Control

Control pairs Intel’s Core Ultra 5 225 with AMD’s Radeon RX 6650 XT, a combination that lands near the middle of the pack for this 2019 action-adventure title. The measured frame rates show a system that is clearly capable at 1080p, but which starts to strain as resolution climbs. This analysis breaks down the data across resolutions and settings, examines the role of the GPU and CPU, and provides practical guidance based on the benchmark results.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a predictable but steep performance curve as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 77 FPS at 1080p to 58 FPS at 1440p, and then falls further to 39 FPS at 4K. This represents a 49% reduction in performance from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions. The scaling is consistent with a graphics card that has 8 GB of VRAM and a 128-bit memory bus, both of which become bottlenecks when pixel count quadruples.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens dramatically at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low (122 FPS) and Ultra (67 FPS) is 55 FPS, or roughly 45%. At 4K, the gap shrinks to 29 FPS (63 FPS on Low versus 34 FPS on Ultra), but the percentage difference grows to 46%. This suggests that while the absolute frame rates drop, the relative cost of Ultra settings remains constant, meaning the GPU is consistently stressed regardless of resolution when maxing out visual quality.

The Medium preset provides the only complete FPS data with min and max values, offering insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the system delivers 87 FPS average with a minimum of 74 FPS and maximum of 100 FPS, a spread of 26 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 66 FPS with a min of 56 and max of 76, keeping a similar 20 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the average falls to 44 FPS with a min of 38 and max of 51, showing that the frame pacing remains stable even when the overall performance is low. This consistency suggests the CPU is not causing stutter, and the GPU is handling frame delivery smoothly.

The data indicates that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combination, with all settings except Ultra maintaining averages above 77 FPS. At 1440p, only Low (93 FPS) and High (58 FPS) remain playable for smooth action, while Medium sits at 66 FPS which is borderline for fast-paced gameplay. At 4K, even Low settings only manage 63 FPS, and Ultra drops to 34 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable play. The limiting component shifts from the CPU at lower resolutions to the GPU at higher resolutions, a classic pattern for a mid-range graphics card paired with a modern processor.

FAQ

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

A: The measured data shows 1920x1080 delivers the highest frame rates across all settings, with averages ranging from 67 FPS on Ultra to 122 FPS on Low. This is the only resolution where every preset maintains playable performance.

Q: How does the RX 6650 XT compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GPU’s average benchmark score is 19765, placing it 0.6% behind the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19885) and 0.7% ahead of the AMD FirePro D300 (19637). Its percentile ranking of 65 indicates it outperforms roughly two-thirds of all GPUs.

Q: Is the Core Ultra 5 225 a bottleneck at 1080p?

A: At 1080p Low settings, the system reaches 122 FPS average, which suggests the CPU can feed the GPU adequately at lower graphical loads. The CPU’s percentile rank of 85 and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25891 support this, showing strong single-thread and multi-thread capability.

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

A: The measured data shows 58 FPS average at 2560x1440 with High settings. This is playable but leaves little headroom for demanding scenes, as the minimum FPS is not recorded in the data.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM limit performance at 4K?

A: The 4K results show a significant drop, with High settings averaging 39 FPS and Ultra at 34 FPS. While the data does not directly measure VRAM usage, the 8 GB capacity and 280.3 GB/s bandwidth are consistent with the performance cliff observed between 1440p and 4K.

Q: How does the CPU’s performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36938, which is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (36945, 0% delta). It sits 0.2% behind the Ryzen 5 5500X3D (37018) and 0.5% behind the Intel Core i9-12900T (37112).

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance for most gaming scenarios. At 1080p, Medium delivers 87 FPS average, which is 10 FPS higher than High (77 FPS) and only 35 FPS lower than Low (122 FPS). The Medium preset also provides the only complete frame time data, showing a minimum of 74 FPS and maximum of 100 FPS, which indicates smooth and consistent performance without major dips. This makes Medium the recommended starting point for users who want a solid experience without sacrificing too much visual fidelity.

For users with 1440p monitors, the choice is more constrained. Medium delivers 66 FPS average, which is playable but may feel less fluid during intense combat sequences. High settings drop to 58 FPS, which is still acceptable for a slower-paced action-adventure title like Control. Low settings at 93 FPS provide the smoothest experience but noticeably reduce visual quality. Given that Control’s atmospheric environments benefit from higher graphical fidelity, High settings at 1440p is the recommended choice for those who prioritize visuals over raw frame rate, while Medium is safer for players who dislike any hint of stutter.

At 4K, the data shows that only Low settings (63 FPS) approach playable territory, with Medium (44 FPS) and High (39 FPS) falling below the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra at 34 FPS is not recommended for any serious gameplay. The recommendation is to avoid 4K entirely with this hardware unless the user is willing to accept Low settings and a lower frame rate. For the best overall experience, the data suggests sticking to 1080p with Medium or High settings, or 1440p with Medium, as these configurations offer the most stable and responsive performance based on the measured averages.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system shows a clear hierarchy of performance across the four settings presets. Low settings produce the highest average at 122 FPS, followed by Medium at 87 FPS, High at 77 FPS, and Ultra at 67 FPS. The Medium preset is the only one with recorded min and max values, showing a range of 74 to 100 FPS. This 26 FPS spread indicates good frame pacing, with the minimum staying well above the 60 FPS threshold. The step from Low to Medium costs 35 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs 10 FPS, and High to Ultra costs another 10 FPS. This suggests diminishing returns on visual quality as settings increase, with the largest performance hit coming from the Low to Medium transition.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops are more pronounced. Low settings average 93 FPS, which is a 29 FPS reduction from the 1080p result. Medium averages 66 FPS with a min of 56 and max of 76, showing a 20 FPS spread that is tighter than at 1080p. High settings fall to 58 FPS, and Ultra drops to 51 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 42 FPS, compared to 55 FPS at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor. The Medium preset’s minimum of 56 FPS is concerning for players who demand smooth motion, as it approaches the 50 FPS threshold where stutter becomes noticeable.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 63 FPS, which is the only preset above 60 FPS. Medium averages 44 FPS with a min of 38 and max of 51, showing a 13 FPS spread that indicates the GPU is working near its limits. High settings drop to 39 FPS, and Ultra falls to 34 FPS. The performance delta between Low and Ultra at 4K is 29 FPS, which is the smallest absolute difference across all resolutions. This compression of frame rates at 4K suggests that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck, and settings changes have less impact on overall performance compared to resolution changes.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 23 chip manufactured on a 7 nm process. It features 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, along with 32 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 2055 MHz, a game clock of 2410 MHz, and a boost clock of 2635 MHz. This configuration delivers a pixel rate of 168.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 337.3 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance rated at 10.79 TFLOPS. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 2190 MHz (17.5 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, providing 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RX 6650 XT achieves a PassMark G3D score of 17166 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1859. Its average benchmark score of 19765 places it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it outperforms 65% of its peers. The nearest rivals are professional workstation cards, with the NVIDIA Tesla K40m scoring 19885 (0.6% higher), the AMD FirePro D300 scoring 19637 (0.7% lower), and the AMD FirePro W7000 scoring 19905 (0.7% higher). These comparisons highlight that the RX 6650 XT sits in a performance tier that is competitive with older prosumer hardware, but not with modern high-end gaming cards.

The GPU’s impact on Control’s measured FPS is evident in the resolution scaling data. At 1080p, the GPU can maintain high frame rates across all settings, with the lowest average at 67 FPS for Ultra. However, the 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus become limiting factors at 4K, where the Ultra preset drops to 34 FPS. The 280.3 GB/s bandwidth is likely insufficient for the high-resolution textures and effects that Control employs at 4K, leading to the steep performance degradation observed. The GPU’s 176 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest it is a mid-range part, which aligns with the benchmark results showing it is not designed for 4K gaming at high settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a 10-core, 10-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The CPU features a cache hierarchy of 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The processor includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units, though this is not relevant for gaming with a discrete GPU.

In CPU benchmarks, the Core Ultra 5 225 shows strong single-thread and multi-thread performance. It scores 3655 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 25891 in multi-core, along with 891 and 6317 in Cinebench R20 single-core and multi-core respectively. PassMark results show a single-thread score of 4412 and a multi-thread score of 30459, with additional scores for integer math (65345), floating-point math (92038), and data compression (302811). The processor’s average benchmark score of 36938 places it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, indicating it outperforms 85% of its peers.

The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 225 are closely matched, with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F scoring 36945 (0% delta), the Ryzen 5 5500X3D scoring 37018 (0.2% higher), and the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scoring 37093 (0.4% higher). The Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112, which is 0.5% higher. These small deltas show that the Core Ultra 5 225 is competitive with a range of mid-range and older high-end processors. In Control, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 122 FPS, which suggests the CPU is not a bottleneck at lower resolutions. The high single-thread score of 3655 (Cinebench R23) is particularly relevant for Control, as the game’s physics and AI systems rely heavily on single-core performance. The 10 cores and 10 threads provide ample multi-threading capability for background tasks, but the game’s measured FPS indicates that the GPU is the primary constraint at higher resolutions and settings.