Control

# Control with Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

This combination ranks at position 2854 out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 1.2% of all configurations. The data reveals a profound bottleneck: the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, which sits at the 25th percentile among all GPUs, cannot feed frames fast enough to utilize the Core Ultra 9 290K's substantial compute headroom. The measured FPS across all resolutions and settings presets confirms that this pairing produces a largely unplayable experience, with the highest recorded average being 46 FPS at 1080p Low.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across every settings preset, revealing the GPU as the sole limiting component. At Low settings, average FPS falls from 46 at 1080p to 34 at 1440p, then to 23 at 4K — a total reduction of 50% from the lowest to highest resolution. The High preset shows a similar pattern: 29 FPS at 1080p, 22 at 1440p, and 15 at 4K, representing a 48% decline. Medium settings follow the same trajectory with 32 FPS at 1080p, 24 at 1440p, and 17 at 4K, while Ultra drops from 25 to 19 to 13 across the same resolution ladder.

These scaling patterns indicate that the GTX 1050 Ti's rendering pipeline saturates quickly as pixel count rises. The 4K results are uniformly below 23 FPS regardless of settings, with Ultra dipping to 13 FPS — a slideshow by any standard. Even the most aggressive settings reduction at 4K (Low vs. Ultra) only recovers 10 FPS, from 13 to 23, which is insufficient to reach playability. The 1440p results are marginally better but still cluster in the 19–34 FPS range, with only Low settings crossing the 30 FPS threshold. At 1080p, the situation is more nuanced: Low achieves 46 FPS, Medium hits 32, High reaches 29, and Ultra manages 25.

The resolution scaling behavior strongly suggests that the CPU is never the constraint. A 24-core, 24-thread processor with a 5.80 GHz boost clock would show minimal FPS variation across resolutions if it were the bottleneck, but the data shows FPS falling roughly 30–35% at each step up in resolution. This is classic GPU-bound scaling, where the 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus width of the GTX 1050 Ti become increasingly inadequate as frame buffer demands grow. The 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is simply insufficient for 4K rendering in a game like Control, which features complex particle effects and destructible environments.

How This Combo Ranks

With a combo rank of 2854 out of 2888 tested configurations, this pairing sits in the 1.2% percentile of all combinations tested for Control. This is an exceptionally poor result, placing it among the lowest-performing setups in the entire benchmark database. The rank reflects the GPU's limitations far more than the CPU's capabilities; the Core Ultra 9 290K alone ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, while the GTX 1050 Ti languishes in the 25th percentile among GPUs.

The disparity between components is stark. The CPU's average benchmark score of 84003 places it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090). Against the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072), it trails by 1.3%. These are marginal differences among top-tier processors, confirming that the 290K is a high-end part. The GPU, meanwhile, scores an average of 4193, which is just 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170), 1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151), 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241), and 1.8% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268). These rivals are entry-level or legacy mobile parts, underscoring how far the GTX 1050 Ti has fallen relative to modern standards.

The combination's rank in Control specifically reflects this mismatch. A high-end CPU paired with a low-end GPU produces a system that is overwhelmingly GPU-limited, and the benchmark data confirms that no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for the GPU's rendering constraints. For context, the combo sits within the bottom 34 positions of all 2888 tested, meaning nearly every other configuration in the database delivers better performance in this game.

GPU Role

The GTX 1050 Ti's specifications explain its poor showing. It features a base clock of 1291 MHz and a boost clock of 1392 MHz, with 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The 4 GB GDDR5 memory runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's FP32 throughput is 2.138 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 44.54 GPixel/s with a texture rate of 66.82 GTexel/s.

In Control, these specifications translate to the measured FPS figures. The GPU's 25th percentile ranking among all GPUs means it outperforms only a quarter of the field, and its average benchmark score of 4193 places it among the weakest discrete GPUs still being tracked. The Pascal architecture (14 nm process, 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die) is from 2016, and the card is marked as end-of-life production status. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) support is present, but the hardware lacks the dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores found in newer architectures.

The memory configuration is particularly problematic for Control at higher resolutions. The 4 GB frame buffer, while adequate for 1080p Low settings in many titles, becomes a severe constraint at 1440p and 4K. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (13 FPS) and 4K High (15 FPS) suggests that the GPU is both bandwidth-limited and capacity-limited. The 128-bit memory interface cannot move enough data per clock cycle to sustain playable frame rates at high pixel counts, and the 4 GB capacity forces texture streaming and asset loading that further degrades performance.

The GPU's compute capabilities are also limited: 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 is modest by any standard, and its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18129 and Vulkan score of 10001 reflect this. The PassMark GPU Compute score of 2652 is similarly low. These numbers indicate that the GPU is not only bandwidth-constrained but also compute-constrained, making it ill-suited for a game like Control that uses modern rendering techniques.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data offers a clear hierarchy of playable configurations. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 46 FPS average, which is the only configuration that approaches smooth gameplay. This should be considered the primary target for any user seeking playable performance. The 1080p Medium preset delivers 32 FPS average (27 min, 37 max), which is borderline acceptable for slower-paced sections but will feel choppy during combat sequences. The 1080p High preset drops to 29 FPS, and 1080p Ultra falls to 25 FPS — both below the 30 FPS threshold generally considered the minimum for playable action.

At 1440p, no preset achieves 30 FPS. Low settings yield 34 FPS average, which is technically above the threshold but still marginal. Medium drops to 24 FPS (21 min, 28 max), High to 22 FPS, and Ultra to 19 FPS. These results suggest that 1440p gaming with this combo is only viable at Low settings, and even then, the experience will be inconsistent. The 4K results are uniformly unplayable: Low achieves 23 FPS, Medium 17 FPS (14 min, 19 max), High 15 FPS, and Ultra 13 FPS. No settings adjustment at 4K recovers playable performance.

The recommendation is unambiguous: use 1080p Low settings for the best experience. This is the only preset that provides a comfortable margin above 30 FPS, and the data shows that the jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 14 FPS (from 46 to 32), which is a substantial sacrifice for marginal visual improvement. If visual quality is prioritized over frame rate, 1080p Medium is the highest preset that remains above 30 FPS, but the 27 FPS minimum frame rate indicates occasional dips below playability. Users should avoid 1440p and 4K entirely with this GPU, as even the lowest settings at these resolutions produce sub-35 FPS averages.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings preset for this combination in Control?

A: The 1080p Low preset is the only configuration with a comfortable playable frame rate, achieving 46 FPS average. The 1080p Medium preset is the highest quality option that stays above 30 FPS (32 FPS average, 27 min, 37 max). All 1440p and 4K presets produce averages below 35 FPS, with 4K results ranging from 13 to 23 FPS.

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

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has an average benchmark score of 4193, placing it 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170), 1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151), 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241), and 1.8% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268). These are all entry-level or legacy parts, confirming the GPU's low-end positioning.

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

A: The GPU is overwhelmingly the limiting factor. The Core Ultra 9 290K ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, while the GTX 1050 Ti ranks in the 25th percentile among GPUs. The FPS scaling across resolutions (dropping from 46 FPS at 1080p Low to 23 FPS at 4K Low) is classic GPU-bound behavior, as a CPU bottleneck would show less variation with resolution changes.

Q: What is the combo's overall rank among tested configurations in Control?

A: This combination ranks 2854 out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 1.2% of all configurations. This is consistent with the GPU's low percentile ranking and confirms that the pairing delivers near-bottom-tier performance in this game.

Q: Can this combination achieve playable frame rates at 1440p?

A: Only at Low settings, where it achieves 34 FPS average. However, this is a narrow margin above 30 FPS, and the Medium preset drops to 24 FPS (21 min, 28 max). Given the thin margin and potential for dips, 1440p is not recommended even at Low settings.

Q: Does the CPU's 24-core, 24-thread configuration help performance in Control?

A: No measurable benefit appears in the data. The CPU's substantial specifications (24 cores, 5.80 GHz boost clock, 36 MB L3 cache) do not translate to higher FPS because the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to utilize the CPU's capacity. The measured FPS figures are consistent with what the GTX 1050 Ti would produce regardless of CPU.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, and it features a 36 MB shared L3 cache along with 3 MB L2 cache per core and 192 KB L1 per core. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, and it offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. These are flagship-level specifications that place the processor in the 96th percentile among all CPUs.

Benchmark results confirm the CPU's strength. It scores 51731 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 7303 in single-core, and 21727 in Cinebench R20 multicore with 3067 single-core. PassMark results are equally strong: 60860 multithread, 4823 single-thread, 214760 floating point math, and 166194 integer math. These scores place the 290K marginally ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% higher average score) and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% higher), while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%. The differences are tiny, indicating that the 290K is at the very top of the CPU performance hierarchy.

However, in Control, the CPU's role is almost entirely passive. The measured FPS figures are so low (13–46 FPS across all presets) that the GPU is always the limiting factor. The game's rendering demands saturate the GTX 1050 Ti's modest compute and memory bandwidth long before the CPU's processing capacity becomes relevant. The data shows no scenario where the CPU's 24 cores provide an advantage, as even the most CPU-intensive scenes would be rendered at frame rates far below what the 290K can feed.

The CPU's 125 W TDP and 3 nm process node represent modern efficiency, but this is irrelevant to game performance when paired with such a weak GPU. The 290K's 96th percentile ranking and its position relative to rivals (0.2% ahead of the 285K, 1.1% ahead of the EPYC 4584PX, 1.2% ahead of the EPYC 9135, and 1.3% behind the EPYC 7F72) demonstrate that it is capable of driving much faster GPUs in other configurations. In this pairing, the CPU is effectively idle, waiting for the GPU to deliver frames that never arrive quickly enough. The result is a system where 98.8% of all tested combos outperform it in Control, despite the CPU being among the fastest available.