Control

Control, Remedy’s 2019 action-adventure, presents a fascinating stress test for a pairing that seems deliberately mismatched: a 14-core mobile processor paired with NVIDIA’s flagship desktop GPU. The benchmark data reveals a system where the GPU is clearly the dominant force, yet the CPU’s architecture imposes a curious ceiling at lower resolutions. This analysis breaks down the measured frames, the ranking of this specific combo, and what the numbers suggest about the limiting factors in this particular title.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is a Meteor Lake mobile chip, built on Intel’s 7 nm process. It packs 14 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost of 4.50 GHz. This is a mobile part with a 28 W TDP, designed for efficiency as much as performance. In the synthetic benchmark landscape, it sits at the 79th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27,507. Its nearest rivals in raw compute are the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (27,535, a -0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i5-12600K (27,578, a -0.3% delta), putting it in the same performance tier as those desktop parts despite its mobile pedigree.

In Control, the CPU's role is less about raw throughput and more about maintaining a consistent frame pipeline. The game is known for its physics-heavy environments and complex particle effects, which can tax the processor. The data suggests that at 1080p, this CPU is just barely keeping pace with the GPU’s output. The difference between 1080p Low (194 FPS) and 1440p Low (147 FPS) is a stark 47 FPS drop. This indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is likely hitting its limit, unable to feed frames to the RTX 4090 fast enough. The 4.50 GHz boost clock is adequate, but the 18 threads are not being fully utilized in a way that scales with resolution; instead, the bottleneck shifts from the CPU to the GPU as resolution increases.

The cache hierarchy—112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 18 MB of L3—is sufficient for a game like Control, but it doesn't provide the extra headroom that a higher-end desktop part might. The data implies that while the CPU is capable of high frame rates, it is the limiting factor at 1080p, preventing the GPU from achieving its full potential. The benchmark results indicate a classic imbalance: a strong GPU paired with a mid-range mobile CPU will be held back at lower resolutions where draw calls and physics calculations dominate.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combined performance of this Intel Core Ultra 5 125H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 configuration ranks 612th out of 2,888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the top 21% of all system pairings tested, which is a strong showing but not a top-tier result. Given that the RTX 4090 is an end-of-life flagship with a 88th percentile ranking among all GPUs, the combo ranking is dragged down by the CPU’s relative position. The CPU’s 79th percentile rank is respectable, but it’s not in the same league as the GPU’s 88th percentile.

This discrepancy is the key story. A higher-ranking combo would likely feature a desktop-class CPU with a higher boost clock and more robust multi-core performance. The data shows that this mobile CPU, while competitive with desktop parts like the Ryzen 7 5800 in synthetic tests, does not translate that performance into a top-tier gaming result when paired with the absolute fastest consumer GPU available. The 612th rank out of 2,888 suggests that there are many other CPU-GPU pairings that can achieve better frame rates in Control, likely due to a more balanced configuration. The gap between the CPU’s percentile (79) and the GPU’s percentile (88) is a clear indicator of the bottleneck we see in the measured FPS.

The nearest rivals for the CPU in synthetic tests are desktop chips, but in a real-world gaming scenario, the mobile power envelope and thermal constraints may prevent it from sustaining the high clocks needed to keep up with the RTX 4090. The combo rank is a holistic metric, and it clearly penalizes the mismatch. It’s a reminder that even the best GPU can be hamstrung by a processor that cannot feed it data quickly enough, especially in a game that responds well to single-threaded performance.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling data is the most revealing aspect of this benchmark. Looking at the High preset, the average FPS drops from 122 at 1080p to 93 at 1440p, a 24% decrease, and then to 62 at 4K, a further 33% decrease from 1440p. This steep decline as resolution increases is a textbook sign of a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. The RTX 4090 is working harder to render more pixels, and the frame rate scales accordingly.

However, the story changes at the Low preset. Here, the FPS drops from 194 at 1080p to 147 at 1440p (a 24% decrease) and then to 99 at 4K (a 33% decrease from 1440p). While the percentage drops are similar, the absolute numbers are much higher. The 1080p Low result of 194 FPS is suspiciously close to what you might expect from a CPU limit. If the GPU were the only limiting factor, you would expect the 1080p Low score to be significantly higher, perhaps near the 200 FPS mark, given the RTX 4090’s power. The fact that it’s at 194 FPS suggests the CPU is capping the frame rate.

The data implies a dual-phase bottleneck. At 1080p, the CPU is the primary limiter, preventing the GPU from showing its true strength. At 4K, the GPU becomes the clear limiter, as the pixel throughput demand outpaces the CPU’s frame generation capability. The Medium preset shows a similar pattern, with FPS dropping from 138 at 1080p to 104 at 1440p and 70 at 4K. The scaling is consistent across presets, but the absolute values at 1080p are lower than what a top-tier desktop CPU might achieve, confirming the mobile chip’s influence.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 3840x2160 (4K), the RTX 4090 is clearly the star. On the High preset, the average FPS is 62, which is playable but not the high refresh rate that this GPU is capable of in less demanding titles. The Low preset pushes this to 99 FPS, a significant jump. The Medium preset averages 70 FPS, with a minimum of 60 and a maximum of 81, showing some frame time variance. The Ultra preset brings the average down to 54 FPS, which is the most demanding setting and yields the lowest result.

Moving to 2560x1440 (1440p), the performance scales up. The High preset averages 93 FPS, which is a solid experience. The Low preset hits 147 FPS, offering a very smooth experience. The Medium preset averages 104 FPS, with a min of 89 and a max of 120. The Ultra preset averages 80 FPS. This resolution seems to be the sweet spot for balancing visual fidelity and frame rate, as the GPU is still the primary driver, but the CPU is not as heavily taxed as at 1080p.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the CPU bottleneck becomes evident. The Low preset averages 194 FPS, which is exceptionally high but likely CPU-limited. The High preset averages 122 FPS. The Medium preset averages 138 FPS, with a minimum of 117 and a maximum of 158 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 106 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is 56 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High is 16 FPS, and from High to Ultra is another 16 FPS. The data shows that the CPU can push high frame rates, but it cannot push them high enough to fully saturate the RTX 4090’s potential at this resolution. The 194 FPS on Low is impressive, but it’s still a far cry from what a desktop i9 or Ryzen 9 might achieve with this GPU, which would likely be well over 250 FPS.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is a behemoth. Built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with a 5 nm process, it features 16,384 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 176 ROPs. It has 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, providing a massive 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 2235 MHz, with a boost clock of 2520 MHz, and the memory runs at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective). This hardware is designed for 4K gaming at maximum settings, and the benchmark data shows it doing exactly that, albeit with some CPU-induced limitations.

In Control, the GPU’s role is to render the game’s complex lighting and particle effects. The RTX 4090’s 128 RT cores and 512 tensor cores are particularly relevant here, as Control supports ray tracing and DLSS. The measured FPS data, however, does not specify whether ray tracing is enabled. The numbers we see are likely without ray tracing, as even the Ultra preset at 4K only averages 54 FPS, which is low for this GPU but could indicate ray tracing is on, or it could be a CPU bottleneck at lower resolutions.

The GPU’s 88th percentile rank and average benchmark score of 60,347 put it in the top tier. Its nearest rivals in the synthetic suite are the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, a 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (61,896, a -2.5% delta). These are professional workstation cards, which highlights the RTX 4090’s gaming focus. In the measured FPS, the GPU is clearly the dominant component at 4K, as the frame rates scale predictably with settings. The 24 GB of VRAM is more than enough for Control, which is unlikely to exceed even 8 GB at 4K Ultra. The GPU’s high pixel rate of 443.5 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1,290.2 GTexel/s ensure it can handle the game’s visuals without issue.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H holding back the RTX 4090 in Control?

A: Yes, the data suggests a CPU bottleneck at 1080p. The 1080p Low preset averages 194 FPS, which is high, but it is likely the CPU reaching its limit, as the RTX 4090 is capable of much higher frame rates in less demanding scenarios. The bottleneck lessens as resolution increases.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo based on the measured FPS?

A: 1440p appears to be the sweet spot. The High preset averages 93 FPS at 1440p, which is a great balance of visual quality and smoothness. At 4K, the Ultra preset averages 54 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for high refresh rate monitors.

Q: How does this combo rank against all other tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 612th out of 2,888 tested combinations in Control. This places it in the top 21% of all tested systems, but it is not a top-tier result due to the CPU’s relative weakness compared to the GPU.

Q: What is the difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 99 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 54 FPS. This is a difference of 45 FPS, showing the significant performance cost of the Ultra settings.

Q: Does the CPU’s synthetic benchmark score match its in-game performance?

A: Not exactly. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 27,507 puts it on par with the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 and Intel Core i5-12600K. However, in-game, the mobile chip may not sustain its boost clock as well as those desktop parts, leading to a more significant bottleneck in Control.

Q: Is the RTX 4090 the main limiting factor at 4K?

A: Yes, at 3840x2160, the GPU is the primary limiting factor. The frame rates scale down as settings increase, which is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance. The CPU is less of a factor at this resolution because the GPU is working much harder to render the higher pixel count.

Settings Recommendations

Given the data, the best experience for this combo is at 1440p with the High preset. This yields an average of 93 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay and looks significantly better than the Low preset. The Medium preset at 1440p offers 104 FPS, which is smoother, but the visual jump from Medium to High is usually more noticeable than from High to Ultra. The Ultra preset at 1440p drops to 80 FPS, which is still playable, but the performance cost may not justify the marginal visual improvement.

At 4K, the High preset (62 FPS) is the recommended choice for a playable experience. The Ultra preset drops to 54 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target and may introduce noticeable stutter. The Medium preset at 4K (70 FPS) is also a good option if you want a slightly higher frame rate, but High offers a better balance of visual fidelity and performance. At 1080p, the High preset (122 FPS) is recommended for high refresh rate monitors, as the Low preset (194 FPS) is CPU-limited and the visual quality is poor. The Ultra preset at 1080p (106 FPS) is also viable, but it doesn't offer a significant advantage over High in terms of smoothness to justify the potential visual noise. For the best overall experience, the data points to 1440p High as the optimal balance of frame rate and image quality.