Control

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti delivers a severely constrained experience in Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title. Benchmark results show this combination struggles to maintain playable frame rates at nearly every resolution and settings preset, with the GPU acting as the overwhelming bottleneck. The data indicates a system that is fundamentally mismatched for this game’s demands, placing it near the very bottom of all tested combos.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a stark and predictable decline as resolution increases, but the magnitude of the drop is telling. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 46 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same Low preset, the average falls to 34 FPS, a reduction of 12 frames or roughly 26%. At 3840x2160, Low settings yield just 23 FPS on average, which is exactly half the 1080p Low figure. This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU’s pixel throughput is the limiting factor; the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti’s 44.54 GPixel/s pixel rate and 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth are simply insufficient for higher resolutions.

The drop from 1080p to 1440p at Medium settings is similarly steep: 32 FPS down to 24 FPS, an 8-frame loss. From 1440p to 4K at Medium, the average falls further to 17 FPS, with a minimum of 14 and a maximum of 19. This shows that even the modest step from 1440p to 4K nearly halves the frame rate, reinforcing that the graphics card is saturated. At High settings, the progression is 29 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p, and 15 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset mirrors this trend with 25, 19, and 13 FPS respectively.

What the scaling data suggests is that the CPU is not the primary constraint at any resolution. If the Intel Core Ultra 5 225, with its 10 cores and 10 threads, were the bottleneck, we would expect frame rates to remain relatively flat across resolutions. Instead, the consistent and substantial drops indicate the GPU is running at its maximum capability even at 1080p. The 4K results, all below 24 FPS, are essentially unplayable, while 1440p results hover in the low 20s to mid-30s, depending on settings. Only at 1080p does the combo approach anything resembling smooth gameplay, and even then, only on the Low preset does it exceed 30 FPS.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the clear and dominant performance limiter in this pairing. Its specifications from the fact pack paint a picture of an entry-level part from the Pascal generation: 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The base clock of 1291 MHz and boost clock of 1392 MHz are modest, and the memory runs at 1752 MHz with 7 Gbps effective speed. The result is a GPU that ranks in the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 4193. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (0.6% ahead), NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (1% ahead), NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (1.1% behind), and AMD Radeon Vega 3 (1.8% behind). This places it in the company of integrated and low-end mobile parts, which is a poor sign for a demanding title like Control.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a critical factor. While the fact pack does not include specific VRAM usage numbers for Control, the game’s High and Ultra presets at higher resolutions likely exceed this amount. The measured FPS data supports this: at 4K Ultra, the average is just 13 FPS, and at 4K High it is 15 FPS. These are not just low numbers; they suggest the GPU is thrashing, struggling to fit textures and geometry into its limited frame buffer. Even at 1080p, the Ultra preset only manages 25 FPS average, which is only 4 FPS less than the High preset’s 29 FPS. This small delta between High and Ultra at 1080p, compared to the larger drop from Low to Medium (46 to 32 FPS), hints that the GPU’s compute and memory subsystems are overwhelmed regardless of the specific quality settings.

The GPU’s DirectX 12 support (version 12_1) is present, and its Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6 APIs are modern enough for the game. However, the raw performance is insufficient. The passmark DirectX 12 score of 26 and DirectX 11 score of 45 are extremely low, indicating weak API-optimized performance. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 10001 and OpenCL score of 18129 are similarly unimpressive for a desktop GPU. All benchmark results point to a card that was entry-level at its 2016 launch and is now severely outdated for a 2019 action title.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti ranks 2854 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 1.2% of all configurations, a position that underscores the severity of the performance deficit. Only 34 other combos perform worse, and those would almost certainly feature even older or weaker components. This ranking is not a reflection of the CPU, which is a modern part with strong synthetic benchmarks, but rather the GPU dragging the entire system down.

To put the combo’s rank in context, the CPU alone is a capable processor. Its average benchmark score is 36938, which places it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (0% delta), AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (-0.2%), AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (-0.4%), and Intel Core i9-12900T (-0.5%). This shows the Ultra 5 225 is competitive with mid-range and older high-end chips. However, the GPU’s average benchmark score of 4193 places it in the 25th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all substantially weaker parts. The massive gap between the CPU’s high percentile and the GPU’s low percentile creates a lopsided system where the graphics card cannot possibly utilize the processor’s capabilities.

In Control, this mismatch is brutally exposed. The combo’s rank of 2854 is driven entirely by the GPU’s inability to render the game at acceptable speeds. A system with a weaker CPU but a stronger GPU would likely rank far higher, as the game is clearly GPU-bound. The data shows that this pairing is one of the worst possible choices for this title, and the ranking reflects that reality. The fact that the combo is only 34 spots from the bottom of the entire database is a damning indictment of the GTX 1050 Ti’s suitability for modern gaming.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the combo’s performance across all resolution and settings combinations. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 46 FPS, Medium produces 32 FPS (with a minimum of 27 and maximum of 37), High produces 29 FPS, and Ultra produces 25 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is a 14 FPS drop, which is significant, while the steps from Medium to High and High to Ultra are smaller (3 and 4 FPS respectively). This suggests that the Low preset is the only one that allows the GPU to breathe, while any increase in quality immediately saturates its resources.

At 2560x1440, the numbers fall further. Low settings average 34 FPS, Medium averages 24 FPS (minimum 21, maximum 28), High averages 22 FPS, and Ultra averages 19 FPS. The delta between Low and Medium is 10 FPS, again the largest single step. The progression from Medium to High to Ultra is a more gradual decline of 2 to 3 FPS per step. None of these averages reach the 30 FPS threshold commonly considered the minimum for playable console-like performance, with only the Low preset coming close at 34 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings average 23 FPS, Medium averages 17 FPS (minimum 14, maximum 19), High averages 15 FPS, and Ultra averages 13 FPS. The drop from 1440p Low (34 FPS) to 4K Low (23 FPS) is an 11 FPS loss, while the drop from 1440p Ultra (19 FPS) to 4K Ultra (13 FPS) is 6 FPS. The minimum FPS values, where available, are even more concerning. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 14 FPS, and at 1440p Medium it is 21 FPS, indicating that frame pacing is inconsistent and stutter-prone.

The data also shows that the differences between Medium, High, and Ultra presets are relatively small at all resolutions. For example, at 1080p, the range from Medium (32 FPS) to Ultra (25 FPS) is only 7 FPS. At 1440p, the same range is 5 FPS (24 to 19), and at 4K it is 4 FPS (17 to 13). This indicates that the GPU is so overwhelmed that the additional workload from higher settings has diminishing returns; it is already at its limits even on Medium. The Low preset is the only one that provides a meaningful performance boost, suggesting that the game’s more demanding effects are responsible for the bulk of the frame rate penalty.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable configuration for any semblance of playability is 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This yields an average of 46 FPS, which is above the 30 FPS threshold and approaches the 60 FPS target that many players prefer. However, even this setting is not smooth by modern standards, and the lack of minimum FPS data for the Low preset means we cannot confirm frame consistency. The next best option is 2560x1440 Low, which averages 34 FPS, but this is barely playable and likely subject to noticeable drops.

At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS. This is technically playable but on the edge, and the minimum suggests occasional stutters. The High preset at 1080p (29 FPS) and Ultra (25 FPS) are both below 30 FPS and should be avoided for anything other than static screenshots. At 1440p, only the Low preset (34 FPS) is worth considering, while Medium (24 FPS), High (22 FPS), and Ultra (19 FPS) are all too slow. At 4K, every preset is unplayable, with averages ranging from 13 to 23 FPS.

The recommendation is clear: users of this combo should select 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only measured configuration that provides a satisfactory average frame rate. If visual fidelity is a priority, the jump to Medium at 1080p costs 14 FPS on average, which is a steep price for modest visual improvements. Given the GPU’s limitations, it is better to prioritize frame rate over quality. The data does not support any other settings combination for a smooth experience. Players could experiment with custom settings between Low and Medium, but the measured rows indicate that the Low preset is the sweet spot for this hardware.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a modern desktop processor with 10 cores and 10 threads, based on the Arrow Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, with 20 MB of shared L3 cache. Its synthetic benchmarks are strong: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25891 and a single-core score of 3655, along with a Passmark single-thread score of 4412. These numbers place it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, showing that it is more than capable of handling the computational demands of Control.

However, the measured FPS data shows that the CPU’s performance is almost irrelevant in this pairing. The frame rates are so low that the GTX 1050 Ti is clearly the bottleneck in every scenario. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see frame rates that are independent of resolution. Instead, the data shows a consistent and drastic decline as resolution increases, which is the hallmark of a GPU-bound system. For example, at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 46 at 1080p to 34 at 1440p and 23 at 4K. This pattern cannot be explained by CPU limitations, as the processor’s workload does not scale with resolution.

The CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic, and the Ultra 5 225 is more than up to that task. Its high boost clock and strong single-thread performance ensure that it is not introducing stutters or frame hitches. The fact that the minimum FPS values are only available for Medium settings (e.g., 27 FPS at 1080p, 21 FPS at 1440p, 14 FPS at 4K) and are close to the averages suggests that frame pacing is relatively stable, which points to the GPU being the consistent limiter rather than the CPU causing spikes.

In a hypothetical system with a stronger GPU, the Ultra 5 225 would likely provide excellent performance in Control. Its Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 6317 and Passmark multi-thread score of 30459 indicate it can handle modern games with ease. But in this specific combo, the CPU’s capabilities are wasted. The data shows a processor that is capable of far more than the graphics card can deliver, resulting in a severe imbalance. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is not the problem; it is the GTX 1050 Ti that holds this system back from achieving playable frame rates at any resolution above 1080p with Low settings. The ranking of 2854 out of 2888 combos is a direct consequence of this GPU limitation, not any fault of the CPU.