Control

# Control — Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER

This benchmark analysis examines the measured performance of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER in Control, an Action Adventure title released in 2019. The data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) across four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), with the combination ranking 2471 out of 2888 tested combos in this game. The CPU is a 24-core, 24-thread Arrow Lake Refresh part with a 3.70 GHz base clock and 5.80 GHz boost, while the GPU is a Turing-based 12 nm chip with 1408 shading units, 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, and a 1530 MHz base / 1785 MHz boost clock.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario at higher pixel counts. At 1080p High settings, the combo delivers 57 FPS average; stepping up to 1440p High drops that to 43 FPS, a 24.6% reduction; and at 4K High the average falls to 29 FPS, which is 49.1% below the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern — roughly halving performance from 1080p to 4K — strongly indicates that the GTX 1660 SUPER's rendering throughput, not the CPU, becomes the limiting factor as pixel count grows.

The Low preset tells a similar but slightly less severe story. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 91 FPS average. Moving to 1440p Low yields 69 FPS (a 24.2% drop), and 4K Low produces 46 FPS (a 49.5% drop from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across presets — around 24% from 1080p to 1440p and another 33% from 1440p to 4K — suggests that the scaling is primarily driven by fill rate and memory bandwidth demands rather than settings-specific effects. The GTX 1660 SUPER's 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 85.68 GPixel/s pixel rate are the hardware attributes most relevant to this behavior.

Interestingly, the gap between Low and High at each resolution narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (91 FPS) and High (57 FPS) is 34 FPS; at 1440p it shrinks to 26 FPS; at 4K it narrows further to 17 FPS. This convergence indicates that at 4K, even the Low preset is pushing the GPU near its limits, leaving less headroom for settings-based performance differentiation. The Medium preset shows a similar pattern: 64 FPS at 1080p, 49 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K, with the 4K Medium row including a measured minimum of 28 FPS and maximum of 38 FPS.

The Ultra preset exhibits the most severe scaling, starting at 50 FPS at 1080p, dropping to 38 FPS at 1440p, and bottoming out at 25 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result at 25 FPS average is below the 30 FPS threshold commonly considered playable, making that configuration effectively unusable for smooth gameplay. The data clearly shows that this combo is not designed for 4K gaming in Control, regardless of settings — the best 4K result (46 FPS on Low) still falls well short of high-refresh-rate territory.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, built on the Turing architecture at 12 nm, contributes the dominant performance constraint in this pairing. Its specifications — 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, 48 ROPs, a boost clock of 1785 MHz, and 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth — define the rendering ceiling for Control at higher resolutions. The GPU's 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 157.1 GTexel/s texture rate are modest by modern standards, and the benchmark results reflect this.

The percentile ranking places this GPU at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, indicating it sits near the median of tested hardware. Its average benchmark score of 12986 places it in close competition with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940, 0.4% higher), AMD Radeon RX 580 (12928, 0.4% higher), AMD Radeon 740M (12870, 0.9% lower), and NVIDIA Tesla M2090 (13075, 0.7% lower). This tight clustering suggests the GTX 1660 SUPER's performance class is well-established, and Control's measured FPS results align with this mid-range positioning.

The 6 GB VRAM capacity becomes relevant when considering Control's texture and asset demands at 4K. While the measured data does not include VRAM usage, the steep FPS drops at 3840x2160 — even on Low settings where 46 FPS is the best result — hint at possible memory pressure or bandwidth saturation. The 192-bit memory bus and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest figures, and the pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s must fill increasingly large frame buffers as resolution scales. The GPU's DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility are adequate for Control, but the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1278 and PassMark DirectX 12 score of 50 suggest limited headroom for modern rendering workloads.

In practical terms, the GPU's role in this combo is to deliver playable framerates at 1080p and acceptable results at 1440p, with 4K being a stretch goal that only the Low preset approaches with any usability. The 1785 MHz boost clock provides some performance uplift over the 1530 MHz base, but the architecture's age (GeForce 16-series, launched in 2019) shows in the scaling behavior. The GPU's 53rd percentile ranking means roughly half of all tested GPUs outperform it, which contextualizes the 4K struggles — this is not a hardware combination designed for high-resolution gaming.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a formidable processor that far exceeds the demands of Control at the tested settings. With 24 cores and 24 threads, a 5.80 GHz boost clock, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache, this CPU ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 84003 places it just 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090), while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3% (85072). This is a top-tier desktop processor by any measure.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is largely to stay out of the way. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (91 FPS) represents the highest average across all tested configurations, and given that the CPU can deliver 51731 points in Cinebench R23 multicore and 7303 in single-core, it is highly unlikely to bottleneck the GTX 1660 SUPER at any resolution. The CPU's PassMark multithread score of 60860 and single-thread score of 4823 further confirm its capability to handle game logic, physics, and AI without introducing frame-time issues.

The 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth from dual-channel DDR5 support is ample for feeding the GPU with draw calls and game data. The CPU's 24 threads, while not all utilized by Control (which typically scales to 8-16 threads), provide massive headroom for background tasks and future titles. The benchmark data shows the CPU's percentile rank at 96, meaning it outperforms 96% of all tested CPUs — this is a case of extreme over-provisioning relative to the GPU's mid-range class.

The CPU's influence on the measured FPS can be inferred from the scaling pattern. Since the FPS drops are consistent and proportional across resolutions (roughly 24% from 1080p to 1440p, and another 33% from 1440p to 4K), the CPU is not introducing variability. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect 1080p performance to be limited and 4K performance to scale less dramatically. Instead, the data shows classic GPU-bound behavior, where higher resolutions amplify the GPU's workload without exposing CPU limitations. The CPU's 5.80 GHz boost clock and strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303) ensure that even the most CPU-intensive scenes in Control — such as physics-heavy combat or destructible environments — are unlikely to cause frame drops.

FAQ

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

A: The data indicates 1920x1080 is the only resolution where all settings presets achieve playable framerates, with Low at 91 FPS, Medium at 64 FPS, High at 57 FPS, and Ultra at 50 FPS. 2560x1440 is marginal for High (43 FPS) and Ultra (38 FPS), while 4K only reaches 46 FPS on Low.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this configuration?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus ranks in the 96th percentile among CPUs with an average benchmark score of 84003, while the GTX 1660 SUPER sits at the 53rd percentile (average score 12986). The consistent FPS scaling across resolutions indicates the GPU is the limiting component, not the CPU.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 12986 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940, 0.4% higher), AMD Radeon RX 580 (12928, 0.4% higher), and AMD Radeon 740M (12870, 0.9% lower). The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 13075, which is 0.7% higher.

Q: What is the highest FPS achievable with this combo?

A: The best measured result is 91 FPS average at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The Medium preset at 1080p reaches 64 FPS, and High reaches 57 FPS. At 4K, the maximum is 46 FPS on Low, and the minimum measured result is 25 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this hardware?

A: Marginal at best. The 4K Low preset achieves 46 FPS average, which is playable but not smooth. 4K Medium drops to 33 FPS with a minimum of 28 FPS, and 4K High and Ultra fall to 29 and 25 FPS respectively, which are below typical playability thresholds.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations in Control?

A: This pairing ranks 2471 out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the lower half of all configurations. This ranking reflects the GPU's mid-range performance class despite the CPU's top-tier status.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce 91 FPS average, the highest measured value in the entire dataset. Medium settings achieve 64 FPS average with a minimum of 55 FPS and maximum of 74 FPS. High settings reach 57 FPS average, and Ultra delivers 50 FPS average. All four presets at 1080p exceed the 50 FPS threshold, making this resolution the most flexible for settings experimentation.

At 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably but remains usable for most presets. Low settings yield 69 FPS average, Medium produces 49 FPS (minimum 41, maximum 56), High reaches 43 FPS, and Ultra falls to 38 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 41 FPS indicates occasional dips below the 45 FPS comfort zone, but the overall averages remain playable for slower-paced sections of Control.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations become stark. Low settings achieve 46 FPS average, Medium drops to 33 FPS (minimum 28, maximum 38), High falls to 29 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 25 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 28 FPS is particularly concerning, as it suggests frame time spikes that would be noticeable during combat sequences. The 4K results across all settings are below the 50 FPS mark, and only Low approaches acceptable playability.

The full dataset shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low (91 FPS) > 1080p Medium (64 FPS) > 1080p High (57 FPS) > 1080p Ultra (50 FPS) > 1440p Low (69 FPS) > 1440p Medium (49 FPS) > 1440p High (43 FPS) > 1440p Ultra (38 FPS) > 4K Low (46 FPS) > 4K Medium (33 FPS) > 4K High (29 FPS) > 4K Ultra (25 FPS). Notably, 1440p Low outperforms 1080p Ultra by 38% (69 vs 50 FPS), and 4K Low (46 FPS) comes close to 1440p Ultra (38 FPS) but still trails by 8 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

For the best balance of visual quality and performance, the 1080p Medium preset is the strongest recommendation based on the measured data. At 64 FPS average with a minimum of 55 FPS, it provides a smooth experience with better visual fidelity than Low (91 FPS) while maintaining a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS target. The High preset at 1080p (57 FPS) is a viable alternative for users prioritizing image quality, but the 7 FPS drop from Medium may be noticeable in fast-paced scenes.

At 1440p, the Low preset (69 FPS) is the only option that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS, making it the recommended choice for users with 1440p displays. The Medium preset at 49 FPS is acceptable for less demanding gameplay, but the 41 FPS minimum suggests potential stuttering during intense sequences. High (43 FPS) and Ultra (38 FPS) at 1440p are best avoided for action-heavy sections of Control, though they may suffice for exploration.

For 4K, the data strongly suggests avoiding this resolution entirely unless visual fidelity is prioritized over smoothness. The Low preset at 46 FPS is the only playable option, and even it falls short of the 60 FPS target. Users with 4K displays should consider lowering the resolution to 1440p for a significantly better experience — the 1440p Medium preset (49 FPS) outperforms 4K Low (46 FPS) while offering superior visual quality.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution. At 1080p (50 FPS) it barely achieves playability, at 1440p (38 FPS) it falls below the 40 FPS comfort threshold, and at 4K (25 FPS) it is effectively unplayable. The performance cost of Ultra over High — roughly 7 FPS at 1080p, 5 FPS at 1440p, and 4 FPS at 4K — does not justify the visual gains, especially since the Medium preset offers the best performance-to-quality tradeoff across all resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 2471 out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the 14th percentile of all configurations (calculated as 2471/2888). This low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU's mid-range performance class, as the CPU's 96th percentile ranking is among the highest available. The disparity between the CPU's elite status and the GPU's median standing creates a heavily imbalanced pairing.

The combo's ranking context becomes clearer when examining the GPU's nearest rivals. The GTX 1660 SUPER's average benchmark score of 12986 is within 1% of the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940), RX 580 (12928), and Radeon 740M (12870). Since all these GPUs perform nearly identically in synthetic benchmarks, the combo's Control-specific ranking is likely representative of what any of these GPU pairings would achieve with the same CPU. The CPU's nearest rivals — Core Ultra 9 285K (83807, 0.2% lower), EPYC 4584PX (83090, 1.1% lower), and EPYC 9135 (82980, 1.2% lower) — are all within 1.3% of the 290K Plus's score, indicating that swapping to any of these CPUs would not meaningfully change the Control results given the GPU bottleneck.

The 2471st ranking out of 2888 means approximately 417 tested combos (14.4%) perform worse in Control. This places the combo in the lower quartile of all configurations, consistent with a GPU that ranks at the 53rd percentile overall. The practical implication is that users seeking better Control performance should prioritize GPU upgrades over CPU upgrades — the data shows the GTX 1660 SUPER is the limiting factor at every resolution and settings preset. The CPU's vast headroom (96th percentile) means it can accommodate a significantly more powerful GPU without becoming a bottleneck, making this combo a candidate for GPU-focused upgrades rather than platform changes.