Control

# Control with Intel Core Ultra 5 125H + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060

This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 delivers a mid-table result in Control, ranking 1,894th out of 2,888 tested combos. That places it in the lower-middle tier of all system pairings for this game, which is notable given the hardware's specifications. The data shows a system that can handle the game at 1080p with excellent frame rates, but struggles to maintain smooth performance at 4K with higher presets. The measured results reveal a clear performance hierarchy across resolutions, with the gap between Low and Ultra settings expanding as pixel count increases.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1,894 out of 2,888 tested configurations places it in the 34th percentile overall. This means roughly two-thirds of all tested CPU-GPU pairings outperform this setup in Control. However, this ranking must be interpreted carefully — it reflects a mobile-class CPU paired with a mainstream desktop GPU, a combination that produces mixed results depending on the bottleneck at play.

The RTX 5060 alone sits in the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26,331. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 860M (delta -0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (delta -0.3%), and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (delta -0.8%). The RTX 5060 actually edges out the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT by 1.2% in average score. This suggests the GPU itself is a competent mid-range performer, capable of solid frame rates in most titles.

The CPU tells a different story. The Core Ultra 5 125H ranks in the 79th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27,507. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 5800, which scores 27,535 (delta -0.1%), making the two effectively identical in overall performance. The Intel Core i5-12600K and AMD Ryzen 7 5700X both score 27,578 (delta -0.3%), while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G scores 27,382 (delta +0.5%). The CPU is clearly not the limiting factor in this pairing — its multi-threaded performance is competitive with desktop processors from a previous generation.

The gap between the CPU's 79th percentile ranking and the combo's 34th percentile ranking suggests that Control's performance is heavily influenced by the GPU, particularly at higher resolutions. The RTX 5060's 8 GB of GDDR7 memory and 128-bit bus may become a constraint at 4K, where the measured frame rates drop significantly. The data implies that this combo is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming, where the CPU's strengths can be fully utilized.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1920x1080 as the strongest resolution, with average frame rates ranging from 66 FPS at Ultra to 121 FPS at Low. At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset delivers 50 FPS average, while at 3840x2160, even the Low preset only reaches 62 FPS average.

Q: How does the RTX 5060 compare to its closest GPU rivals?

A: The RTX 5060's average benchmark score of 26,331 places it essentially level with the AMD Radeon 860M (26,401, delta -0.3%) and NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26,421, delta -0.3%). It trails the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (26,553, delta -0.8%) but leads the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (26,011, delta +1.2%).

Q: Is the Core Ultra 5 125H a bottleneck in this pairing?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score of 27,507 places it within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (27,535), indicating strong multi-threaded performance. Given that the combo ranks much lower than either component individually, the GPU appears to be the primary constraint, especially at higher resolutions.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows 65 FPS average at 2560x1440 with Medium settings, with a minimum of 55 FPS and maximum of 75 FPS. This represents a playable experience for most action-adventure titles.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM on the RTX 5060 affect 4K performance?

A: The measured 4K results show significant frame rate drops, with the Ultra preset averaging only 34 FPS and High averaging 39 FPS. The Low preset manages 62 FPS, suggesting that memory or bandwidth constraints become apparent at this resolution, though the data does not explicitly isolate VRAM usage.

Q: How does the combo rank compared to other tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 1,894th out of 2,888 tested combos, placing it in the 34th percentile. This is notably lower than the individual component percentiles (72nd for GPU, 79th for CPU), indicating that the pairing is not optimally balanced for this specific game.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution increases. At 1080p, the combo delivers 121 FPS at Low settings and 66 FPS at Ultra, a range that accommodates both competitive and visually demanding play. Moving to 1440p, those numbers drop to 91 FPS at Low and 50 FPS at Ultra — a 25% reduction at Low and 24% at Ultra. The 4K results are more dramatic: 62 FPS at Low and 34 FPS at Ultra, representing a 49% drop from 1080p at Low and 48% at Ultra.

The scaling pattern suggests that the RTX 5060's 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 128-bit bus become increasingly strained as pixel count grows. The GPU's 19.18 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is sufficient for 1080p, but the 4K results indicate a fundamental bandwidth limitation. The CPU's role in this scaling is less clear — its 18 MB of L3 cache and 14 cores should handle the game's physics and logic at any resolution, so the frame rate drops are almost certainly GPU-bound.

The Medium settings row provides the most complete data, with min and max FPS recorded at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the range is 73-99 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it narrows to 55-75 FPS; at 4K Medium, it tightens further to 37-50 FPS. This compression of the frame time variance at higher resolutions is typical of a GPU hitting its memory or compute ceiling, where the GPU is consistently saturated rather than occasionally bottlenecked.

What the data implies is that this combo has a clear "sweet spot" at 1080p and a secondary viable zone at 1440p with lower presets. The 4K results are only playable at Low settings, and even then, the 62 FPS average is marginal for a game that benefits from smooth motion. The scaling curve is nearly linear — roughly 50% performance loss from 1080p to 4K at every preset — which indicates a balanced scaling behavior rather than a sudden collapse at any particular resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. The Low preset achieves 121 FPS average, while Medium reaches 86 FPS (min 73, max 99). High settings produce 76 FPS average, and Ultra drops to 66 FPS. The step between Low and Medium is 35 FPS (29% reduction), while the step from Medium to High is 10 FPS (12% reduction), and High to Ultra is another 10 FPS (13% reduction).

At 2560x1440, the performance hierarchy remains consistent but compressed. Low settings average 91 FPS, Medium averages 65 FPS (min 55, max 75), High averages 58 FPS, and Ultra averages 50 FPS. The percentage drops between presets are steeper here — Low to Medium is 26 FPS (29%), Medium to High is 7 FPS (11%), and High to Ultra is 8 FPS (14%). The absolute numbers suggest that 1440p Ultra is still playable at 50 FPS, though not ideal for fast-paced action.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 62 FPS, Medium averages 44 FPS (min 37, max 50), High averages 39 FPS, and Ultra averages 34 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 18 FPS (29%), Medium to High is 5 FPS (11%), and High to Ultra is 5 FPS (13%). These percentages mirror the 1080p and 1440p scaling, but the absolute values put every preset except Low below the 60 FPS threshold.

The complete dataset shows a consistent pattern: each preset step costs roughly 10-15% performance regardless of resolution, but the base performance at each resolution determines whether that cost is acceptable. The 1080p Low result of 121 FPS gives the combo headroom for High or Ultra settings, while the 4K Low result of 62 FPS leaves no margin for preset upgrades.

GPU Role

The RTX 5060's specifications offer a mixed picture for Control. The GPU features 3,840 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with 30 RT cores and 120 tensor cores. Its base clock of 2280 MHz and boost clock of 2497 MHz are respectable for a mid-range card. The 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest for 4K gaming but adequate for 1080p.

The GPU's benchmark results reinforce its mid-range positioning. Its PassMark G3D score of 20,891 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,628 indicate solid DirectX 12 performance, which is relevant for Control's modern rendering pipeline. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 112,787 and Vulkan score of 113,321 suggest consistent compute performance across APIs.

In Control's measured results, the GPU's role becomes evident in the scaling behavior. The 4K Ultra result of 34 FPS is likely constrained by the 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, as the game's texture-heavy environments require substantial memory throughput. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p at all presets, but at 4K, the combination of capacity and bandwidth limits the achievable frame rates.

The GPU's 72nd percentile ranking puts it slightly above average among all tested GPUs, but its nearest rivals are telling. The fact that it performs nearly identically to the AMD Radeon 860M (delta -0.3%) and NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (delta -0.3%) suggests that raw compute power — 19.18 TFLOPS FP32 — is not the differentiator. Instead, the memory subsystem and driver optimization likely determine real-world gaming performance.

The RTX 5060's 5 nm process node and 21,900 million transistors on a 181 mm² die represent a dense, efficient design. The 299.6 GTexel/s texture rate and 119.9 GPixel/s pixel rate provide adequate fill rates for 1080p and 1440p gaming. The data suggests that the GPU is well-matched to the CPU for this game at lower resolutions, but becomes the clear bottleneck at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H brings 14 cores and 18 threads to the pairing, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and boost clock of 4.50 GHz. Its 28W TDP indicates a mobile-focused design, but the benchmark results show desktop-class performance. The CPU's 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample capacity for game logic and physics calculations.

The CPU's benchmark scores are particularly strong in multi-threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12,804.5 and PassMark multi-thread score of 21,100 demonstrate robust parallel processing. The single-thread performance is also respectable, with Cinebench R23 single-core scoring 1,647.5 and PassMark single-thread scoring 3,399. The PassMark physics score of 1,439 suggests the CPU can handle game physics without becoming a bottleneck.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is likely secondary at higher resolutions but could be significant at 1080p. The game's action-adventure genre typically involves moderate CPU load for AI, physics, and world streaming. The CPU's 14 cores and 18 threads provide ample headroom for these tasks, and its 4.50 GHz boost clock ensures responsive single-thread performance.

The CPU's 79th percentile ranking among all CPUs, combined with its near-identical average score to the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (delta -0.1%), indicates that it is not the limiting factor in this combo. The data shows that at 1080p, the combo achieves 121 FPS at Low settings, which suggests the CPU can feed the GPU sufficiently even at high frame rates. The bottleneck shifts to the GPU as resolution increases, which is typical for a balanced system pairing.

The CPU's memory support for DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth provides adequate data throughput for most gaming scenarios. The 7 nm process node and Meteor Lake architecture represent Intel's latest mobile design, and the Arc Xe-LPG 96EU integrated graphics offer a fallback for non-gaming workloads, though the discrete GPU handles all gaming rendering.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the High preset at 76 FPS average offers the best balance of visual quality and smoothness, while Ultra at 66 FPS is still playable for those prioritizing image quality. The Medium preset at 86 FPS provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS with a minimum of 73 FPS, making it the safest choice for consistent performance.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 65 FPS average (min 55, max 75) is the recommended choice, as it keeps the minimum above the 54 FPS threshold that often triggers perceived stutter. The High preset at 58 FPS is acceptable but approaches the edge of playability, while Ultra at 50 FPS may cause noticeable frame pacing issues. For competitive play, Low at 91 FPS offers the highest refresh rate potential.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset at 62 FPS average is the only option that maintains consistent playability. The Medium preset at 44 FPS average (min 37, max 50) dips below comfortable thresholds, and High at 39 FPS or Ultra at 34 FPS are not recommended for action-adventure gameplay. The data suggests that 4K is only viable at Low settings for this combo, and users should consider 1440p for a better visual experience.

The Medium settings row provides the most complete frame time data across all resolutions, with min and max values recorded. At 1080p Medium, the 73-99 FPS range indicates stable performance with occasional dips. At 1440p Medium, the 55-75 FPS range shows more variance but remains playable. At 4K Medium, the 37-50 FPS range reveals significant frame time spikes that would be noticeable during gameplay.

For the best overall experience, the data recommends 1080p with High or Ultra settings, or 1440p with Medium settings. The 1080p High result of 76 FPS provides a 19% improvement over 1440p Medium's 65 FPS while offering similar visual quality. The 1440p Medium option is preferable for users with higher-resolution displays who prioritize sharpness over absolute frame rate. The 4K Low result of 62 FPS is technically playable but sacrifices significant visual fidelity compared to 1440p Medium, making it a less attractive option despite the resolution advantage.