's substantial processing power is rendered largely irrelevant by the GPU's inability to keep pace, resulting in a gaming experience that is best suited for low-resolution, low-detail configurations.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a predictable but steep decline in performance as resolution increases, confirming that the Intel Arc B390 is the primary bottleneck in this configuration. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 65 FPS, which is the highest score recorded across the entire dataset. However, this figure drops precipitously as the rendering load intensifies. Moving to 1440p at the same Low preset yields an average of 50 FPS, a 23% reduction, and at 4K, the average falls further to 33 FPS, representing a nearly 50% loss compared to the 1080p result.

The trend is consistent across all quality presets, though the absolute frame rates become critically low at higher resolutions. With Medium settings, the system averages 46 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and only 24 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 4K at Medium settings is a 22 FPS drop, showing that the GPU's pixel throughput is the limiting factor. This is further emphasized at High settings, where the 4K average of 21 FPS is less than half of the 1080p average of 41 FPS. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, with the system managing just 36 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and a nearly unplayable 18 FPS at 4K.

These results indicate that the Intel Arc B390, with its integrated graphics architecture, has a very limited rendering ceiling. The scaling pattern is smooth and consistent—there are no anomalies suggesting a CPU limitation—which is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU, with its high core count and clock speeds, is not the constraining factor at any resolution; instead, the GPU's shading units and memory bandwidth are saturated well before the CPU can be fully utilized. For a game like Control, which features complex physics and particle effects, this resolution scaling data suggests that players seeking higher resolutions must accept significant compromises in visual fidelity to achieve even moderate frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured performance data, the optimal settings for this combo are heavily skewed toward the Low preset to maintain a reasonable frame rate. The only configuration that consistently achieves an average above 60 FPS is 1080p with Low settings, which produces 65 FPS. This is the sole playable option for smooth gameplay, as the next closest result is 50 FPS at 1440p Low, which may be acceptable for some but falls below the 60 FPS threshold often desired for action games.

The Medium preset offers a marginal visual improvement over Low but comes at a significant performance cost. At 1080p, the average drops from 65 to 46 FPS, a 29% reduction. At 1440p, the Medium preset yields 35 FPS, and at 4K, it falls to 24 FPS. These figures suggest that the Medium preset is only viable for players who prioritize visual quality over frame rate and are willing to tolerate sub-60 FPS performance. The minimum FPS data for Medium settings shows 40 FPS at 1080p, which indicates that there will be noticeable dips during intense scenes, further detracting from the experience.

High and Ultra presets are not recommended for this hardware combination. High settings at 1080p produce 41 FPS, while Ultra produces 36 FPS. At 1440p, these figures drop to 31 and 27 FPS, respectively, and at 4K, they become 21 and 18 FPS. These framerates are below the threshold for comfortable play in a fast-paced Action Adventure title, and the data suggests that the visual gains from High and Ultra are not worth the substantial performance penalties. The benchmark results indicate that the best experience is achieved by setting the resolution to 1080p and using the Low preset, which provides a smooth and responsive frame rate that aligns with the hardware's capabilities.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's position in the global database is remarkably low, reflecting its performance limitations. The data shows a combo rank of 2551 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 11% of all systems. This ranking is a direct consequence of the Intel Arc B390's weak graphics performance, which is highlighted by its individual benchmark scores. The GPU's average benchmark score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, indicating that it outperforms only a small fraction of the database's entries.

The CPU, in contrast, is a high-performing component. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which scores 83807 (a 0.2% difference), and the AMD EPYC 4584PX, which scores 83090 (a 1.1% difference). This demonstrates that the CPU is a top-tier part, but its power is wasted in this pairing. The GPU's nearest rivals are extremely low-end parts, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which scores 1463 (a 1.3% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710, which scores 1443 (a 2.7% difference). This comparison underscores the massive performance disparity between the two components.

The combination of a 96th-percentile CPU with a 9th-percentile GPU creates a severely unbalanced system. The overall combo rank of 2551 is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU's performance, as the CPU's contribution is negligible in a GPU-bound scenario. The data indicates that this pairing would perform similarly to much older or lower-end systems, despite having a flagship-class processor. For the purposes of this benchmark database, this combo is a cautionary example of how a powerful CPU cannot compensate for an inadequate graphics solution in a graphically intensive game like Control.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo can achieve in Control?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 65 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: Is this combo capable of running Control at 4K resolution?

A: The data shows that it can run at 3840x2160, but performance is poor. The best 4K result is 33 FPS on Low settings, while the Ultra preset averages only 18 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals in terms of benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1463, which is a 1.3% difference, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, a 2.7% difference.

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

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 50 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 27 FPS. This represents a 23 FPS difference, or a 46% reduction in performance when moving to the highest quality settings.

Q: Does the CPU's high benchmark score help improve the frame rates in this game?

A: The CPU scores in the 96th percentile of all processors, but the frame rates are primarily limited by the GPU. The data shows that the combo ranks 2551 out of 2888, indicating that the CPU's power does not translate to gaming performance in this GPU-bound title.

Q: What are the minimum FPS figures for the Medium preset?

A: For the Medium preset, the minimum FPS recorded is 40 at 1920x1080, 30 at 2560x1440, and 20 at 3840x2160.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the definitive performance limiter in this configuration. Its specifications reveal an integrated graphics solution with modest capabilities. The GPU is based on the Xe3-LPG architecture and features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output pipelines. It has 12 ray tracing cores, but the core clock speeds of 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost are not sufficient to drive a demanding title like Control at high resolutions. The GPU's memory is designated as "System Shared," meaning it relies on the system's main memory rather than dedicated VRAM. This shared memory configuration inherently limits bandwidth, which is a critical factor for texture-heavy scenes.

The GPU's benchmark results confirm its limited performance. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it scores 1482, which places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. This score is comparable to entry-level discrete GPUs from over a decade ago, as evidenced by its nearest rivals. The pixel rate is calculated at 60.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, but these theoretical figures do not translate into playable frame rates in this game. The FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS is a measure of raw compute power, yet the measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low, the system is barely pushing past 65 FPS.

The GPU's role in this pairing is to render the game, and it fails to do so with any consistency at higher settings. The data shows that the GPU is saturated at all resolutions, with frame rates scaling linearly with the number of pixels rendered. This indicates that the GPU's shading units and memory bandwidth are the primary bottlenecks. The fact that the GPU has a TDP of only 80 W and is classified as an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) suggests that it is designed for basic display output and light workloads, not for gaming. In the context of Control, the GPU's performance is a severe limitation that prevents the system from leveraging the CPU's capabilities.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a high-end desktop processor that provides an immense amount of computational power, yet it remains largely idle in this gaming scenario. The CPU features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. It has a substantial cache hierarchy, including 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration is designed for heavy multi-threaded workloads, as evidenced by its impressive benchmark scores. In Cinebench R23, it scores 51731 in multi-core and 7303 in single-core, and in Passmark, it achieves a multithread score of 60860 and a single-thread score of 4823.

These synthetic benchmarks place the CPU in the 96th percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, has an average score of 83807, showing that the 290K Plus is marginally faster. However, in a game like Control, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics, and draw calls, which are not as demanding as the GPU's rendering tasks. The measured FPS data shows that the frame rates are consistently low across all settings, which is a textbook sign of a GPU bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see frame rates that are more consistent across different resolutions, but the data shows a clear decline as resolution increases.

The CPU's high core count and clock speeds are irrelevant when the GPU can only produce 18 FPS at 4K Ultra. The system's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s is also a non-factor, as the GPU's shared memory architecture is the more significant constraint. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is more than capable of handling the game's processing demands, but it is held back by the GPU's inability to render frames quickly enough. This results in a system that performs far below the potential of its processor, making the CPU a wasted resource in this particular configuration for gaming purposes.