Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title from 2019, and the data for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 shows a configuration that scales predictably across resolutions. The benchmark results paint a clear picture of a system where the GPU becomes the primary constraint as resolution increases, while the CPU provides ample headroom at lower settings. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, contextualizes the ranking among other tested combos, and offers practical settings guidance based strictly on the recorded frames per second.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a classic scaling curve that shifts the performance bottleneck from the CPU to the GPU as pixel count rises. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 193 FPS on Low settings and 122 FPS on High, indicating that the processor is feeding frames fast enough to keep the graphics card busy. The gap between Low and High at 1080p is 71 FPS, showing that the RTX 4070 is still the limiting factor even at this resolution, but the CPU is clearly not holding it back. Moving to 2560x1440, the same settings drop to 146 FPS and 92 FPS respectively, a reduction of 24% and 25% from 1080p. This is a substantial hit but still leaves the system in very playable territory for high-refresh monitors.

The most pronounced scaling occurs when jumping to 3840x2160. At 4K High, the average FPS falls to 62, which is a 32% drop from the 1440p High result of 92 FPS. The Low setting at 4K yields 98 FPS, down from 146 FPS at 1440p, a 33% reduction. This consistent percentage drop across settings indicates that the RTX 4070's rendering throughput, not the CPU, is the limiting component at 4K. The data supports this interpretation: the 24-core, 24-thread Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with a 5.80 GHz boost clock provides far more computational headroom than a 200W GPU can utilize at such high pixel counts. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is severe, with Ultra settings falling to just 54 FPS, making 4K a compromise between visual fidelity and smoothness.

The implication is straightforward: this combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where the CPU's strength can be fully leveraged. At 4K, the GPU becomes the sole bottleneck, and the user must accept lower settings to maintain high frame rates. The 54 FPS Ultra result at 4K is below the 60 FPS threshold many consider ideal, while the 62 FPS High result barely crosses it. In contrast, the 193 FPS Low result at 1080p shows a system that could easily drive a 144Hz or 165Hz monitor in competitive scenarios. The scaling behavior is healthy and linear, with no anomalies suggesting driver issues or thermal throttling.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture and manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, is the workhorse of this pairing. Its 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus provides 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for the texture-heavy environments of Control at up to 1440p. The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the GPU's 29.15 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is stretched thin, resulting in the 54 FPS average. The core clocks of 1920 MHz base and 2475 MHz boost are respectable, but they are not enough to overcome the pixel fill requirements of 4K resolution on a game known for its particle effects and physics-based destruction.

The VRAM capacity of 12 GB is a key factor in the settings scaling. At 1080p and 1440p, the game's assets likely fit comfortably within this allocation, allowing the GPU to focus on shading and rasterization. At 4K Ultra, the combination of higher resolution textures and more complex effects may approach the VRAM limit, although the measured FPS does not show a catastrophic drop, suggesting that the memory subsystem is managing the load without spilling to system RAM. The 158.4 GPixel/s pixel rate and 455.4 GTexel/s texture rate are adequate for 1440p gaming, as evidenced by the 80 FPS Ultra result, but they are the limiting factors at 4K.

The RTX 4070's position in the broader GPU landscape, with an 81st percentile ranking among all GPUs and an average benchmark score of 37648, places it as a solid mid-to-high-end card. Its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (0.1% slower) and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (0.4% slower), while it trails the RTX 4080 Mobile by 1.3%. In the context of Control, the GPU's role is clear: it delivers excellent performance at mainstream resolutions but falls short of being a 4K Ultra powerhouse. The data shows that the 200W TDP is well-spent, as the card maintains consistent frame rates without signs of power throttling in the measured results.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the benchmark database, the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 achieves a combo rank of 650 out of 2888 tested configurations in Control. This places it in the top 22.5% of all combos, which is a strong showing for a mid-range GPU paired with a high-end CPU. The percentile ranking of the CPU itself is 96, indicating that the processor is among the top 4% of all CPUs tested, while the GPU sits at the 81st percentile. The disparity between these two percentiles explains the combo's overall rank: the GPU is the weaker link, pulling the combined performance down from what the CPU alone could achieve.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks provide context for its contribution. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is 0.2% faster in average benchmark score, while the AMD EPYC 4584PX is 1.1% faster and the AMD EPYC 9135 is 1.2% faster. The AMD EPYC 7F72 is 1.3% slower. These delta values are small, confirming that the 290K Plus is a top-tier processor, but they also show that in a game like Control, the CPU choice makes minimal difference to the final FPS at higher resolutions. The combo rank of 650 reflects the GPU's limitations more than the CPU's capabilities. For comparison, a combo with a faster GPU would likely rank higher, as the CPU has headroom to spare.

The rank data suggests that this pairing is unbalanced for 4K gaming, where the GPU is the constraint. At 1080p, however, the combo's performance is likely near the top of the charts, as the CPU's strong single-thread performance (evidenced by a 736 score in Cinebench R15 single-core and 4823 in Passmark single-thread) prevents any CPU-side bottlenecks. The 650th rank out of 2888 is a solid result, but it is not exceptional, indicating that there are many combos with better-balanced GPU-CPU pairings for this specific title. The data implies that users seeking higher ranks should prioritize a more powerful GPU over the CPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 193 FPS with no minimum or maximum recorded, indicating a smooth experience. The Medium preset averages 137 FPS with a minimum of 116 and a maximum of 157, showing a stable frame time distribution. High settings average 122 FPS, while Ultra drops to 106 FPS. This represents a 45% reduction from Low to Ultra, which is a typical scaling factor for a game like Control that increases shadow quality, reflections, and post-processing effects at higher presets.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 146 FPS, a 24% drop from 1080p Low. Medium averages 104 FPS with a minimum of 88 and a maximum of 119, which is still well within the bounds of high-refresh gaming. High settings average 92 FPS, and Ultra averages 80 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1440p is 45%, matching the 1080p scaling ratio, which indicates that the GPU is handling the increased pixel count consistently. The minimum FPS of 88 at Medium suggests that there are occasional dips, but they are not severe enough to cause noticeable stutter.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 98 FPS, which is surprisingly high for 4K and suggests that the game is well-optimized for lower settings. Medium averages 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 and a maximum of 80, putting it right on the edge of a 60 FPS experience. High settings average 62 FPS, barely crossing the 60 FPS threshold, while Ultra drops to 54 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 4K is 45%, consistent with the other resolutions. The minimum FPS of 59 at Medium 4K is noteworthy, as it indicates that the game can dip below 60 FPS even at medium settings, making it a risky choice for those who demand a locked 60 FPS. The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p is smooth sailing, 1440p is excellent, and 4K requires careful settings selection.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, with High settings averaging 92 FPS and Ultra averaging 80 FPS. At 1920x1080, the system is overkill, with Low hitting 193 FPS, while at 3840x2160, even High settings only reach 62 FPS.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Control?

A: Yes, but with caveats. At 4K Low, the average FPS is 98, and at Medium it is 70. However, High settings drop to 62 FPS and Ultra to 54 FPS, meaning that a locked 60 FPS experience is only possible at Medium or lower settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX. It is 1.3% faster than the AMD EPYC 7F72. These differences are minimal in real-world gaming.

Q: Is the RTX 4070 a good match for the 290K Plus?

A: The combo ranks 650th out of 2888 in Control, indicating a good but not perfect match. The CPU is in the 96th percentile, while the GPU is in the 81st percentile, so the GPU is the limiting factor, especially at 4K.

Q: What are the minimum FPS figures for this combo?

A: The only recorded minimum FPS values are for the Medium preset: 116 FPS at 1080p, 88 FPS at 1440p, and 59 FPS at 4K. This shows that the Medium preset is stable, but the 4K minimum is close to the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What settings should I use for a 144Hz monitor?

A: At 1080p, High settings (122 FPS) and Ultra (106 FPS) are both playable, but Low (193 FPS) is needed for a true 144Hz experience. At 1440p, only Low (146 FPS) exceeds 144 FPS, while Medium (104 FPS) and High (92 FPS) fall short.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the user's resolution and target frame rate. For 1920x1080, the High preset at 122 FPS is the recommended choice for most users, as it provides a significant visual upgrade over Medium (137 FPS) while still maintaining a frame rate well above 60 FPS. The Ultra preset at 106 FPS is also viable for those who prioritize visual fidelity, as the 16 FPS difference between High and Ultra is a reasonable trade-off. For competitive players, the Low preset at 193 FPS is the clear winner, offering the highest possible frame rates for maximum responsiveness.

At 2560x1440, the High preset at 92 FPS is the sweet spot for a smooth, high-quality experience. The Medium preset at 104 FPS offers a modest performance boost with a slight visual compromise, making it a good alternative for those who prefer higher frame rates. The Ultra preset at 80 FPS is still playable and provides the best image quality, but the 12 FPS drop from High to Ultra is more noticeable at this resolution. The Low preset at 146 FPS is recommended for esports-style play, but it sacrifices too much visual quality for most single-player experiences.

For 3840x2160, the Medium preset at 70 FPS is the recommended choice, as it is the only settings level that consistently stays above the 60 FPS threshold, with a minimum of 59 FPS. The High preset at 62 FPS is borderline, with an average just above 60 FPS but no minimum data to guarantee stability. The Ultra preset at 54 FPS is not recommended for a smooth experience, as it falls below the 60 FPS target. The Low preset at 98 FPS is viable for those who prioritize frame rate over visuals, but it undermines the purpose of 4K resolution. The data suggests that 4K gaming on this combo requires a willingness to compromise on settings to achieve playable frame rates.