Control

This combo pairs Intel’s flagship Arrow Lake Refresh desktop CPU with NVIDIA’s entry-level Ampere GPU, creating a stark imbalance in Control. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core processor with a 5.80 GHz boost clock, while the RTX 3050 4 GB is an end-of-life graphics card with a 128-bit memory bus. Benchmark data shows the system lands at a low position in the database, and the measured frame rates confirm that the GPU is the primary constraint across all tested resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination ranks 2522 out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 13% of all configurations. This low standing is driven almost entirely by the GPU, as the CPU sits in the 96th percentile among all processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which places it marginally ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807, 0.2% faster) and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090, 1.1% faster). It trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072) by 1.3%.

The disparity between the CPU’s top-tier standing and the system’s low combo rank is the defining feature of this pairing. With a 24-core, 24-thread configuration and a 5.80 GHz boost clock, the processor is capable of far more than the RTX 3050 4 GB can feed it. The measured FPS data indicates that at 1080p, even on Low settings, the system only reaches 83 FPS average, which is modest for a CPU of this caliber. The bottleneck becomes more apparent at higher resolutions, where the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth limit performance severely.

Relative to other combos in the database, this system is positioned for 1080p gaming at medium-to-low settings. The data shows a 46 FPS average at 1080p Ultra, which is playable but far from smooth for a fast-paced action-adventure game. The combo’s rank reflects a configuration where the CPU’s potential is largely unrealized, as the GPU becomes the limiting factor in every scenario tested.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is the decisive component in this pairing. Its memory configuration — 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth — is the primary constraint in Control. The card’s base clock is 1545 MHz with a boost clock of 1740 MHz, and the memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). These specifications place the GPU in the 50th percentile among all GPUs, which is a mid-pack position that aligns with its measured performance.

The GPU’s 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs provide a baseline capability, but the 4 GB VRAM is the critical weakness. Control is a game that benefits from higher-resolution textures, and the data shows a sharp drop in performance when moving from Low to Ultra settings at each resolution. At 4K, the GPU manages only 43 FPS on Low and drops to 23 FPS on Ultra, indicating that the memory bandwidth and capacity are insufficient for high-detail rendering at that resolution.

The RTX 3050’s 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores are present, but the measured data does not isolate ray tracing performance. The core relationship is clear: the GPU’s 7.127 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is the ceiling for this system. At 1440p, the average FPS ranges from 63 on Low to 35 on Ultra, and at 1080p from 83 on Low to 46 on Ultra. These numbers show a consistent pattern where the GPU’s compute and memory limitations cap performance regardless of the CPU’s headroom.

The card’s 90 W TDP and dual-slot design are modest, and its end-of-life production status suggests it was never intended for high-refresh-rate gaming at demanding settings. The data indicates that this GPU is best suited for 1080p gaming at Low or Medium presets, where it can maintain playable frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and frame rate preference. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers an average of 83 FPS, which is the highest measured value across all configurations. The Medium preset drops to 59 FPS average (with a minimum of 50 and maximum of 68), which remains smooth for most gameplay. High averages 53 FPS, and Ultra falls to 46 FPS.

For a balanced experience at 1080p, the Medium preset is the recommended choice. It provides a 59 FPS average with a minimum of 50 FPS, ensuring consistent performance during action sequences. The jump from Low to Medium costs 24 FPS on average, but the visual improvement in a game like Control is significant. The Ultra preset at 46 FPS is playable but risks dipping below 40 FPS in demanding scenes, which is not ideal for a game that relies on precise timing.

At 1440p, the Medium preset delivers a 45 FPS average with a minimum of 38 and maximum of 51. This is the highest playable setting at this resolution, as High averages 40 FPS and Low averages 63 FPS. The Low preset is the only option that guarantees a smooth experience at 1440p, but the Medium preset’s 45 FPS average is acceptable for slower-paced exploration. The Ultra preset at 35 FPS is not recommended, as it falls below the threshold for responsive gameplay.

At 4K, the data shows that only the Low preset (43 FPS average) is viable for playable frame rates. Medium averages 30 FPS with a minimum of 26, which is borderline, while High (27 FPS) and Ultra (23 FPS) are not recommended. The 4 GB VRAM is the limiting factor here, as higher presets likely exceed the memory capacity, causing severe performance degradation.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent performance scaling across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 83 FPS on Low, 59 FPS on Medium (minimum 50, maximum 68), 53 FPS on High, and 46 FPS on Ultra. This represents a 44.6% drop from Low to Ultra, indicating that the GPU’s compute units and memory bandwidth are stressed as settings increase.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 63 FPS on Low, 45 FPS on Medium (minimum 38, maximum 51), 40 FPS on High, and 35 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 44.4%, nearly identical to the 1080p scaling. This suggests that the GPU is consistently bottlenecked by its memory subsystem, as the relative performance penalty remains constant regardless of resolution.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 43 FPS on Low, 30 FPS on Medium (minimum 26, maximum 35), 27 FPS on High, and 23 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 46.5%, slightly steeper than at lower resolutions. The 4K results are particularly telling: the GPU’s 192.0 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB VRAM are insufficient for high-detail rendering, as even the Low preset only manages 43 FPS.

The Medium preset at each resolution provides the most complete data, with minimum and maximum FPS values recorded. At 1080p Medium, the range is 50 to 68 FPS, a 36% variance. At 1440p Medium, the range is 38 to 51 FPS, a 34% variance. At 4K Medium, the range is 26 to 35 FPS, a 35% variance. This consistent variance indicates that the GPU’s performance is stable but limited, with no sudden spikes or drops that would suggest driver or thermal issues.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and reveals the limiting component clearly. At Low settings, the system delivers 83 FPS at 1080p, 63 FPS at 1440p, and 43 FPS at 4K. This represents a 24.1% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 48.2% drop from 1080p to 4K. The scaling is roughly linear with pixel count, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

At Medium settings, the averages are 59 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 23.7%, and from 1080p to 4K is 49.2%. At High settings, the numbers are 53 FPS at 1080p, 40 FPS at 1440p, and 27 FPS at 4K, representing drops of 24.5% and 49.1% respectively. At Ultra settings, the averages are 46 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K, with drops of 23.9% and 50.0%.

The consistent ~24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~49% drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates that the GPU is the sole limiting factor. If the CPU were a constraint, the percentage drops would be smaller at higher resolutions, as the GPU would have more time to process frames. Instead, the linear scaling with pixel count confirms that the RTX 3050’s compute and memory resources are saturated at every resolution.

The CPU’s 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth and 36 MB of shared L3 cache are far above what this GPU can utilize. The data shows no scenario where the CPU becomes a bottleneck, as even at 1080p Low (the least demanding GPU workload), the frame rate is capped at 83 FPS. This is well below what the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus could deliver with a more powerful GPU.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system consistently achieves smooth frame rates. At 1080p, the Low preset averages 83 FPS, and the Medium preset averages 59 FPS. At 1440p, only the Low preset (63 FPS) exceeds 60 FPS, and at 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM affect performance?

A: The 4 GB VRAM is the primary constraint. The measured data shows a 44-46% performance drop from Low to Ultra settings at every resolution, which indicates that higher presets exceed the memory capacity. At 4K Ultra, the system only averages 23 FPS, suggesting that the GPU cannot store the necessary textures for high-detail rendering.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck in this system?

A: No, the benchmark results indicate the opposite. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, while the system ranks 2522 out of 2888 combos. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K is linear with pixel count, which is a clear sign of a GPU bottleneck.

Q: What settings should I use for a 60 FPS experience?

A: At 1080p, the Low preset is the only setting that guarantees an average above 60 FPS (83 FPS). The Medium preset averages 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 FPS, which is close but not consistent. At 1440p, the Low preset averages 63 FPS, making it the only viable option for 60 FPS gameplay.

Q: How does this combo compare to other tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2522 out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 13%. This is despite the CPU being in the 96th percentile, which underscores the GPU’s limiting role. The GPU itself ranks in the 50th percentile, indicating mid-pack performance that is insufficient for demanding games at high settings.

Q: Is the RTX 3050 4 GB capable of ray tracing in this game?

A: The GPU has 16 RT cores, but the measured data does not include ray tracing tests. The standard rasterization results show that the card struggles with high settings, so enabling ray tracing would likely reduce performance further. The 4 GB VRAM and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the additional memory and compute demands of ray tracing.