Control

Control is an action-adventure title that leans hard on GPU resources, and the pairing of Intel's Core Ultra 5 245 with NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 5050 produces a clear, resolution-dependent performance picture in the measured data. The Core Ultra 5 245 sits in the 90th percentile of all tested CPUs with an average benchmark score of 48995, while the RTX 5050 occupies the 66th GPU percentile with an average benchmark score of 21035. That gap between a strong processor and a mid-tier graphics card shapes everything that follows: at 1920x1080 every preset clears the 60 FPS threshold, at 2560x1440 only the lower presets hold up, and at 3840x2160 the game is playable on Low alone.

FAQ

Q: Can the Core Ultra 5 245 and RTX 5050 run Control at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, at multiple resolutions — but not everywhere. At 1920x1080 all four presets (Low through Ultra) average at or above 60 FPS, with Ultra at 68 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low (94 FPS) and Medium (67 FPS) clear the bar, while High (59 FPS) and Ultra (52 FPS) fall short. At 3840x2160, only Low averages 63 FPS; Medium (45), High (40), and Ultra (35) do not.

Q: What is the fastest measured frame rate for this combo in Control?

A: 1920x1080 on Low, at 124 FPS average. The next fastest result is 1440p Low at 94 FPS.

Q: What processor is inside this build, and how strong is it?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is an Arrow Lake-S desktop chip on Intel Socket 1851, built on a 3 nm TSMC process, with 14 cores and 14 threads, a 3.50 GHz base clock, a 5.10 GHz boost clock, and a 65 W TDP. It posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and a single-core score of 4648, placing it in the 90th percentile versus all CPUs in the database.

Q: What graphics card is paired with it?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050, a Blackwell 2.0 architecture card on the GB207 chip, with 2560 shading units, 20 RT cores, 80 tensor cores, and 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivering 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth. It sits in the 66th percentile of all tested GPUs.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested pairings in Control?

A: It ranks 2296 out of 3720 tested combinations in this game — a lower-middle position that reflects the GPU's mid-tier standing rather than any CPU limitation.

Q: Where does the game become GPU-limited?

A: The data points to 2560x1440 and above. Average FPS drops from 88 at 1080p Medium to 67 at 1440p Medium and 45 at 4K Medium — a steep decline per step, while the CPU benchmark profile indicates ample headroom on the processor side.

CPU and GPU Roles

The workload distribution here is unambiguous: Control is GPU-bound on this configuration at every resolution tested. The evidence is in the scaling pattern. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on Medium drops the average from 88 to 67 FPS; moving again to 3840x2160 drops it to 45 FPS. On Low, the same progression reads 124, 94, and 63 FPS. If the CPU were the limiting factor, raising the resolution would produce far smaller declines, because the processor workload barely changes between pixel counts while the GPU workload multiplies. Instead, each resolution step costs roughly a quarter to a third of the frame rate.

The processor side of the equation shows no such strain. The Core Ultra 5 245 scores 4648 single-core and 32924 multi-core in Cinebench R23, with a PassMark single-thread score of 4394 and a physics score of 2569 — figures consistent with its 90th-percentile placement among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 and Intel Core i5-14600K, both within a fraction of a percent of its aggregate score. None of the measured frame rates suggest the CPU is holding the RTX 5050 back; even the highest measured average, 124 FPS at 1080p Low, is achievable within the processor's demonstrated capability.

Preset scaling tells the same story from the settings axis. At 1080p, going from Low to Ultra costs 56 FPS (124 to 68); at 4K, the same jump costs 28 FPS (63 to 35). Settings affecting GPU render load dominate the curve. The conclusion is straightforward: for this game on this hardware, the graphics card is the component that determines what is playable, and CPU-side considerations are effectively irrelevant within the tested range.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows a comfortable spread across all presets. Low averages 124 FPS. Medium averages 88 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 75 and a maximum of 101. High averages 78 FPS, and Ultra averages 68 FPS. Minimum and maximum figures are not recorded for the Low, High, and Ultra runs, but the Medium-run spread — a 26 FPS band between floor and ceiling — suggests frame delivery remains within playable tolerances when the average sits well above 60.

At 2560x1440, performance tightens. Low averages 94 FPS, Medium averages 67 FPS with a minimum of 57 and a maximum of 77, High averages 59 FPS, and Ultra averages 52 FPS. The Medium minimum of 57 dipping below 60 is worth noting: while the average clears the threshold, momentary drops below it occur, though they stay close to the line. High at 59 FPS misses the threshold by a single frame on average.

At 3840x2160, the RTX 5050's limits are on full display. Low averages 63 FPS — barely above the threshold. Medium averages 45 FPS with a minimum of 38 and a maximum of 52, meaning even peak frames stay below 60. High averages 40 FPS and Ultra 35 FPS. The Ultra-to-Low delta at this resolution is 28 FPS, which illustrates how much render load the higher presets add at 8.3 million pixels per frame.

Across the board, the Medium preset is the only configuration with minimum and maximum data recorded at each resolution, giving it the most complete picture: 75–101 at 1080p, 57–77 at 1440p, and 38–52 at 4K.

Similar Performance Alternatives

On the CPU side, the Core Ultra 5 245's aggregate score of 48995 places it among several near-equivalents. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G averages 49196 — 0.4% higher. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900 averages 49228, also 0.5% ahead. Below it sit the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H at 48698 (0.6% behind) and the Intel Core i5-14600K at 48618 (0.8% behind). All four are within a single percentage point of this chip's aggregate score, so any of them paired with the RTX 5050 would be expected to behave nearly identically in Control — particularly given that the game is GPU-bound on this configuration. Since the graphics card sets the frame-rate ceiling at every tested resolution, swapping in any of these processor rivals would leave the measured FPS figures effectively unchanged.

On the GPU side, the RTX 5050's average benchmark score of 21035 sits among: the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL at 21153 (-0.6%), the AMD Radeon HD 8970M at 21237 (-1%), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT at 20713 (1.6%), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile at 21379 (-1.6%). A build using any of these cards alongside the Core Ultra 5 245 — or any of the CPU rivals above — would land in the same performance band in Control: all presets playable at 1080p, Low and Medium playable at 1440p, and only Low viable at 4K.

Best Settings per Resolution

1920x1080 — Ultra, 68 FPS average. This is the strongest result in the dataset relative to the threshold: the most demanding preset available still clears 60 FPS with room to spare. Every preset at this resolution is playable, but Ultra at 68 FPS is the best-looking configuration that holds the line, and High at 78 FPS offers a wider margin for those who prioritize consistency.

2560x1440 — Medium, 67 FPS average. Low is faster at 94 FPS, but Medium is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. The recorded minimum of 57 FPS indicates occasional dips just under the threshold, so players sensitive to that may prefer Low. High at 59 FPS fails the bar on average and is not recommended.

3840x2160 — Low, 63 FPS average. Only one preset clears 60 FPS at 4K, and it does so by three frames. Medium at 45, High at 40, and Ultra at 35 FPS are all well below the threshold. 4K play on this hardware requires accepting the lowest visual preset, and even then the margin is thin.

The Verdict

Yes — this PC can run Control, with the caveats you would expect from a 66th-percentile GPU. At 1920x1080, the verdict is unqualified: all four presets from Low to Ultra average at or above 60 FPS, and the best setting is Ultra at 68 FPS. At 2560x1440, the verdict is conditional: Low and Medium are playable, Medium at 67 FPS is the best option, and High (59 FPS) and Ultra (52 FPS) fall short. At 3840x2160, the verdict is barely positive: Low at 63 FPS is the only playable setting, and every other preset averages 45 FPS or lower.

The practical summary: this combination is a 1080p machine for Control at maximum settings, a capable 1440p machine at medium settings, and a marginal 4K machine at best. The CPU is never the constraint — the Core Ultra 5 245's 90th-percentile benchmark standing means frame-rate decisions at every resolution belong entirely to the RTX 5050.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database's Control results, the Core Ultra 5 245 plus RTX 5050 ranks 2296 out of 3720 tested combinations. That places it below the midpoint — roughly the bottom two-fifths of pairings measured in this game. The position is consistent with the component percentiles: a 90th-percentile CPU cannot compensate for a 66th-percentile GPU in a title that scales almost entirely with graphics performance. The rank reflects the RTX 5050's standing rather than any weakness in the processor pairing, and it predicts exactly the resolution-dependent behavior the measured FPS data confirms — strong at 1080p, compromised at 1440p, and marginal at 4K.