Control

Control is an action-adventure title from 2019 that stresses both CPU and GPU heavily, and the measured data for this configuration — Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 — reveals a system that delivers exceptionally high frame rates across all tested settings, though the scaling patterns expose a clear GPU-bound ceiling at higher resolutions. The benchmark results show a total of 12 measured data points spanning three resolutions and four quality presets, providing a comprehensive view of how this hardware combination behaves under varying loads. This analysis interprets those numbers in the context of the component specifications and the relative performance data provided.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz, boosting up to 5.80 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory via a dual-channel bus, providing 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. For a game like Control, which is known for its physics-heavy combat and destructible environments, the CPU’s thread count and clock speed directly influence how many on-screen entities and physics calculations can be processed without bottlenecking the GPU.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU scores 51,731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7,303 in single-core, placing it in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. Relative to its nearest rivals, it outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K by 0.2% in average benchmark score, and it leads the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 1.1% and the AMD EPYC 9135 by 1.2%. However, it trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%. These deltas are small, indicating that the 290K Plus sits at the top of the desktop performance hierarchy, but its advantage over the 285K is marginal in raw compute tests.

In the context of Control’s measured frame rates, the CPU’s role becomes apparent at lower resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 279 FPS average, which is the highest measured value in the entire dataset. This suggests that at this resolution and preset, the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU enough data to reach very high frame rates. As resolution increases, the CPU’s influence diminishes relative to the GPU, because the rendering workload grows faster than the CPU-side game logic. The data shows a consistent pattern where frame rates scale down with resolution, indicating that the CPU is not the primary limiter at higher settings — the GPU is.

The processor’s 24 cores and 24 threads are more than sufficient for Control’s multi-threaded physics and AI systems, which is reflected in the high minimum frame rates observed. For instance, at 1440p Medium, the minimum FPS is 127, and at 1080p Medium, it is 168. These minimums are well above playable thresholds, suggesting that even in complex combat scenarios with many particles and enemy entities, the CPU maintains consistent performance. The single-core boost of 5.80 GHz also contributes to low-latency frame pacing, as Control’s main game loop often relies on a few heavily utilized threads.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is based on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process by TSMC, with 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die. It features 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s of memory bandwidth. The GPU has 21,760 shading units, 680 texture mapping units, and 176 raster output units. Its base clock is 2017 MHz, boosting to 2407 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, and it has a TDP of 575 W.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RTX 5090 scores 39,650 in Passmark G3D and 18,355 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 92nd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (0.3% slower), the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (0.6% slower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (1.1% slower), while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X is 1.4% faster. These comparisons are based on average benchmark scores, which aggregate many tests, but in Control specifically, the GPU’s performance is more directly tied to its raw rasterization and memory bandwidth.

For Control, the GPU’s 32 GB of VRAM is far beyond the game’s requirements, meaning there is no risk of texture streaming or memory capacity bottlenecks even at 4K Ultra. The 1.79 TB/s bandwidth is crucial for high-resolution rendering, as it allows the GPU to quickly access texture data and geometry. The measured data shows that at 4K Ultra, the system averages 78 FPS, which is still a very playable frame rate for a visually demanding title. The GPU’s high pixel rate of 423.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1,636.8 GTexel/s enable it to maintain high fill rates, which is reflected in the relatively small performance drop from 1080p to 4K compared to what a less powerful GPU would exhibit.

The RTX 5090’s boost clock of 2407 MHz is moderate for a flagship, but its massive core count compensates. The data indicates that the GPU becomes the limiting factor at 4K, as frame rates drop from 279 FPS at 1080p Low to 142 FPS at 4K Low, a 49% reduction. This is expected, as the number of pixels scales by 4x from 1080p to 4K, and the GPU’s compute and memory subsystems are saturated. However, even at 4K Ultra, the 78 FPS average is well above the 60 FPS target, showing that this GPU is overkill for Control at standard refresh rates.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 64th out of 2,888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the top 2.2% of all configurations. This high ranking is consistent with the component-level benchmark data, which shows both the CPU and GPU in the 92nd and 96th percentiles, respectively. The rank of 64 means that there are 63 other hardware combinations that achieve higher average frame rates in this game, likely involving CPUs with even higher single-thread performance or GPUs with more specialized optimizations for Control’s engine.

Given that Control is a 2019 title, it is possible that some newer CPUs or GPUs with higher clock speeds or better driver optimizations outperform this combo in specific scenarios. However, the delta between this combo and the top-ranked ones is likely small, as the frame rates are already extremely high. For example, at 1080p Low, this combo achieves 279 FPS, which is near the practical limit for most displays. The ranking also considers all settings and resolutions, so combos that perform better at 4K Ultra might have a slight edge, but the RTX 5090’s 32 GB VRAM and high bandwidth ensure it is not handicapped in any resolution.

The combo’s rank of 64 out of 2,888 is a strong indicator of its overall capability, but it is not the absolute best. This could be due to the CPU’s modest single-thread performance relative to some rivals, or the GPU’s driver maturity. The data shows that the combo is well-balanced, with no obvious bottleneck at any resolution, as evidenced by the smooth scaling from 1080p to 4K. For most users, this level of performance would be considered top-tier, and the rank reflects that.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Control, and at what settings?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 279, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only data point that exceeds 270 FPS, indicating that the system is CPU-limited at this resolution and preset.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra compared to 1080p Low?

A: At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 78, which is 201 FPS lower than the 279 FPS at 1080p Low. This represents a 72% drop in frame rate, showing that the GPU is the primary limiter at 4K Ultra.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo in Control?

A: The lowest minimum FPS recorded is 86, which occurs at 3840x2160 resolution with Medium settings. This is still above 60 FPS, indicating that the combo maintains playable frame rates even under load.

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

A: This combo ranks 64th out of 2,888 tested combos, placing it in the top 2.2% of all configurations. This is based on the comboRankInGame data, which aggregates performance across all settings and resolutions.

Q: Which component is more likely to be the bottleneck at 1440p High?

A: At 2560x1440 with High settings, the average FPS is 133. Comparing this to 1080p High (176 FPS), the drop is 24%, which is less than the pixel count increase of 77%, suggesting the GPU is becoming the limiting factor at 1440p High.

Q: Does the combo have enough VRAM for Control at maximum settings?

A: Yes, the GPU has 32 GB of GDDR7 memory, which far exceeds the requirements of Control. Even at 4K Ultra, there are no signs of memory capacity issues, as the frame rates are consistent and no texture pop-in is observed in the data.

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

Resolution scaling in Control follows a predictable pattern for this combo, with frame rates decreasing as pixel count increases. Starting at 1080p Low, the system averages 279 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 211 FPS, a 24% reduction. At 4K Low, the average is 142 FPS, which is 49% lower than 1080p Low. This scaling is nearly linear with the pixel count increase from 1080p (2.07 million pixels) to 4K (8.29 million pixels), which is a 4x increase. A 49% drop in FPS is less than the 75% that would be expected if the GPU were perfectly scaling, indicating that the CPU is still contributing to performance at Low settings.

For Medium settings, the pattern is similar but with a larger absolute drop. At 1080p Medium, the average is 198 FPS, at 1440p Medium it is 150 FPS (24% drop), and at 4K Medium it is 101 FPS (49% drop from 1080p). The minimum FPS values also scale: 168 at 1080p, 127 at 1440p, and 86 at 4K. These minimums are consistently above 60 FPS, showing that the combo does not suffer from severe frame time spikes even at higher resolutions.

At High settings, the scaling is more pronounced. 1080p High averages 176 FPS, 1440p High averages 133 FPS (24% drop), and 4K High averages 90 FPS (49% drop from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across all presets is notable, suggesting that the limiting factor shifts uniformly as resolution increases. For Ultra settings, 1080p averages 153 FPS, 1440p averages 116 FPS (24% drop), and 4K averages 78 FPS (49% drop from 1080p). The fact that the percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is nearly identical (49-50%) across all presets indicates that the GPU is the dominant limiter at 4K, regardless of settings.

The data also shows that the difference between Low and Ultra at any given resolution is significant. At 4K, the gap between Low (142 FPS) and Ultra (78 FPS) is 64 FPS, a 45% reduction. This demonstrates that the GPU’s rendering workload scales heavily with preset quality, and the RTX 5090’s raw power is what allows it to maintain 78 FPS at 4K Ultra. The scaling analysis clearly shows that this combo is GPU-limited at 4K, while at 1080p, the CPU’s single-thread performance is more relevant, as evidenced by the 279 FPS Low result.

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

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user’s display resolution and target frame rate. For 4K displays, the High preset offers the best balance, averaging 90 FPS. This is comfortably above 60 FPS and provides a significant visual improvement over Medium (101 FPS) with only an 11 FPS penalty. Ultra at 4K drops to 78 FPS, which is still playable but may not be worth the added visual fidelity for a 12 FPS cost. Medium at 4K is also viable at 101 FPS, but High offers better textures and effects for a modest 11 FPS reduction.

For 1440p displays, the High preset is again the recommended choice, averaging 133 FPS. This is well above the 144 Hz refresh rate that many 1440p monitors support, and it provides a richer visual experience than Medium (150 FPS) while only sacrificing 17 FPS. Ultra at 1440p averages 116 FPS, which is still high, but the drop from High is 17 FPS, making High the better value in terms of performance per visual quality. Low at 1440p reaches 211 FPS, but the visual degradation is likely too severe for most users.

For 1080p displays, the High preset averages 176 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors (e.g., 240 Hz). Ultra at 1080p averages 153 FPS, which is still above 144 Hz, but the 23 FPS penalty may not be worth the extra visual details. Medium at 1080p averages 198 FPS, providing a good middle ground, but High offers better shadows and reflections for a 22 FPS cost. Low at 1080p reaches 279 FPS, which is only useful for competitive play where frame rate is prioritized over visuals.

Overall, the High preset is the most balanced choice across all three resolutions, as it delivers high frame rates without sacrificing too much visual quality. For users who prioritize maximum visual fidelity, Ultra is viable at all resolutions, with 78 FPS at 4K being the lowest measured value. The data suggests that this combo can handle Ultra at 1080p and 1440p without issue, but at 4K, High is the recommended preset for a smoother experience.

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

The measured FPS data is as follows, organized by resolution and settings:

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: Average 279 FPS (no min/max recorded)
• Medium: Average 198 FPS, minimum 168 FPS, maximum 228 FPS
• High: Average 176 FPS (no min/max recorded)
• Ultra: Average 153 FPS (no min/max recorded)

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: Average 211 FPS (no min/max recorded)
• Medium: Average 150 FPS, minimum 127 FPS, maximum 172 FPS
• High: Average 133 FPS (no min/max recorded)
• Ultra: Average 116 FPS (no min/max recorded)

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: Average 142 FPS (no min/max recorded)
• Medium: Average 101 FPS, minimum 86 FPS, maximum 116 FPS
• High: Average 90 FPS (no min/max recorded)
• Ultra: Average 78 FPS (no min/max recorded)

These numbers show a consistent pattern: as resolution increases, the average FPS decreases by roughly 24% from 1080p to 1440p and by another 33-37% from 1440p to 4K, depending on the preset. The Medium settings are the only ones with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values, providing insight into frame time variability. At 1080p Medium, the spread between min and max is 60 FPS (168 to 228), indicating some variance in frame times, but the minimum is still high. At 1440p Medium, the spread narrows to 45 FPS (127 to 172), and at 4K Medium, it narrows further to 30 FPS (86 to 116), showing that the GPU’s workload is more consistent at higher resolutions.

The Ultra preset consistently delivers the lowest frame rates, with 153 FPS at 1080p, 116 FPS at 1440p, and 78 FPS at 4K. The Low preset delivers the highest frame rates, with 279 FPS at 1080p, 211 FPS at 1440p, and 142 FPS at 4K. The High preset sits between Medium and Ultra, with 176 FPS at 1080p, 133 FPS at 1440p, and 90 FPS at 4K. These measured values confirm that the combo is exceptionally fast, with even the most demanding 4K Ultra configuration maintaining an average of 78 FPS, which is above the standard 60 FPS target for most displays.