Control

Can Intel Core Ultra 5 225 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 run Control? The data says yes, and decisively so at most resolutions. At 1080p and 1440p, the combination clears the 60 FPS threshold at every preset, with headroom to spare. At 4K, the picture narrows: only the Low preset averages above 60 FPS, while Medium and High hover below it. This is a system that comfortably handles the game at mainstream resolutions but requires compromises for 4K Ultra.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the CPU's nearestRivals, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 sits in a tight cluster of processors with nearly identical average benchmark scores. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F matches it almost exactly, with a deltaPct of 0. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D trails by just 0.2%, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 by 0.4%, and the Intel Core i9-12900T by 0.5%. These deltas are so small they fall within run-to-run variance, meaning any of these CPUs would produce essentially the same frame rates in Control. The Core Ultra 5 225's percentileVsAllCpus of 85 places it in the upper tier of all tested processors, but its immediate rivals show that this performance level is not unique — several alternatives deliver the same computational headroom.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070's nearestRivals paint an interesting picture. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is 0.7% ahead, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 and AMD Radeon HD 7970M are 1% and 1.1% ahead respectively. The NVIDIA Tesla K40c is 1.5% behind. These are ancient cards by comparison — the GTX 690 and HD 7970M are from a different era — yet their average benchmark scores land within 1.1% of the RTX 3070. This suggests the RTX 3070's passmark_g3d score of 22214 is respectable but not exceptional; its percentileVsAllGpus of 61 means it sits in the upper-middle range of all GPUs tested. For Control specifically, the RTX 3070's 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth provide enough throughput for the game's physics-heavy environments, but the 4K results show where its limits lie.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, delivering an average of 81 FPS. Medium falls short at 57 FPS average, and High dips to 51 FPS. Ultra is the worst at 44 FPS. The data shows that 4K is the breaking point for this combination: only the lowest quality settings keep the frame rate above the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves dramatically. Ultra runs at 66 FPS average, clearing the 60 FPS bar. High hits 76 FPS, Medium 85 FPS, and Low reaches 120 FPS. Every preset is playable, but Ultra is the best choice if visual fidelity is the priority, since it stays above the threshold while offering the highest quality.

At 1920x1080, Ultra averages 87 FPS, High 100 FPS, Medium 112 FPS, and Low 158 FPS. All presets are comfortably above 60 FPS, with even the most demanding settings leaving substantial headroom. For smooth gameplay at the highest quality, Ultra at 1080p is the recommended configuration.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with high settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average FPS is 51, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Only Low settings at 4K achieve an average of 81 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset at 1440p that stays above 60 FPS?

A: Ultra settings at 2560x1440 deliver an average of 66 FPS, making it the most demanding playable preset at that resolution. High (76 FPS), Medium (85 FPS), and Low (120 FPS) are also above the threshold.

Q: How much performance drops from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At Ultra settings, the average FPS falls from 87 at 1920x1080 to 66 at 2560x1440, then to 44 at 3840x2160. That is a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU appears to be the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The RTX 3070's percentileVsAllGpus of 61 is lower than the Core Ultra 5 225's percentileVsAllCpus of 85, and the frame rate drops disproportionately as resolution increases, which is typical of GPU-bound scenarios.

Q: Does the Medium preset at 1080p offer a meaningful improvement over Ultra?

A: Yes, but not by a huge margin. Medium averages 112 FPS versus Ultra's 87 FPS, a 29% increase. The minimum FPS at Medium is 96, so the lowest frames stay well above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does this combination rank among all tested combos for Control?

A: The combo ranks 1607 out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the 57th percentile of all tested systems.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: this PC can run Control, and it does so well at 1080p and 1440p. The verdictByResolution confirms that at 1920x1080, all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable, with Ultra averaging 87 FPS. At 2560x1440, all presets also clear 60 FPS, with Ultra at 66 FPS. The system's strong CPU — ranked in the 85th percentile — ensures that even the most demanding physics and AI calculations in Control's combat encounters do not drag the frame rate down.

The 4K results are the only area of concern. At 3840x2160, only Low is playable, averaging 81 FPS. Medium falls to 57 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold, and High and Ultra are worse at 51 FPS and 44 FPS respectively. For a 4K display, this system would require significant settings compromises — dropping to Low quality to maintain smooth gameplay. The RTX 3070's 8 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are simply not enough to handle Control's dense particle effects and destructible environments at 4K with higher presets. For most users on 1080p or 1440p monitors, this is a non-issue; the system delivers excellent performance across the board.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the frame rates are consistently high. Low averages 158 FPS, Medium 112 FPS with a minimum of 96 and maximum of 129, High 100 FPS, and Ultra 87 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 71 FPS, indicating that the GPU scales well with settings reductions. The minimum FPS at Medium (96) is still 60% above the playable threshold, suggesting stable performance even in demanding scenes.

At 2560x1440, the numbers remain strong. Low averages 120 FPS, Medium 85 FPS with a minimum of 72 and maximum of 98, High 76 FPS, and Ultra 66 FPS. The step from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 20-25% of the frame rate at each preset, which is expected given the higher pixel count. The Medium preset's minimum of 72 FPS shows that even the lowest frames stay comfortably above 60.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly. Low averages 81 FPS, Medium 57 FPS with a minimum of 49 and maximum of 66, High 51 FPS, and Ultra 44 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 49 FPS indicates noticeable dips below the playable threshold, which would manifest as stutter during intense combat or heavy particle effects. The jump from 1440p to 4K costs roughly 33-40% of the frame rate, a steeper drop than the 1080p to 1440p transition.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1607 out of 3720 places this system in the upper-middle tier of all tested combinations for Control. This means roughly 57% of tested systems outperform it, while 43% are slower. Given that the RTX 3070's percentileVsAllGpus is 61 and the Core Ultra 5 225's percentileVsAllCpus is 85, the combined rank makes sense: the CPU is strong, but the GPU pulls the overall performance down relative to systems pairing similar or better CPUs with faster graphics cards.

The rank also reflects the 4K weakness. Systems ranked above this combination likely include GPUs with more VRAM or higher bandwidth, which would handle Control's 4K demands better. At 1080p and 1440p, this combo's rank would be higher than 1607, but the 4K results drag down the overall standing. For a game like Control, where physics interactions and destructible environments drive GPU load, the RTX 3070's mid-pack GPU percentile is the limiting factor.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear pattern: the GPU is the dominant factor at higher resolutions, while the CPU's strong performance ensures it never becomes a bottleneck. The Core Ultra 5 225's 85th percentile CPU rank and scores like the cinebench_r23_multicore result of 25891 indicate substantial headroom for game logic and physics. Control's focus on environmental destruction and telekinetic combat creates heavy CPU load, and this processor handles it without issue.

Evidence for GPU dominance comes from the scaling across resolutions. At Ultra settings, the average FPS drops from 87 at 1080p to 66 at 1440p (a 24% reduction) and then to 44 at 4K (a 49% reduction from 1080p). This pattern is characteristic of GPU-bound rendering: as pixel count increases, the GPU's workload grows proportionally, while the CPU's workload stays roughly constant. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain similar across resolutions or drop less dramatically.

The settings scaling reinforces this. At 1440p, dropping from Ultra to Low increases the average FPS from 66 to 120, an 82% improvement. At 4K, the same settings change brings the frame rate from 44 to 81, an 84% improvement. This large sensitivity to graphics settings is a hallmark of GPU limitation. The CPU's role is enabling the high minimum FPS values — the Medium preset at 1440p has a minimum of 72 FPS, which indicates the processor can feed the GPU fast enough to prevent severe frame-time spikes even when the GPU is under load. For users aiming for 1080p or 1440p, this is a balanced pairing; for 4K, the GPU will need a future upgrade to unlock higher presets.