Control

# Control with Intel Core Ultra X9 388H + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 delivers a compelling Control experience, though the data reveals some surprising bottlenecks. This mobile CPU paired with a flagship desktop GPU produces solid frame rates across all tested configurations, but the scaling patterns suggest the processor may be holding back the graphics card at lower resolutions. The measured FPS data shows this combo ranks 563rd out of 2,888 tested combinations, placing it in the top 20% of all tested systems for this title.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 2560x1440 at High settings provides the best balance, delivering 97 FPS average. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset drops to 57 FPS average, while 1920x1080 at High reaches 128 FPS average, making 1440p the sweet spot for visual quality and performance.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44,466, sitting 0.2% below the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, 0.3% above the Intel Core i9-13950HX, 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, and 0.5% above the Intel Core i5-13600. This places it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What GPU memory configuration does this system use?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 features 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. The GPU has a base clock of 2017 MHz and a boost clock of 2407 MHz.

Q: How does the RTX 5090 rank among all GPUs?

A: The GPU sits in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 79,842. It trails the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X by 1.4%, while leading the Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB by 0.3%, the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB by 0.6%, and the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT by 1.1%.

Q: What is the CPU's core configuration?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. It features 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core.

Q: Does this combo maintain playable frame rates at maximum settings in 4K?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 57, which is technically playable but below the 60 FPS threshold many players prefer. The High preset at 4K delivers 65 FPS average, offering a more comfortable experience.

GPU Role

The RTX 5090's specifications immediately suggest it should dominate Control at any resolution. With 32 GB of GDDR7 memory, 21,760 shading units, and 680 texture mapping units, the GPU has enormous headroom for this 2019 action-adventure title. The memory configuration is particularly notable: a 512-bit bus providing 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth means texture streaming and high-resolution assets should never become a limiting factor. The GPU's boost clock of 2407 MHz, combined with its 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, provides substantial raw processing power that the measured FPS data reflects.

The measured results show the GPU's capabilities clearly at higher resolutions. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the system achieves 57 FPS average, which drops from the 65 FPS average at High settings. The gap between Low (103 FPS average) and Ultra (57 FPS average) at 4K demonstrates that the GPU is doing significant work as settings increase. Interestingly, the GPU's 92nd percentile ranking among all GPUs suggests it should perform even better, yet the actual frame rates in Control appear constrained by other factors, particularly at lower resolutions where CPU overhead becomes more apparent.

The GPU's 176 ROPs and 170 RT cores are relevant for Control's visual effects, though the game's 2019 release date means it doesn't heavily utilize ray tracing features. The texture rate of 1,636.8 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 423.6 GPixel/s provide ample headroom for the game's physics-based destruction and particle effects. The 5 nm process node and 92,200 million transistors indicate a very dense, powerful chip that should handle Control's demands with ease, yet the measured data shows performance that is good but not exceptional relative to the hardware's theoretical capabilities.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 563 out of 2,888 tested combinations places it in the 80.5th percentile of all systems tested for Control. This is a strong showing, but it's somewhat surprising given the RTX 5090's 92nd percentile GPU ranking. The discrepancy suggests that the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H, which sits in the 88th percentile of CPUs, may be limiting overall system performance in this title. The CPU's average benchmark score of 44,466 is competitive with its nearest rivals, but Control's engine appears to favor different CPU characteristics than what this mobile processor provides.

Looking at the ranking more critically, a system with a top-tier GPU and upper-midrange CPU should ideally rank higher than 563rd. The data implies that other combinations with slightly weaker GPUs but stronger CPUs achieve better results in Control. This is consistent with the FPS scaling patterns observed across resolutions: at 1080p, where CPU load is relatively higher, the system delivers 128 FPS average at High settings, while at 4K, where GPU load dominates, it achieves 65 FPS average. The rank reflects this balance, showing that while the combo is capable, it doesn't fully leverage the RTX 5090's potential in this specific game.

The nearest rival CPUs to the Ultra X9 388H all have similar average scores, with deltas ranging from -0.2% to 0.5%. This tight grouping indicates that swapping to any of these alternatives would likely produce nearly identical results in Control. The GPU's nearest rivals, however, show more interesting patterns: the RTX 5090 is 1.1% faster than the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT but 1.4% slower than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, suggesting that GPU choice matters less than system balance in this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates. The Low preset achieves 203 FPS average, while Medium reaches 144 FPS average with a minimum of 122 FPS and maximum of 165 FPS. High settings produce 128 FPS average, and Ultra drops to 111 FPS average. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 45.3% performance decrease, from 203 FPS down to 111 FPS, which is a substantial hit but still leaves all presets well above 100 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance scales predictably. Low settings deliver 153 FPS average, Medium hits 109 FPS average with a range of 93 to 125 FPS, High achieves 97 FPS average, and Ultra produces 84 FPS average. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at High settings is significant: from 128 FPS down to 97 FPS, a 24.2% reduction. This indicates that resolution scaling is having a meaningful impact on performance, though the system remains highly playable at all settings levels.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes more demanding. Low settings still manage 103 FPS average, but Medium drops to 73 FPS average with a range of 62 to 85 FPS. High settings produce 65 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 57 FPS average. The 4K Ultra result is the only configuration that dips below 60 FPS, making it marginal for smooth gameplay. The scaling from 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra shows a 48.6% reduction in frame rate, from 111 FPS to 57 FPS, which is a substantial but expected penalty for quadrupling the pixel count.

Settings Recommendations

For players prioritizing smooth gameplay, the 1080p High preset at 128 FPS average offers an excellent experience that balances visual quality with performance. The 1440p High preset at 97 FPS average is arguably the best overall choice, providing significantly more detail than 1080p while maintaining frame rates well above 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p delivers 109 FPS average, which is also an excellent option for those who prefer higher frame rates over maximal visual fidelity.

At 4K, the High preset at 65 FPS average is the recommended choice, as it stays above the 60 FPS threshold while delivering much better image quality than Medium at 73 FPS average. The Ultra preset at 4K produces 57 FPS average, which may be acceptable for players who prioritize visual quality over frame rate consistency, but the 8 FPS difference between High and Ultra at 4K suggests diminishing returns. The Low presets across all resolutions deliver high frame rates but sacrifice too much visual quality for a game with Control's atmospheric presentation.

The data indicates that Medium settings provide the most consistent performance across all resolutions, with minimum FPS values of 122 at 1080p, 93 at 1440p, and 62 at 4K. This consistency makes Medium the safest choice for maintaining stable frame rates, though the visual compromise may not be worth it given that High settings only cost 11-16% performance at each resolution while providing notably better image quality.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H's specifications suggest it should handle Control's CPU demands comfortably. With 16 cores and 16 threads, the processor has ample parallelism for the game's physics and AI systems. The boost clock of 5.10 GHz provides strong single-thread performance, which is crucial for games like Control that often rely heavily on a few primary threads. The 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core provide fast access to frequently used data.

The CPU's benchmark results show it performs well in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 scores of 2,200.5 single-core and 18,911 multi-core indicate strong overall performance, while the PassMark single-thread score of 4,280 and multithread score of 36,811 confirm this capability. However, the CPU's 25 W TDP is notably low for a processor with these specifications, suggesting it may be thermally constrained in sustained workloads, which could explain some of the performance patterns observed in Control.

The CPU's 88th percentile ranking and its position among rivals with very similar average scores suggest it's a capable but not exceptional gaming processor. The tight deltaPct values (all within ±0.5%) indicate that CPU choice within this performance tier has minimal impact on overall system performance. However, the 563rd combo rank out of 2,888 suggests that the CPU is not fully complementing the RTX 5090 in Control, likely because the game's engine doesn't scale well beyond a certain number of cores or threads.

Resolution Scaling

The performance scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals important information about where the bottleneck lies in this system. At High settings, the frame rate drops from 128 FPS at 1080p to 97 FPS at 1440p to 65 FPS at 4K. This represents a 49.2% reduction from 1080p to 4K, which is less than the 75% reduction in pixel count would suggest. This indicates that the system is not purely GPU-limited at lower resolutions, as a fully GPU-bound scenario would show more dramatic scaling.

The scaling pattern differs notably across settings presets. At Low settings, the drop from 203 FPS at 1080p to 103 FPS at 4K represents a 49.3% reduction, while at Ultra settings, the drop from 111 FPS to 57 FPS represents a 48.6% reduction. The consistency of these percentages across presets suggests that the bottleneck shifts in a predictable manner as resolution increases. At 1080p, the CPU is likely the primary limiter, as evidenced by the relatively small difference between Medium (144 FPS) and High (128 FPS) settings, which would be more pronounced if the GPU were the limiting factor.

The data implies that the RTX 5090 has substantial headroom at 1080p that the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H cannot fully utilize. The 203 FPS at Low settings represents the CPU's maximum frame output in this title, but the GPU is capable of far more. As resolution increases to 1440p and 4K, the GPU becomes increasingly dominant in determining performance, which is why the frame rates remain relatively high even at Ultra settings. This suggests that players with high-refresh-rate 1080p monitors would benefit from a stronger CPU, while those gaming at 4K are getting near-maximal performance from this GPU.