Control

Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title, stresses the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti in a way that reveals a system bottleneck shifting decisively toward the graphics card as resolution climbs. Paired with the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, the measured frame rates show a GPU that is capable at 1080p but progressively overwhelmed at higher resolutions, while the CPU’s substantial thread count and high boost clock ensure it is never the limiting factor in this configuration. The benchmark data paints a clear picture of a mid-range graphics solution from a past generation struggling against a modern, high-end processor in a demanding game.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a steep performance cliff as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the combo delivers 57 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440 drops that to 43 FPS, a 24.6% reduction, and then to 3840x2160, the frame rate falls to 29 FPS, which is another 32.6% drop from the 1440p figure. This scaling pattern is stark, indicating that the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti’s rendering throughput is the primary constraint, not the processor.

The situation is even more telling when examining the Low preset. At 1080p Low, the system hits 91 FPS average, which suggests the CPU and game engine can push well beyond 60 FPS when the GPU load is light. However, at 4K Low, the average plummets to 46 FPS. Even with the lowest graphical settings, the 4K resolution presents a sheer pixel-pushing challenge that the GTX 1660 Ti cannot overcome. The gap between the 1080p and 4K Low results—a 45 FPS difference—shows that the GPU’s fillrate and memory bandwidth are saturated by the sheer number of pixels, independent of the visual complexity.

This data implies that the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with its 24 cores and 5.80 GHz boost clock, is largely idle waiting for the GPU at higher resolutions. The performance delta between 1080p and 4K is not a reflection of processor limits but of the graphics card’s 6 GB GDDR6 memory and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth being insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering in Control. The scaling from High to Ultra at 4K shows a further drop from 29 FPS to 25 FPS, reinforcing that the GPU is working at its absolute limit, with no headroom left for additional graphical fidelity.

Settings Recommendations

For users of this specific combo, the benchmark rows suggest that the Medium preset provides the most balanced experience, particularly at 1080p and 1440p. At 1920x1080, Medium yields 64 FPS average, which is a comfortable playable frame rate, and it maintains a minimum of 55 FPS, ensuring relatively smooth performance during intense scenes. The jump to High only costs 7 FPS on average, dropping to 57 FPS, which is still acceptable, but the Medium preset offers a better safety margin above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset is the only viable option for a playable experience, delivering 49 FPS average with a minimum of 41 FPS. High settings at this resolution drop to 43 FPS, and Ultra falls to 38 FPS, both of which are below the ideal smoothness threshold. The data suggests that 1440p gaming with this GPU requires sacrificing visual quality to maintain performance, and Medium is the sweet spot where the game remains responsive without looking overly degraded.

For 4K, the data is unambiguous: none of the presets achieve a consistently smooth 60 FPS. The Low preset provides the highest average at 46 FPS, but this is still a compromised experience. Given the measured results, the recommendation is to stick with 1080p and the Medium or High preset for the best balance of visual fidelity and frame rate. At 1440p, Medium is the maximum recommended setting, and 4K should be avoided unless the user accepts sub-30 FPS averages on High or Ultra settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a desktop processor with 24 cores and 24 threads, based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture and built on a 3 nm process. Its benchmark scores are exceptional, ranking in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. The multi-core performance is staggering, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731, and single-core performance is equally strong at 7303 in the same test. This processing power is far beyond what Control requires, even with its complex physics and destruction systems.

In the context of this game, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and manage game logic. The measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low, where the CPU would be most likely to bottleneck, the system achieves 91 FPS. This high frame rate indicates that the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is not a limiting factor; the 5.80 GHz boost clock ensures rapid single-threaded performance, while the 24 threads handle background tasks without issue. The Passmark multi-thread score of 60860 and the Passmark single-thread score of 4823 further confirm its dominance.

Interestingly, the CPU’s closest rival in the benchmark database is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, with an average score of 83807 compared to the 290K Plus’s 84003, a delta of just 0.2%. This suggests that within the same family, the performance is comparable, and neither would be a bottleneck in Control. The data implies that the processor is so powerful that its exact specifications have minimal impact on this game’s frame rates; the GPU is the sole determinant of performance in this pairing.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 4K resolution?

A: Yes, but with significant compromises. The measured data shows that at 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 46 on Low settings, dropping to 25 FPS on Ultra. This is not a smooth experience, and the 4K resolution severely strains the GTX 1660 Ti.

Q: What is the best resolution for this system to achieve 60 FPS?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 91 FPS average. With Medium settings, it drops to 64 FPS, and High settings yield 57 FPS. None of the 1440p or 4K presets reach 60 FPS average, so 1080p is the only resolution where this is possible.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus a bottleneck for the GTX 1660 Ti?

A: No. The benchmark data shows that frame rates drop significantly with resolution, which is a GPU bottleneck. The CPU’s high performance, evidenced by its 96th percentile ranking and 51731 Cinebench R23 multi-core score, means it can easily keep up with the GPU’s output.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 Ti compare to its nearest rivals in terms of raw GPU score?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti has a Passmark G3D score of 12871. Its closest rival is the AMD Radeon 540 with a score of 7673, which is a 0.7% difference. The data shows it is also 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 and 2.3% ahead of the Intel Arc A310.

Q: What is the minimum FPS on the Medium preset at 1440p?

A: The measured minimum FPS at 2560x1440 on Medium settings is 41 FPS, with an average of 49 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS. This indicates that the frame rate can dip notably during intense scenes.

Q: Does the game’s performance scale better with CPU or GPU improvements?

A: The data strongly suggests that GPU improvements would yield the most significant gains. Since the frame rate drops by roughly half from 1080p to 4K, the graphics card is the limiting component. Upgrading the CPU would provide minimal benefit, as the current processor is not a constraint.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing-architecture GPU built on a 12 nm process, featuring 1536 shading units and 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. Its memory bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s, and its boost clock is 1770 MHz. These specifications place it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, indicating it is a mid-range performer by modern standards. The Passmark G3D score of 12871, while decent, is closely matched by its nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon 540 with a score of 7673.

In Control, the GPU’s role is dominant. The measured FPS data shows that the frame rate is highly sensitive to both resolution and settings, which are the primary workloads for the graphics card. At 1080p, the GPU has enough headroom to deliver playable frame rates, but as the pixel count increases, its limitations become apparent. The 6 GB VRAM capacity is also a factor; at 4K with High or Ultra settings, the memory demands likely exceed what is available, causing performance to suffer.

The benchmark results for the GPU show a DirectX 12 score of 51 in Passmark, which is lower than the DirectX 11 score of 103. This suggests that the card’s performance in modern APIs like DirectX 12, which Control uses, may not be its strong suit. The FP32 performance is rated at 5.437 TFLOPS, which is modest compared to newer cards. The data implies that this GPU is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can balance visual quality and performance, but it is out of its depth at higher resolutions in a demanding title like Control.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best performance. The Low preset achieves 91 FPS average, which is the highest recorded for this combo. Medium settings reduce the average to 64 FPS, with a minimum of 55 FPS and a maximum of 74 FPS. High settings yield 57 FPS average, and Ultra drops to 50 FPS. This range shows that 1080p is the only resolution where the GPU can maintain a playable frame rate across all presets, with even Ultra staying above the 30 FPS threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly. Low settings produce 69 FPS average, which is still smooth. Medium settings average 49 FPS, with a minimum of 41 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS. High settings average 43 FPS, and Ultra settings average 38 FPS. The 1440p resolution is playable on Low and Medium, but the higher presets begin to feel sluggish, particularly during action sequences that might push the frame rate toward the lower bounds.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmed. Low settings produce 46 FPS average, which is the only preset that approaches playability. Medium settings drop to 33 FPS average, with a minimum of 28 FPS and a maximum of 38 FPS. High settings average 29 FPS, and Ultra settings average just 25 FPS. The 4K data shows a clear trend: the GTX 1660 Ti cannot handle this resolution with any fidelity, and even the lowest settings result in a sub-60 FPS experience that is likely to feel choppy.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database, this specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is ranked 2471 out of 2888 tested combos for Control. This places it in the lower percentile of all possible pairings, which is expected given the significant mismatch between the high-end CPU and the mid-range GPU. The rank reflects the overall gaming performance, which is heavily weighted toward the GPU’s capabilities.

The data suggests that this combo is not well-balanced for a demanding game like Control. The CPU is overkill, ranking in the 96th percentile, while the GPU sits in the 41st percentile. This disparity means that the system’s performance is capped by the graphics card, and the CPU’s potential is largely unrealized in this scenario. The rank of 2471 out of 2888 indicates that most other tested combinations, likely those with more balanced or more powerful GPUs, outperform this setup.

The implications are clear: for this game, the GPU is the primary driver of the combo’s ranking. Upgrading the graphics card would have a dramatic impact on the measured FPS and the overall rank. Conversely, the CPU’s contribution to the game’s performance is minimal, as evidenced by its ability to maintain high frame rates in CPU-light scenarios like 1080p Low. This combo serves as a textbook example of a CPU-bottleneck-free environment where the graphics solution dictates the gaming experience.