Control

Control pairs an Intel Core Ultra 5 225 with an AMD Radeon RX 9060, and the measured frame rates across three resolutions and four quality presets paint a clear picture of where this combination sits. The data shows a system that handles 1080p comfortably, becomes more strained at 1440p, and falls below smooth playability at 4K, with the GPU emerging as the dominant constraint in every scenario.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 is steep and consistent across all settings, revealing a GPU-bound workload. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 82 at 1080p to 62 at 1440p, then to 42 at 4K. That represents a 24% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 32% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is not linear, and the gap widens as resolution increases, which is classic behavior for a graphics card reaching its fill-rate and bandwidth limits.

Low settings show a similar pattern with higher absolute numbers: 130 FPS at 1080p, 98 at 1440p, and 66 at 4K. The percentage drops are 25% and 33% respectively, nearly identical to High settings. This consistency suggests that even when graphical load is reduced, the RX 9060's 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth become the limiting factor at higher pixel counts. The 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer also likely plays a role, as 4K textures and rendering buffers can exceed that capacity in modern titles.

Medium settings provide the only complete min/max data in the pack, with 4K showing an average of 47 FPS, a minimum of 40, and a maximum of 54. At 1440p, the same preset averages 70 FPS with a range of 59 to 80, while 1080p averages 92 FPS with a range of 78 to 106. The minimum FPS values at 4K and 1440p are close to their averages, indicating relatively stable frame pacing, but the 1080p minimum at 78 FPS on Medium is notably lower than the 82 FPS average at High—an anomaly that suggests occasional CPU-side hitches rather than sustained GPU saturation.

Ultra settings push the combo to its limits. At 4K, the average drops to 36 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable playability. At 1440p, Ultra averages 54 FPS, and at 1080p, it reaches 71 FPS. The gap between Ultra and High at each resolution is consistent: 6 FPS at 4K, 8 FPS at 1440p, and 11 FPS at 1080p. This relatively small difference between presets at higher resolutions implies that the GPU is already saturated, and raising quality settings has diminishing returns because the bottleneck is raw pixel throughput rather than shading complexity.

The data implies that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, where even Ultra settings maintain above 70 FPS. At 1440p, High or Medium settings are recommended for smoother performance, while 4K is only viable on Low settings, and even then the 66 FPS average is marginal.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1632 out of 2888 tested combinations for Control, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. This percentile position—roughly the 43rd percentile—suggests that while this pairing is far from the weakest, it does not deliver a standout experience in this specific title. The rank reflects the measured FPS data, which shows that the system cannot consistently hit high frame rates at 1440p and above.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks provide context for its individual performance. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36938, which is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36945 (0% delta). It sits slightly behind the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D at 37018 (-0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37093 (-0.4% delta), and it trails the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37112 (-0.5% delta). These differences are within noise, meaning the CPU's raw compute capability is comparable to those four rivals.

The GPU's nearest rivals show a similar story. The RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014, which is 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti at 16129, but 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 370X at 15862 and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 at 15852, and 2.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 at 15679. This places the RX 9060 in a competitive band with the RTX 3060 Ti, suggesting that Control's performance should be broadly similar to that older but well-regarded card.

However, the combo's overall rank of 1632 out of 2888 indicates that the pairing does not boost either component's standing. The CPU's 85th percentile among all CPUs is strong, but the GPU's 59th percentile among all GPUs is more modest. In a GPU-heavy title like Control, the weaker component drags the combo down, and the rank reflects that dynamic.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 features 10 cores and 10 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. This is a modern Arrow Lake-S part built on a 3 nm TSMC process, with 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. Its synthetic benchmarks show strong single-threaded performance, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3655 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4412. Multi-threaded results are also respectable: Cinebench R23 multi-core hits 25891, and Passmark multi-thread reaches 30459.

In Control, the CPU's role is likely secondary to the GPU, as the game is known for its physics and particle effects but does not typically scale with high core counts. The 10 cores and 10 threads (no hyperthreading) provide adequate headroom for the game's main thread and background tasks, but the data does not show any CPU-bound scenarios. At 1080p Low, the 130 FPS average suggests the CPU can feed the GPU fast enough, but the 78 FPS minimum at 1080p Medium hints at occasional frame drops that could be CPU-related, though they are more likely due to shader compilation or asset streaming.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5 is standard for the platform, and Control's asset streaming may benefit from that, but there is no evidence in the FPS data that memory bandwidth is a bottleneck. The CPU's percentile rank of 85th among all CPUs indicates it is a strong performer, and its nearest rivals—the Ryzen 5 5600F, Ryzen 5 5500X3D, Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450, and Core i9-12900T—all fall within 0.5% of its average score. This means the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo; it has ample headroom to support the GPU at all tested settings.

The fact that FPS scales consistently with resolution and settings, rather than plateauing at low resolutions, confirms that the CPU is not the bottleneck. If it were, we would see similar FPS at 1080p and 1440p, but instead we see clear drops as resolution increases. The CPU's 10 cores are more than sufficient for Control, and its 4.90 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-threaded performance for the game's main loop.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings average 130 FPS, Medium averages 92 FPS with a minimum of 78 and maximum of 106, High averages 82 FPS, and Ultra averages 71 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 38 FPS (29%), which is substantial, but the drop from Medium to High is only 10 FPS (11%), and from High to Ultra is 11 FPS (13%). This suggests that the GPU begins to saturate around Medium settings at 1080p, and further quality increases yield smaller gains in visual fidelity relative to the FPS cost.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 98 FPS on Low, 70 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 59 and maximum of 80), 62 FPS on High, and 54 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 28 FPS (29%), from Medium to High is 8 FPS (11%), and from High to Ultra is 8 FPS (13%). The pattern mirrors 1080p, but the absolute numbers are lower, and the minimum FPS of 59 on Medium indicates that the system can dip below 60 FPS even at this setting, which is a concern for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the averages fall to 66 FPS on Low, 47 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 40 and maximum of 54), 42 FPS on High, and 36 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 19 FPS (29%), from Medium to High is 5 FPS (11%), and from High to Ultra is 6 FPS (14%). At 4K, even Low settings struggle to maintain 60 FPS, and the 40 FPS minimum on Medium shows that the GPU is heavily loaded.

The Medium settings data is the only preset with complete min/max information, and it reveals that the frame time consistency degrades with resolution. At 1080p, the range is 28 FPS (78 to 106), at 1440p it is 21 FPS (59 to 80), and at 4K it is 14 FPS (40 to 54). The narrower range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is more consistently saturated, reducing the variance, but the lower averages mean the experience is less fluid.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 44 chip, manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It features 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines, with 28 ray tracing cores. Its boost clock is 2990 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz and a base clock of 1700 MHz. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a potential limitation for a game like Control that uses high-resolution textures.

The GPU's synthetic benchmarks show a Passmark G3D score of 17631 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3322. Its OpenCL score in Geekbench is 88183, and its Vulkan score is 39476. These numbers place it in the 59th percentile among all GPUs, and its nearest rival, the RTX 3060 Ti, is 0.7% ahead in average score. This indicates that the RX 9060 is a mid-range card that can handle 1080p and 1440p gaming but struggles at 4K.

The FPS data supports this. At 1080p, the card delivers playable frame rates across all settings, with even Ultra averaging 71 FPS. At 1440p, High and Medium settings stay above 60 FPS on average, but Ultra drops to 54 FPS, and the minimum on Medium is 59 FPS. At 4K, the card cannot maintain 60 FPS on any setting, with Low averaging 66 FPS but Medium, High, and Ultra all falling below 50 FPS.

The 8 GB VRAM is likely a factor at 4K, where Control's textures and rendering buffers can exceed that capacity. The 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth also limit the card's ability to feed the shading units at high resolutions. This explains why the FPS drops more sharply from 1440p to 4K than from 1080p to 1440p—the card is running out of both memory capacity and bandwidth.

The GPU's 64 ROPs and 191.4 GPixel/s pixel rate are sufficient for 1080p but become a bottleneck at 4K, where the pixel count quadruples. The 21.43 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is respectable, but it is not enough to compensate for the memory limitations at higher resolutions.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where all settings maintain an average above 70 FPS. At 2560x1440, High and Medium settings average 62 and 70 FPS respectively, but Ultra drops to 54 FPS. At 3840x2160, no setting averages above 66 FPS.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36938. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F scores 36945 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018 (-0.2% delta), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093 (-0.4% delta), and the Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112 (-0.5% delta). All are effectively tied.

Q: Is the GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: Yes. The FPS scales consistently with resolution and settings, dropping from 130 FPS at 1080p Low to 36 FPS at 4K Ultra. This pattern indicates the GPU is the limiting component, as a CPU bottleneck would produce similar FPS across resolutions.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded on Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080, the minimum is 78 FPS. At 2560x1440, it is 59 FPS. At 3840x2160, it is 40 FPS. These are the only settings with min FPS data in the pack.

Q: How does the RX 9060 compare to the RTX 3060 Ti?

A: The RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014, while the RTX 3060 Ti scores 16129, which is 0.7% higher. This places them in the same performance tier, so Control performance should be broadly similar.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming?

A: Only at Low settings, where it averages 66 FPS. At Medium, High, and Ultra, averages are 47, 42, and 36 FPS respectively. The 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are insufficient for smooth 4K performance in this title.

Settings Recommendations

For the best balance of visual quality and playability at 1920x1080, Medium settings provide a 92 FPS average with a minimum of 78 FPS, which is smooth and stable. High settings drop to 82 FPS, and the visual difference between Medium and High may not justify the 10 FPS loss. Ultra at 71 FPS is still playable, but the 11 FPS drop from High is noticeable, and the minimum FPS is not reported.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings are the safest choice, with a 70 FPS average and a minimum of 59 FPS. High settings average 62 FPS, which is playable but closer to the edge, and the lack of min FPS data makes it riskier. Ultra at 54 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold and not recommended for competitive or action-heavy play.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings are viable, with a 66 FPS average. Medium drops to 47 FPS with a minimum of 40 FPS, which is too low for a smooth experience. High and Ultra at 42 and 36 FPS are not recommended.

The overall recommendation is to use Medium settings at 1080p for a comfortable experience, or High at 1440p if you prioritize visual fidelity over a strict 60 FPS target. For 4K, Low settings are the only option, and even then, the experience is marginal. The data suggests this combo is best treated as a 1080p gaming system with some 1440p capability, rather than a 4K machine.