Control

Control is an action-adventure title from 2019 that stresses both computational physics and real-time rendering. The benchmark data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H paired with the AMD Radeon 880M integrated graphics provides a clear picture of an entry-level gaming experience. This analysis examines the measured frames per second (FPS) across resolutions and settings, the division of labor between the CPU and GPU, and the practical implications for players using this hardware configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H and AMD Radeon 880M achieves a rank of 2817 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places the system in the bottom 2.5% of all configurations tested for this specific game. The data indicates that this combo is positioned firmly at the entry level, with the vast majority of other tested systems delivering higher average frame rates.

This low ranking is not surprising given the components involved. The Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a performance percentile of 43 against all GPUs. In the context of Control, a game known for its demanding visual effects and destructible environments, this hardware struggles to maintain high frame rates. The rank of 2817 suggests that while the combo is not the absolute worst performer, it is far from the median experience, which would sit around rank 1444.

Benchmark results indicate that the system is functional for playing the game, but the experience is heavily constrained. The data shows that at no point does this combo achieve a 60 FPS average. The highest average FPS recorded across all tested settings and resolutions is 55 at 1080p with Low settings. This positions the hardware as capable of playable, albeit not smooth, frame rates only at the lowest graphical presets and resolutions. The ranking is a quantitative confirmation that users should have modest expectations for performance in this title.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is a mobile processor featuring 14 cores and 18 threads. Its base clock is 3.60 GHz with a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The processor is built on the Meteor Lake architecture using a 7 nm process node. For this game, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics calculations, and draw calls, while the integrated GPU handles the rendering.

In Control, the CPU's performance is sufficient to not be the primary bottleneck at the lower resolutions. The processor's Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 12804.5, and its single-core score is 1647.5. These scores are modest compared to desktop processors but are typical for a mobile chip in this class. The processor's percentile against all CPUs is 79, indicating it outperforms the majority of CPUs in general benchmarks.

However, in this specific gaming scenario, the data suggests the CPU can feed the GPU enough data at 1080p. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a significant drop, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation. For instance, at High settings, the average FPS drops from 35 at 1080p to 18 at 4K. If the CPU were the limiting factor, this drop would be less pronounced. The CPU's 18 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support (89.6 GB/s bandwidth) provide adequate bandwidth for the integrated GPU, but the GPU's own limits become apparent quickly. The CPU, with its 14 cores, is likely underutilized in Control, which may not scale perfectly across all cores, but its single-thread performance is sufficient for the game's engine at these low frame rates.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is the integrated graphics solution in this combo. It is based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture and is built on a 4 nm process node. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The GPU has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. It also includes 12 ray tracing cores, though the game's performance suggests ray tracing is not a viable option here.

The GPU's performance in Control is the primary limiting factor. Its Passmark G3D score is 7615, which places it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. This is a mid-to-low tier score for a modern integrated GPU. The GPU's FP32 performance is 4.454 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 46.40 GPixel/s. These specifications are adequate for light gaming, but Control is a demanding title. The shader count and memory bandwidth (which is system dependent) are insufficient for high-resolution, high-detail rendering.

The GPU's role is to render the game's complex environments, particle effects, and lighting. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU is overwhelmed at higher settings. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is 25 FPS (55 vs 30), demonstrating the GPU's sensitivity to graphical load. The memory type is "System Shared," meaning the GPU uses a portion of the system's DDR5 RAM. The bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s is shared with the CPU, which can cause contention and further limit performance in memory-intensive scenes. The GPU's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, have comparable average benchmark scores, but this does not translate to a smooth experience in Control at modern settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system achieves an average of 55 FPS on Low settings. This is the only configuration that approaches a playable 60 FPS. Moving to Medium settings drops the average to 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. High settings yield an average of 35 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to an average of 30 FPS.

At 2560x1440, performance decreases further. Low settings produce an average of 42 FPS. Medium settings average 30 FPS, with a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 34. High settings average 26 FPS, and Ultra settings average 23 FPS. None of these configurations provide a consistently smooth experience, as even the Low setting average is below 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system is largely unplayable. Low settings achieve an average of 28 FPS. Medium settings average 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 23. High settings average 18 FPS, and Ultra settings average just 15 FPS. The data shows a clear pattern: the combination of high resolution and high settings cripples the integrated GPU. The only scenario that could be considered "smooth" is 1080p Low, and even that is marginal. The frame time consistency, indicated by the min and max values, is also poor, suggesting stuttering in demanding scenes at Medium settings.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling of FPS from 1080p to 4K reveals the nature of the bottleneck in this system. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 55 at 1080p to 42 at 1440p and 28 at 4K. This is a reduction of approximately 24% from 1080p to 1440p and 49% from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the drop is from 35 to 26 to 18 FPS, a reduction of 26% and 49% respectively. The halving of performance from 1080p to 4K is a strong indicator that the GPU is the limiting component.

The pixel count increases by a factor of 2.25 from 1080p to 4K. The measured FPS drops by roughly half, which is less than the theoretical pixel count increase would suggest if the GPU were purely pixel-bound. This indicates that other factors, such as memory bandwidth and shading complexity, are also at play. The fact that the FPS does not drop by the full 2.25x suggests that the CPU may be providing some minor bottlenecking at 1080p, but the GPU becomes the overwhelming constraint as resolution increases. The scaling pattern is consistent with a system where the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are insufficient for higher resolutions. For a player, this means that lowering the resolution provides the most significant FPS gain, while lowering settings provides a secondary, but still important, improvement. The data shows that the system is more sensitive to resolution changes than to settings changes, which is typical for a GPU-limited scenario.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal playable experience for this combo is at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This configuration yields an average of 55 FPS, which is the closest to the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. While not a locked 60 FPS, it is the only preset that provides an average frame rate above the 30 FPS threshold often considered the minimum for playability. The Medium preset at 1080p drops the average to 39 FPS, which is still playable but with more noticeable frame pacing issues, as evidenced by the 33 FPS minimum.

For players who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, the 1080p Medium setting offers a balanced compromise. The average of 39 FPS is a significant improvement over the 30 FPS of the High setting, and the visual difference between Low and Medium is often more noticeable than between Medium and High. The Ultra preset at any resolution is not recommended, as it consistently produces average frame rates below 30 FPS, which can lead to a sluggish and unresponsive experience in a fast-paced action game.

At 1440p, only the Low setting (42 FPS) is marginally playable. The Medium setting at 1440p produces an average of 30 FPS, which is at the edge of playability. The data suggests that 1440p should be avoided unless the player is willing to accept significant compromises in visual fidelity. At 4K, all settings produce an average below 30 FPS, making this resolution unsuitable for gameplay with this hardware. The recommendation is clear: stick to 1080p, and use Low or Medium settings depending on the player's preference for smoothness versus visual quality. The measured data does not support any configuration that provides a consistent 60 FPS experience.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 60 FPS?

A: No. The highest measured average FPS is 55 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No configuration in the dataset achieves a 60 FPS average.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware?

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution that provides playable frame rates. At 2560x1440, the highest average is 42 FPS on Low, and at 3840x2160, all settings average below 30 FPS.

Q: How much does the Ultra preset cost in performance?

A: At 1080p, the Ultra preset averages 30 FPS, compared to 55 FPS on Low. This is a 25 FPS (or 45%) reduction in average frame rate.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. The FPS drops by roughly half from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the integrated Radeon 880M cannot handle the increased pixel load, while the CPU has sufficient headroom.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded?

A: The lowest minimum FPS recorded is 17 at 3840x2160 with Medium settings. Other configurations do not list a minimum FPS, but the averages suggest similar lows.

Q: How does this GPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Radeon 880M has an average benchmark score of 8436. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, has an average score of 8427, which is 0.1% lower. This indicates similar general performance, but the in-game results for Control remain low.