Control

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H paired with the AMD Radeon 890M is a mobile combo aimed at balancing CPU throughput with integrated graphics. In Control, this pairing lands at a rank of 2728 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the lower quartile of systems for this specific title. The benchmark data shows a configuration that can handle the game at 1080p with adjusted settings, but it struggles significantly at higher resolutions. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, the role of each component, and the practical settings for playable frame rates.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution to play Control with this hardware?*

A: 1920x1080 is the only viable resolution for a consistently playable experience. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 58, which is near the ideal 60 FPS target. At 1440p, the highest average FPS is 44 on Low settings, which is playable but less smooth, and at 4K, even Low settings only yield 30 FPS.

*Q: Can this setup run Control at 4K?*

A: Technically yes, but not at a playable frame rate. The best 4K result is 30 FPS on Low settings. Medium settings drop to 21 FPS, High to 19 FPS, and Ultra to 16 FPS. These frame rates are below the threshold for smooth, responsive gameplay.

Q: How much of a performance difference is there between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: The difference is significant. At 1080p, Low settings produce an average of 58 FPS, while Ultra settings produce an average of 32 FPS. This represents a 26 FPS drop, or about a 45% reduction in average frame rate, for the visual fidelity increase.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125H is statistically tied with its nearest rivals. Its average benchmark score is 27507, which is within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (27535) and Intel Core i5-12600K (27578). It is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G (27382).

Q: What is the GPU's performance class based on its benchmark scores?

A: The Radeon 890M's average benchmark score is 9210, placing it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 8, which scores 9221, a difference of only -0.1%. It is also comparable to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960.

Q: Does the game rely more on the CPU or GPU in this configuration?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the limiting factor. The Radeon 890M's performance relative to its rivals is modest, and the frame rates drop drastically as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, which is a classic sign of GPU-bound rendering. The CPU has sufficient multi-core headroom, as evidenced by its 18 threads.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. It also features 16 ray tracing cores. The memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning its bandwidth and size are dependent on the system's main memory, which is a crucial factor for its performance.

The GPU's raw compute capability is listed at 5.939 TFLOPS for FP32 operations. Its benchmark scores show a mixed picture. In synthetic tests, it scores 8076 in Passmark G3D and 4157 in Passmark GPU Compute. More modern API tests show a score of 590 in 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12) and 40808 in Geekbench Vulkan. These scores place the GPU in the 45th percentile of all GPUs, indicating it is a mid-to-low tier performer.

In Control, the GPU's role is paramount. The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: as the graphical load increases (via resolution or settings), the frame rate falls. At 1080p Low, the GPU delivers 58 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it can only manage 16 FPS. This steep decline confirms that the 890M's compute and memory bandwidth are the primary bottlenecks. The shared memory architecture means the GPU is competing with the CPU for bandwidth, which can further impact performance in demanding scenes. The GPU's 32 ROPs are sufficient for 1080p but become a limiting factor for pixel fill rate at higher resolutions like 1440p and 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and clearly illustrates the GPU's limitations. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 58 FPS at 1080p to 44 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 30 FPS at 4K. This is a 48% reduction in performance from 1080p to 4K. The scaling is similarly steep for other settings. With High settings, the average FPS goes from 37 at 1080p to 28 at 1440p and 19 at 4K.

This pattern indicates a fully GPU-bound scenario. The CPU, with its 14 cores and 18 threads, is not the limiting factor here. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU's workload does not change significantly with resolution. Instead, the frame rate declines almost proportionally with the increase in pixel count. For example, 4K has roughly four times the pixels of 1080p, and we see about a 50% drop in FPS at Low settings, which aligns with the GPU running out of fill rate and memory bandwidth.

The scaling between 1080p and 1440p also shows a clear trend. At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 41 to 31, a 10 FPS difference. At 4K Medium, it drops to 21 FPS. The data suggests that this iGPU is only suitable for 1080p gaming. The step up to 1440p immediately compromises the smoothness of the experience, and 4K is not a viable target for anything other than turning the settings down to their absolute minimum.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the performance range is the widest and most usable. The Low preset yields an average of 58 FPS, which is close to the standard 60 FPS target. The High preset provides an average of 37 FPS, a significant step down. The Medium preset averages 41 FPS, with a minimum of 35 and a maximum of 47 FPS, making it a more stable option than High. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, dropping the average to 32 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the playability diminishes. The Low preset is the only one that remains above 40 FPS, averaging 44 FPS. The Medium preset averages 31 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36 FPS. The High preset drops to an average of 28 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls to 24 FPS. None of these 1440p options provide a consistently smooth experience, as even the fastest average is below 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the performance is marginal. The Low preset is the only one that reaches an average of 30 FPS, which is on the edge of playability for a slow-paced game. The Medium preset averages 21 FPS, with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 24 FPS. The High preset averages 19 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 16 FPS. These frame rates are too low for a responsive action-adventure game, making 4K impractical for this hardware.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is a 14-core, 18-thread processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The CPU has a 18 MB shared L3 cache and supports dual-channel DDR5 memory. Its TDP is rated at 28 W, which is typical for a mobile processor. Its integrated graphics are the Arc Xe-LPG 96EU, though the dedicated Radeon 890M is the primary graphics solution in this test.

The CPU's benchmark scores are solid for a mobile part. It scores 12804.5 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1647.5 in single-core. In Passmark, it scores 21100 in multi-thread and 3399 in single-thread. These scores place it in the 79th percentile of all CPUs, which is a strong result. Its average benchmark score is 27507, making it virtually identical in performance to desktop parts like the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 and Intel Core i5-12600K, showing it has substantial processing power.

In Control, the CPU role appears to be secondary. The game is not heavily CPU-bound in this configuration, as evidenced by the resolution scaling. The CPU's 18 threads are more than enough to handle the game's logic and physics. The bottleneck is clearly the GPU. However, the CPU's strong single-thread performance, as shown by its 1647.5 Cinebench R23 score, is still important for maintaining consistent frame times and avoiding stutters, even if the overall FPS is limited by the GPU. The data indicates the CPU has enough headroom to avoid being the limiting factor.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS, the optimal settings for this hardware are at 1080p. The Low preset is the only configuration that approaches a standard 60 FPS experience, with an average of 58 FPS. This is the recommended starting point for a smooth experience. If you prefer higher visual fidelity over raw frame rate, the Medium preset is the best alternative, offering an average of 41 FPS with a minimum of 35 FPS. This provides a noticeable visual upgrade over Low while maintaining a frame rate that is still playable, though it will feel less fluid.

The High preset at 1080p is not recommended, as it averages 37 FPS, which is a significant compromise on smoothness for a relatively small visual gain over Medium. The Ultra preset should be avoided entirely, as it drops to an average of 32 FPS, which is too low for a game that requires quick reactions.

At 1440p, the Low preset is the only option that is arguably playable, with an average of 44 FPS. However, given the drop in resolution and the modest frame rate, most users would be better served by playing at 1080p with higher settings. For example, 1080p Medium (41 FPS) offers a better experience than 1440p Low (44 FPS) due to the higher graphical settings and more stable frame pacing. 4K is not a practical option for this game with this hardware. The data shows that the best experience is achieved by prioritizing resolution and settings together, with 1080p Medium striking the best balance between visual quality and playability.