Control

Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title, demonstrates a clear performance hierarchy with the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H and AMD Radeon RX 7900M combination. The data indicates that this combo delivers a playable experience across all tested settings, with performance scaling predictably from 1080p to 4K. The benchmark results show a system that is firmly GPU-bound at higher resolutions, while the CPU's capabilities become more relevant at 1080p where frame rates exceed 150 FPS.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a significant drop in performance as resolution increases, which is typical for a graphically intensive title. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 158 FPS at 1920x1080 to 120 FPS at 2560x1440, and finally to 81 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the AMD Radeon RX 7900M is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions. The transition from 1440p to 4K is particularly steep, with a 39 FPS loss, suggesting that the GPU's 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 256-bit bus are being saturated by the 4K frame buffer.

At Medium settings, the scaling pattern is similar but with slightly different magnitudes. The average FPS drops from 112 at 1080p to 85 at 1440p, then to 57 at 4K. This represents a 49% drop from 1080p to 4K, consistent with the Low settings trend. The High settings row shows a more moderate decline: 100 FPS at 1080p, 76 FPS at 1440p, and 51 FPS at 4K, a 49% reduction overall. Ultra settings exhibit the same proportional scaling, with 87 FPS at 1080p, 66 FPS at 1440p, and 44 FPS at 4K, again a 49% drop.

The consistent 49% performance penalty from 1080p to 4K across all settings strongly indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck. The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H, with its 14 cores and 18 threads, does not appear to constrain performance even at lower resolutions. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see a smaller performance gap between 1440p and 4K, as the GPU load would dominate the frame time. Instead, the linear scaling suggests the RX 7900M's raw throughput, rated at 38.52 TFLOPS FP32, is the determining factor.

The measured data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low (158 FPS) and Ultra (87 FPS) is 71 FPS. At 1440p, this gap narrows to 54 FPS (120 vs 66), and at 4K it further narrows to 37 FPS (81 vs 44). This is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance: as resolution increases, the cost of each pixel dominates, and the relative impact of quality settings diminishes. The 4K Ultra result of 44 FPS is below the 60 FPS target, but the 4K High result of 51 FPS and 4K Medium of 57 FPS are closer to playable thresholds.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is a Meteor Lake mobile processor with 14 cores and 18 threads, featuring a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. Its benchmark scores place it in the 79th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27507. This positions it competitively against desktop-class processors like the AMD Ryzen 7 5800, which scores 27535, a delta of -0.1%, and the Intel Core i5-12600K at 27578, a delta of -0.3%. The CPU's single-thread performance is also notable, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1647.5, which is sufficient for gaming workloads that rely on a few fast cores.

In Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. The game is known for its physics-heavy environmental interactions, which can stress the CPU. However, the measured FPS data shows that the Core Ultra 5 125H is not a bottleneck in this combo. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 158 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS target and suggests the CPU can handle the game's single-threaded demands at high frame rates. The 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth provide adequate data throughput for the GPU.

The multi-threaded performance of the Core Ultra 5 125H is less critical for this title, as Control is not primarily a multi-threaded benchmark. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12804.5 indicates strong all-core performance, but the game's engine likely uses only a few threads for its core simulation. The PassMark multithread score of 21100 further confirms the CPU's capability, but these resources are underutilized in Control at higher resolutions where the GPU is the clear bottleneck. The data suggests that at 4K, even a significantly weaker CPU would produce similar frame rates, as the RX 7900M's rendering pipeline is the limiting factor.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H and AMD Radeon RX 7900M ranks 1192 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places the combo in the 59th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning it outperforms 59% of the combinations in the database. This ranking is respectable but not top-tier, reflecting the balance between a high-end mobile GPU and a mid-range mobile CPU.

The GPU alone is a strong performer, ranking in the 94th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 97487. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro VII (score 97131, delta 0.4%), NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (score 101872, delta -4.3%), and AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (score 92466, delta 5.4%). The RX 7900M is 4.3% slower than the Quadro RTX 6000 but 5.4% faster than the Instinct MI60, showing it sits in a competitive mid-to-high range of GPU performance.

The CPU's ranking in the 79th percentile is lower than the GPU's 94th percentile, which explains why the combo's overall rank (59th percentile) is lower than either component's individual percentile. The Core Ultra 5 125H, while respectable, is not the strongest CPU in the database. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.5% of its average score, indicating a tight cluster of mid-range performance. In Control, this CPU-GPU pairing works well because the game is GPU-bound at most settings, but the combo would likely rank higher in a CPU-intensive title where the Core Ultra 5 125H's 14 cores could be fully utilized.

The rank of 1192 out of 2888 means there are 1696 combos that perform worse and 1191 that perform better in this specific game. This is a solid result for a mobile platform, especially considering the RX 7900M is a flagship mobile GPU. The data suggests that pairing this GPU with a higher-end desktop CPU would yield a better rank, but the current combo is well-balanced for 1440p gaming, where the measured FPS ranges from 66 to 120 depending on settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the combo's performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers high frame rates across the board. The Low preset achieves an average of 158 FPS, which is excellent for competitive play. Medium settings yield 112 FPS with a minimum of 96 FPS and a maximum of 129 FPS, providing a smooth experience with some visual enhancements. High settings reduce the average to 100 FPS, while Ultra drops to 87 FPS, still comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains strong but shows the GPU's increasing load. Low settings produce 120 FPS, which is still very playable. Medium settings average 85 FPS with a minimum of 72 FPS and a maximum of 98 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay with only occasional dips. High settings average 76 FPS, while Ultra drops to 66 FPS. The 1440p Ultra result is notable as it stays above 60 FPS, making it a viable option for high-refresh-rate monitors.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck. Low settings average 81 FPS, which is still playable but represents a significant drop from 1080p. Medium settings average 57 FPS with a minimum of 49 FPS and a maximum of 66 FPS, placing it right at the edge of playability. High settings average 51 FPS, while Ultra drops to 44 FPS. The 4K results show that this combo is best suited for 1440p gaming, as the 4K experience requires sacrificing visual quality to maintain acceptable frame rates.

The minimum FPS data, available only for Medium settings, shows the frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the minimum of 96 FPS is 14% below the average, indicating some frame pacing issues but nothing severe. At 1440p Medium, the minimum of 72 FPS is 15% below the average, and at 4K Medium, the minimum of 49 FPS is 14% below the average. The consistency across resolutions suggests that the frame drops are more related to game load rather than a systematic bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control?

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 is the sweet spot. At Medium settings, it delivers 85 FPS average with a minimum of 72 FPS, which is smooth. At 4K, even Medium settings drop to 57 FPS average, which is below the ideal 60 FPS target.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Control?

A: Yes, but with compromises. At 4K Low, it achieves 81 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it averages 57 FPS. However, at 4K High and Ultra, the frame rates drop to 51 FPS and 44 FPS respectively, which may be less desirable for fast-paced action.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125H scores 27507 in average benchmarks, which is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (27535, -0.1%) and Intel Core i5-12600K (27578, -0.3%). It is 0.5% faster than the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G (27382).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data shows the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. The FPS drops by 49% from 1080p to 4K across all settings, which is a clear sign of GPU-bound performance. The CPU's 14 cores and 18 threads are sufficient to keep up with the GPU's demands.

Q: What is the ranking of this combo among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 1192 out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the 59th percentile. The GPU alone ranks in the 94th percentile, while the CPU ranks in the 79th percentile, showing the combo is limited by the CPU's mid-range performance.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings achieve 158 FPS, while Ultra settings achieve 87 FPS. This represents a 71 FPS difference, or a 45% reduction in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1920x1080, all presets deliver playable performance, but the High preset at 100 FPS offers the best balance between visual quality and speed. The Ultra preset at 87 FPS is also viable, providing the highest visual fidelity without dropping below 60 FPS. For competitive play where frame rate is paramount, the Low preset at 158 FPS would be the recommended choice.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 85 FPS is the recommended starting point, as it provides a smooth experience with a minimum of 72 FPS. The High preset at 76 FPS is also acceptable, but the Ultra preset at 66 FPS is at the edge of the ideal 60 FPS threshold. For users with high-refresh-rate 1440p monitors, the Low preset at 120 FPS would be the best option to maximize frame rates.

For 3840x2160, the data suggests that the Medium preset at 57 FPS is the highest quality setting that remains near playable, though the minimum of 49 FPS may cause noticeable stutters. The Low preset at 81 FPS is the most reliable option for 4K, providing a smooth experience with reduced visual fidelity. The High and Ultra presets at 51 FPS and 44 FPS respectively are not recommended, as they fall below the 60 FPS threshold and may result in a less responsive experience.

In summary, the best experience per the measured rows is the High preset at 1440p, which delivers 76 FPS average with no major dips. For 1080p, the High preset at 100 FPS offers a strong balance, while for 4K, the Low preset at 81 FPS is the only option that consistently maintains high frame rates. The Medium preset at 1440p (85 FPS) and Medium at 1080p (112 FPS) are also excellent choices, providing a middle ground between visual quality and performance.