Control

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H paired with the AMD Radeon 760M is a mobile integrated-graphics combination aimed at thin-and-light laptops. In Control, this combo produces playable frame rates only at lower resolutions and settings, with the data clearly indicating that the GPU is the primary performance limiter. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, component roles, and provides actionable settings guidance based strictly on the benchmark data.

FAQ

*Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this combo in Control?*

A: The combo ranks 2878 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 0.3% of all tested systems for this game.

*Q: What is the best frame rate this combo can achieve in Control?*

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 40 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. All other settings and resolution combinations yield average frame rates below 30 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in general benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H has an average benchmark score of 29093. It performs nearly identically to the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, which scores 29123 (a -0.1% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT, which scores 28940 (a 0.5% delta).

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in general benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019. It is statistically tied with the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, +0.3% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, +0.3% delta), while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is 0.5% faster with a score of 6049.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the average frame rate drops from 40 FPS on Low settings to 22 FPS on Ultra settings, a reduction of 18 FPS or 45%.

Q: What is the difference in frame rate between 1080p and 4K at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the average frame rate drops from 29 FPS at 1920x1080 to 15 FPS at 3840x2160, representing a 48% reduction in performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The data places this combination at rank 2878 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This is a near-bottom ranking, indicating that the system is positioned in the lowest percentile of all tested hardware pairings for this specific title. The percentile rank for the CPU alone is 81, meaning it outperforms 81% of all CPUs in general benchmarks, but the combo's ranking is dragged down dramatically by the GPU, which sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs.

The delta between the CPU's strong general performance and the combo's poor in-game ranking highlights a severe bottleneck. The CPU is capable of feeding frames, but the integrated GPU cannot render them fast enough. This is a classic case of a processor that is several tiers above its graphics counterpart in general capability, resulting in a system that is fundamentally limited by its graphics solution in GPU-intensive tasks like Control. The combo's position near the bottom of the list (2878 out of 2888) suggests that in this game, the experience will be defined by the GPU's constraints rather than the CPU's potential.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H is a 14-core, 18-thread mobile processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 28 W TDP. Its general benchmark scores are respectable, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11875.5 and a single-core score of 1700. The Passmark multi-thread score is 22422, and the single-thread score is 3521. These figures place it in the 81st percentile of all CPUs.

For Control, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics, and draw calls. The benchmark data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this pairing. The measured FPS at 1080p Low is 40, which is a modest result, but the frame rate scaling across resolutions shows that the GPU is the primary constraint. For example, at Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 29 at 1080p to 22 at 1440p, a 24% reduction. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain more consistent as the resolution increases, because the CPU workload would stay roughly the same.

The CPU's high general benchmark percentile (81) compared to the combo's low in-game rank (near the bottom) further supports this conclusion. The Core Ultra 5 135H has ample headroom to process the game's data, but the Radeon 760M's rendering capabilities cap the overall output. The CPU's 18 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support contribute to its strong general scores, but they cannot compensate for the GPU's limitations in this graphics-heavy scene.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern of low performance across all settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the best result is 40 FPS on Low settings. This is the only configuration to break the 30 FPS threshold. The Medium preset yields an average of 29 FPS, with a minimum of 24 FPS and a maximum of 33 FPS. High settings produce 25 FPS, while Ultra drops to 22 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance falls further. Low settings average 30 FPS, making it the only playable option at this resolution. Medium averages 22 FPS (min 18, max 25), High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings average 21 FPS, Medium averages 15 FPS (min 12, max 17), High averages 13 FPS, and Ultra averages 11 FPS.

The data shows a clear linear relationship between settings and FPS. At each resolution, the drop from Low to Ultra is substantial. At 1080p, the drop is 18 FPS (from 40 to 22). At 1440p, the drop is 13 FPS (from 30 to 17). At 4K, the drop is 10 FPS (from 21 to 11). The relative percentage drop increases with resolution, indicating that the GPU is being pushed harder at higher resolutions, making the impact of each settings tier more pronounced. The min and max FPS values for Medium settings at all three resolutions show a variance of around 5-9 FPS, suggesting some frame pacing inconsistency, though not catastrophic.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated GPU based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. It features 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a boost clock of 2599 MHz. Its memory is "System Shared," meaning it uses a portion of the system's DDR5 RAM, with bandwidth that is "System Dependent." The GPU's FP32 performance is 5.323 TFLOPS, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate.

In general benchmarks, the Radeon 760M scores 5310 in Passmark G3D and 6019 on average, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400, which is 0.3% faster, and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000, which is 0.5% faster. The GPU's low percentile rank (35) relative to the CPU's high rank (81) is the defining characteristic of this combo.

In Control, the GPU's role is to render the game's complex visual effects, including physics-based destruction and particle systems. The measured FPS data indicates that the GPU is the definitive bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the GPU can only manage 40 FPS, which is a low result for a game from 2019. The performance scaling with resolution is a clear sign of GPU limitation. When the resolution increases, the GPU must render more pixels, and the FPS drops proportionally. The fact that the FPS drops significantly from 1080p to 4K (e.g., from 40 to 21 on Low, a 47.5% reduction) confirms that the GPU is working at its absolute limit.

The GPU's system-shared memory architecture is a key factor here. Since it has no dedicated VRAM, it relies on the system's memory bus, which is shared with the CPU. This can lead to bandwidth contention, further limiting performance in memory-intensive scenarios. The data suggests that the Radeon 760M is simply not powerful enough to deliver a smooth experience in Control at standard desktop resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience is achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that provides an average frame rate of 40 FPS, which is close to the threshold for a playable experience. The Medium preset at 1080p offers 29 FPS, which is playable for some, but the 24 FPS minimum could lead to noticeable stutters. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p, with averages of 25 and 22 FPS respectively, are not recommended for a smooth experience.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only viable option, averaging 30 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p, with an average of 22 FPS and a minimum of 18 FPS, is likely to feel choppy. All settings at 3840x2160 are unplayable, with the highest average being 21 FPS on Low.

The data suggests that to get the best out of this combo, users must prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. The Low preset at 1080p is the clear winner, offering a 40 FPS average. If a user can tolerate a lower frame rate, the Medium preset at 1080p provides a better visual experience, but the 29 FPS average and 24 FPS minimum indicate a compromise. The recommendation is to use 1920x1080 with Low settings for a playable experience, and to avoid 1440p and 4K entirely, as the frame rates are too low for comfortable gameplay. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 11 FPS (from 40 to 29), which is a significant 27.5% performance hit for a modest visual improvement.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data across resolutions provides a clear picture of the system's scaling behavior. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 40 at 1080p to 30 at 1440p, a 25% reduction, and then to 21 at 4K, a 47.5% reduction from 1080p. At Medium settings, the drop is from 29 at 1080p to 22 at 1440p (24% reduction) and then to 15 at 4K (48% reduction). This pattern is consistent across all settings presets.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is relatively modest, with a ~25% drop in FPS. However, the scaling from 1440p to 4K is much more severe, with an additional ~30-32% drop. This non-linear behavior is characteristic of a GPU that is running out of memory bandwidth or shading power as the pixel count increases exponentially.

The fact that the FPS drop is not linear with the pixel count increase (1080p to 4K is 4x the pixels, but FPS drops by only ~50%) suggests that the system is not purely pixel-bound. However, the consistent drop across all settings points to the GPU as the primary limiter. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU workload (draw calls, physics) does not change with resolution. Instead, the FPS drops significantly, indicating that the GPU's rendering pipeline is saturated.

This scaling analysis confirms that the AMD Radeon 760M is the definitive limiting component in this combo. The CPU has enough headroom to handle the game's logic at all resolutions, but the GPU cannot keep up with the rendering demands of higher resolutions. For users, this means that resolution scaling is not a viable path to better performance; instead, reducing the internal resolution or settings is the only way to improve frame rates. The data suggests that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming at low-to-medium settings, and that higher resolutions should be avoided.