Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K paired with the Intel Arc B580 is a mid-pack combination for running Control, ranking 2816 out of 3720 tested combos. This places it in the 76th percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly a quarter of the hardware pairings in the database deliver higher frame rates in this title. The combo’s position reflects a balanced pairing where the CPU’s strong synthetic benchmark scores (94th percentile among all CPUs) are tempered by the GPU’s more modest standing (68th percentile among all GPUs). The data shows that while this system can run Control at playable speeds, it will not be a high-refresh-rate powerhouse at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The 2816th rank out of 3720 combos places this configuration in the lower-middle segment of the database for Control specifically. To contextualize this rank, the GPU’s average benchmark score of 23021 is nearly identical to that of the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (23061, a delta of -0.2%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (23172, a delta of -0.7%). The Arc B580’s raw compute performance is strong enough to keep pace with older high-end cards, but its driver overhead and architectural quirks show up in real-world gaming scenarios like Control. The CPU side is far stronger: the Core Ultra 7 265K’s average benchmark score of 70879 is within 1% of the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70163, delta 1%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (69996, delta 1.3%), while trailing the Intel Xeon 6511P (71051) by just 0.2%. This means the processor is not the limiting factor at any resolution; the GPU will determine the experience.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves the 60 FPS threshold. The best-case scenario is Low settings with an average of 58 FPS, which is 2 FPS short of the playable mark. Medium drops to 41 FPS, High to 37 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 32 FPS. The verdict data confirms no playable settings exist at 4K for this combination.

At 2560x1440, two presets clear 60 FPS: Low at 86 FPS and Medium at 61 FPS. The best settings that maintain 60+ FPS is Medium, which delivers an average of 61 FPS with a minimum of 52 FPS and a maximum of 70 FPS. High falls to 54 FPS, and Ultra is unplayable at 47 FPS. For 1440p gaming, Medium is the sweet spot, offering a 19% performance cushion over the playable threshold while keeping visual quality respectable.

At 1920x1080, every preset is playable. Ultra runs at 62 FPS, High at 72 FPS, Medium at 81 FPS, and Low at 114 FPS. The best settings here are Ultra at 62 FPS, which just clears the threshold. However, the data suggests that High at 72 FPS provides a more comfortable margin if frame pacing is a concern, as the Ultra average is only 2 FPS above the 60 FPS line.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions reveals that the GPU is the dominant constraint for this combo. Dropping from 3840x2160 to 2560x1440 at Medium settings increases average FPS from 41 to 61, a 49% improvement. Further dropping to 1920x1080 at Medium yields 81 FPS, another 33% gain. This steep scaling with resolution is classic GPU-bound behavior — the Arc B580’s 13.67 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 456.0 GB/s memory bandwidth get progressively less stressed as pixel count decreases.

The CPU’s role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions where the GPU has spare capacity. At 1080p, the difference between Low (114 FPS) and Ultra (62 FPS) is 52 FPS, indicating that settings-based workload changes are still primarily GPU-side. However, the Core Ultra 7 265K’s 20 cores and 20 threads with a 5.50 GHz boost clock provide ample headroom for the game’s physics and AI systems, which are known to be demanding. The CPU’s 94th percentile ranking across all processors means it will not bottleneck even at 1080p Low where the B580 pushes 114 FPS.

At 4K, the GPU is severely overtaxed. The difference between Low (58 FPS) and Ultra (32 FPS) is 26 FPS, showing that even the lowest settings barely reach playable territory. The CPU’s performance is irrelevant here; the B580’s 80 ROPs and 2560 shading units are simply insufficient for Control’s particle-heavy combat at 2160p. The data shows a clear pattern: the GPU dictates frame rates at 4K and 1440p, while the CPU only becomes a potential factor at 1080p or below.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-14700KF (avg score 70163, delta 1%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (avg score 69996, delta 1.3%). Both of these processors would behave nearly identically to the Core Ultra 7 265K in Control, as their benchmark scores are within 1.3% of each other. The Intel Xeon 6511P (71051) and Xeon Platinum 8270 (71370) are also within 0.7% of the 265K’s score, but these are server-class parts with different platform requirements. For a gaming-oriented build, the i7-14700KF and Ryzen 7 9700F would be direct substitutes, offering the same headroom for the Arc B580.

On the GPU side, the nearest rivals are more heterogeneous. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (23061) is a much older card but scores nearly identically to the Arc B580, meaning it would produce similar frame rates in Control at the same settings. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (22895, delta 0.6%) is a closer modern comparison — it would match the B580’s performance within a few FPS. The RTX 3080 (23172, delta -0.7%) is interesting because it scores slightly higher on average, but the B580’s 12 GB of GDDR6 memory versus the RTX 3080’s memory configuration could alter results at 4K where VRAM capacity matters. The NVIDIA P106-100 (23249) is a mining-oriented card that is not a practical alternative for gaming.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured data shows a narrow range of playable-to-unplayable results. Low settings produce an average of 58 FPS (no min/max recorded). Medium averages 41 FPS with a minimum of 35 and maximum of 48. High averages 37 FPS. Ultra averages 32 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 26 FPS, indicating that at 4K, the game’s settings have a moderate impact on performance but none reach the 60 FPS target.

At 2560x1440, the results improve substantially. Low averages 86 FPS. Medium averages 61 FPS with a minimum of 52 and maximum of 70. High averages 54 FPS. Ultra averages 47 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 52 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold, meaning there will be occasional dips below playable levels even though the average clears it. This is worth noting for competitive play or scenes with heavy particle effects.

At 1920x1080, all presets are comfortably playable. Low averages 114 FPS. Medium averages 81 FPS with a minimum of 69 and maximum of 93. High averages 72 FPS. Ultra averages 62 FPS. The Ultra preset’s average is only 2 FPS above the threshold, so expect some scenes to drop below 60 FPS. Medium offers the best balance with a 69 FPS minimum that stays above the target.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control at 1080p and 1440p, but not at 4K. The verdict data confirms no playable settings exist at 3840x2160 — the best average is 58 FPS on Low, which misses the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440, Low and Medium are playable, with Medium being the recommended choice at 61 FPS average. At 1920x1080, all four presets clear 60 FPS, with Ultra being technically playable at 62 FPS. For a smoother 1080p experience, High at 72 FPS or Medium at 81 FPS are better choices if you prefer consistent frame rates over maximum visual fidelity.

The practical takeaway: this is a 1080p-centric gaming rig for Control. At 1440p, you are limited to Medium settings with occasional dips below 60 FPS. At 4K, the game is effectively unplayable regardless of settings. The GPU is the bottleneck at every resolution, so if you want higher frame rates, upgrading the Arc B580 would yield the largest improvement. The Core Ultra 7 265K has plenty of headroom left — it is only tapped out at 1080p Low where 114 FPS is achieved, suggesting the CPU could drive a much faster GPU without becoming a limiting factor.