Control

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a severely imbalanced configuration for Control, landing at rank 2789 out of 2888 tested combos. The data indicates that this pairing is fundamentally bottlenecked by the graphics card, producing playable frame rates only at the lowest settings and 1080p resolution. The CPU’s immense processing power is largely left untapped, making this a textbook case of GPU-limited performance.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a flagship desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. This is a high-end chip designed for heavy multi-threaded workloads, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and PassMark multithread score of 60860. The processor also demonstrates strong single-thread capability with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4823. The CPU’s percentile ranking of 96 against all CPUs underscores its position in the top tier of available processors.

However, in the context of Control, this processing power is largely irrelevant. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings are consistently low, even at 1080p with Low settings where the average FPS is 56. The benchmark results indicate that the game’s performance is not being dictated by the CPU’s ability to feed the GPU with draw calls or physics calculations. Instead, the bottleneck lies elsewhere. The 24 cores and high clock speeds provide a massive cushion of headroom that the GTX 1650 cannot utilize. The CPU’s PassMark physics score of 3315 and data compression score of 698346 further highlight its compute strength, but these do not translate into higher frame rates in this title because the GPU cannot keep up with the rendering demands.

The Core Ultra 9’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with an average score of 83807 and a delta of 0.2%, and the AMD EPYC 4584PX with a score of 83090 and a delta of 1.1%. The 290K Plus sits slightly ahead of these in raw compute, but such differences are meaningless for Control performance. The game’s engine, which relies heavily on the GPU for rendering the supernatural environments and particle effects, is simply not creating enough load to engage the CPU meaningfully. The data suggests that even a significantly weaker processor would produce identical frame rates in this configuration, as the GTX 1650 is the limiting factor in every scenario.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 achieves a rank of 2789 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 3.4% of all configurations tested, which is a poor result for a system featuring one of the most powerful consumer CPUs available. The rank reflects the actual measured gameplay performance, not the theoretical compute capabilities of the components. The high percentile ranking of the CPU (96) and the GPU (40) separately do not translate into a high combo rank because the pairing is inefficient.

Benchmark results indicate that the frame rates are consistently low. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 31, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. At 4K Ultra, the average drops to 16 FPS, which is essentially a slideshow. The gap between the CPU’s synthetic performance and the combo’s in-game rank is stark. For comparison, the GPU’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M with an average score of 7447 and a delta of 0.3%, and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 with a score of 7441 and a delta of 0.4%. The GTX 1650’s own average benchmark score is 7472, which places it in the lower midrange of graphics cards. The data shows that this GPU is not designed for high-fidelity gaming at modern resolutions, and pairing it with a top-tier CPU does not change that fact.

The rank of 2789 out of 2888 indicates that most other combinations of CPUs and GPUs tested achieve better performance in Control. This is a clear verdict that the system is misconfigured for the game’s demands. The CPU is overqualified for the task, while the GPU is underqualified. The result is a bottleneck that leaves the vast majority of the CPU’s capability idle, while the GPU struggles to maintain playable frame rates even at lower settings. This pairing would only make sense for tasks that are entirely CPU-bound, which Control is not.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable scaling pattern across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 56. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 43 FPS, a reduction of 13 FPS or approximately 23%. At 4K Low, the average falls further to 29 FPS, which is a drop of 14 FPS from 1440p or approximately 33% from the 1080p figure. This scaling behavior is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario. As the resolution increases, the number of pixels the GTX 1650 must render grows significantly, and its limited pixel throughput becomes the primary constraint.

The pattern is similar for other settings. At Medium, the average FPS goes from 40 at 1080p to 30 at 1440p and then to 20 at 4K. At High, the figures are 36, 27, and 18 FPS for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K respectively. At Ultra, the numbers are 31, 23, and 16 FPS. In every case, the reduction from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 25-30%, and the reduction from 1440p to 4K is another 30-35%. The data indicates a consistent and significant drop as pixel count increases. This is the signature of a GPU that is saturated, as the CPU is clearly capable of handling the increased load without issue.

The implications are clear: the limiting component is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. The CPU’s performance does not degrade with resolution, and its headroom is more than sufficient to handle the geometry and draw calls at any of the tested settings. The GTX 1650, with its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit memory bus, is simply overwhelmed by the higher resolutions. The benchmark results show that even at the lowest settings, the 4K resolution (29 FPS) is not playable, and 1440p (43 FPS) is borderline. The only resolution that approaches acceptable playability is 1080p, and even then, only at Low settings does it exceed 50 FPS. This scaling analysis confirms that the processor is not the bottleneck, and any attempts to improve frame rates must focus on reducing the GPU load.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system’s capabilities in Control. At 1920x1080, the performance ranges from an average of 56 FPS on Low settings to 31 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset yields an average of 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS. The High preset produces an average of 36 FPS. These numbers indicate that 1080p is the only resolution where the system can achieve playable frame rates, and only at the expense of visual quality. The Low setting is the only one that breaks the 50 FPS barrier, while the High and Ultra settings fall below the 40 FPS mark, which may feel stuttery in action-heavy scenes.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops significantly. The Low setting produces an average of 43 FPS, which is a noticeable step down from 1080p. The Medium setting averages 30 FPS, with a minimum of 26 FPS and a maximum of 35 FPS. The High setting averages 27 FPS, and the Ultra setting averages 23 FPS. None of these figures are ideal for a fast-paced action-adventure game, as they all fall below the 60 FPS target. The 1440p resolution places a heavy strain on the GTX 1650, and the data shows that even the lowest settings cannot maintain a smooth experience.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes largely unplayable. The Low setting averages 29 FPS, which is the highest score at this resolution. The Medium setting averages 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 FPS and a maximum of 24 FPS. The High setting averages 18 FPS, and the Ultra setting averages 16 FPS. These numbers are consistently below 30 FPS, which is often considered the minimum threshold for a playable experience. The 4K resolution completely overwhelms the GTX 1650, and the benchmark results indicate that this combination is not suited for 4K gaming in Control. The data shows a clear hierarchy, with 1080p Low being the only configuration that delivers a semblance of smooth performance.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. The GPU has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, with a memory clock of 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). It features 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, delivering a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS. These specifications place the GTX 1650 in the lower tier of modern graphics cards, and its percentile ranking of 40 against all GPUs confirms this assessment.

In Control, the GPU’s limitations are immediately apparent. The 4 GB VRAM is a critical constraint, as the game’s high-resolution textures and complex shaders can easily exceed this capacity, leading to performance degradation. The memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s is also relatively low, which hampers performance at higher resolutions. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 7472, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, delta 0.3%) and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, delta 0.4%). The GTX 1650 is only slightly better than these integrated and older mobile solutions, which highlights its modest capability.

The benchmark results for Control show that the GPU is the primary bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the GPU manages 56 FPS, but this is the best-case scenario. As settings increase, the frame rate drops because the GPU cannot handle the increased shading and texture work. The 2.984 TFLOPS of compute power is insufficient for the game’s visual effects, which include physics-based destruction and dynamic lighting. The data indicates that the GPU is running at its maximum capacity in all tested scenarios, while the CPU remains largely idle. The GTX 1650’s launch MSRP was 149 USD, but its performance in this title does not justify anything beyond low-resolution, low-detail gaming.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable configuration for a playable experience is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which yields an average of 56 FPS. This is the only preset that approaches the 60 FPS target, and it does so while maintaining a stable frame rate. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 40 FPS, which is playable but may exhibit stuttering in intense combat sequences. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p, with averages of 36 and 31 FPS respectively, are not recommended for a smooth experience. The data shows that sacrificing visual quality for frame rate is necessary with this GPU.

At 1440p, none of the presets are ideal. The Low setting averages 43 FPS, which is borderline playable but still below the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium setting at 30 FPS is on the edge of playability, but the minimum FPS of 26 suggests potential dips. The High and Ultra settings, at 27 and 23 FPS, are too low for a game that requires quick reactions. At 4K, all presets are unplayable, with the highest average being 29 FPS on Low. The benchmark results indicate that this resolution should be avoided entirely.

The best experience per the measured rows is unequivocally 1080p with Low settings. This configuration provides the highest average frame rate of 56 FPS, which ensures a responsive and fluid experience. While the visual quality will be reduced, the gameplay will be far more enjoyable than at higher settings, where the frame rate drops below 40 FPS. For players who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, the 1080p Medium preset at 40 FPS is a secondary option, but it comes with the risk of frame drops to 34 FPS. The data suggests that the GTX 1650 is not capable of delivering a high-quality experience in Control, and lowering expectations to the minimum settings is the only way to achieve acceptable performance.