Control

Control, Remedy’s 2019 action-adventure, is a demanding title that stresses both the GPU and CPU depending on the resolution and settings preselected. This analysis examines the measured performance of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti. The data provided includes 12 distinct benchmark runs across four settings presets and three resolutions, offering a clear picture of where this combination's bottlenecks lie and what users can expect. The benchmark results indicate a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics card at higher resolutions, while the processor demonstrates sufficient headroom to drive high frame rates at 1080p.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a predictable yet significant drop in performance as resolution increases, a classic sign of a GPU-bound workload. At the "Low" settings preset, the average frame rate falls from 91 FPS at 1920x1080 to 69 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 22 FPS. Moving to 3840x2160, the average plummets to 46 FPS, which is roughly half the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern is consistent with the GTX 1660 Ti's 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit memory interface being saturated by the sheer pixel count required at 4K.

The "High" preset shows a similar trajectory, starting at 57 FPS at 1080p, dropping to 43 FPS at 1440p, and further down to 29 FPS at 4K. The delta between 1080p and 1440p is 14 FPS, while the gap between 1440p and 4K is also 14 FPS. This suggests that the performance cost per pixel increases as resolution climbs, a hallmark of a GPU that is running out of fillrate and memory bandwidth. The most telling data point is the "Ultra" preset, where the 4K average is just 25 FPS, making the game effectively unplayable at that setting.

The limiting component in this scenario is unequivocally the GPU. The CPU, with its 10 cores and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, is unlikely to be the primary constraint at these resolutions. The FPS drops are too steep and too consistent with the increase in pixel count to be attributed to processor limitations. Instead, the data indicates that the GTX 1660 Ti's rendering capabilities are the ceiling for this combo, and users seeking higher frame rates at 1440p or 4K would need to consider a more powerful graphics card.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is the central figure in this performance analysis. With a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, it is a Turing-architecture part built on a 12 nm process. Its memory configuration of 6 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. These specs directly influence the measured results, particularly at higher resolutions where memory capacity and bandwidth become critical.

At 4K, the "Ultra" preset yields an average of 25 FPS, and even the "Low" preset only manages 46 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is struggling to process the graphical load, a situation exacerbated by the game's detailed environments and particle effects. The 6 GB VRAM is likely a limiting factor at this resolution, as texture data and frame buffers can easily exceed that capacity, leading to potential stuttering or asset streaming issues, which are not captured in the average FPS but would affect the experience.

The GPU's position in the market is further clarified by its percentile rank of 41 among all GPUs and its average benchmark score of 7723. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon 540, which scores 7673 (a delta of 0.7%), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 with a score of 7580 (a delta of 1.9%). This places the GTX 1660 Ti in a lower-midrange tier, which aligns with its performance in Control. The data shows that while it can handle 1080p gaming well, it is not designed for the demands of 4K, where its FP32 throughput of 5.437 TFLOPS is insufficient for maintaining high frame rates in a title like Control.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 serves as the system's brain, and its specifications suggest it is more than capable of keeping up with the GTX 1660 Ti in this game. It features 10 cores and 10 threads, a base clock of 3.30 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Its 20 MB of shared L3 cache and support for DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s ensure that it can feed data to the GPU without becoming a bottleneck in most scenarios.

Benchmark results for the CPU support this view. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25891 and single-core score of 3655 indicate strong processing power. It ranks in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 36938. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F with a score of 36945 and a delta of 0%, and the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D with a score of 37018 and a delta of -0.2%. These figures show that the Core Ultra 5 225 is a competitive mid-range processor.

In the context of Control's measured FPS, the CPU's role is to maintain a stable frame delivery. At 1080p with "Low" settings, the average of 91 FPS suggests the CPU is capable of pushing well over 100 FPS in less demanding scenes. The presence of 10 cores is beneficial for the game's physics and AI calculations, although Control is not known for being heavily multi-threaded. The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo; instead, it provides a solid foundation that allows the GPU to operate at its full potential, even if that potential is limited at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of the benchmark database, this specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is positioned at a low rank. The comboRankInGame data places it at 2471 out of 2888 total tested combinations. This ranking is a percentile of roughly 14.5%, meaning that approximately 85.5% of all tested combos perform better in Control.

This low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU. While the CPU is in the 85th percentile for its own performance, the GPU sits in the 41st percentile. The pairing of a high-tier CPU with a low-mid-tier GPU creates an imbalance where the system's overall gaming performance is dragged down by the graphics card. The data shows that this combo is not suitable for high-refresh-rate gaming at 1440p, nor for 4K gaming at any acceptable quality level. Its best use case is 1080p gaming, where it can achieve playable frame rates on "High" and "Medium" settings, but it will still be outclassed by any system with a more powerful GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at the combo's performance across all settings and resolutions. The following is a detailed breakdown of the average frame rates, along with minimum and maximum values where available.

At 1920x1080, the results are generally playable. The "Low" preset achieves an average of 91 FPS. The "Medium" preset averages 64 FPS, with a minimum of 55 FPS and a maximum of 74 FPS. The "High" preset averages 57 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset averages 50 FPS. This shows a clear scaling from Low to Ultra, with a 41 FPS difference between the lowest and highest quality settings. The game is smooth at 1080p, even at "Ultra" settings, which is the best-case scenario for this hardware.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates drop significantly. The "Low" preset averages 69 FPS. The "Medium" preset averages 49 FPS, with a minimum of 41 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS. The "High" preset averages 43 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset averages 38 FPS. The data shows that while the game remains technically playable at "Low" and "Medium" settings, the "High" and "Ultra" presets push the average below the 45 FPS mark, which can lead to a less responsive experience. The jump from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 22-24 FPS on the "Low" and "High" presets, respectively.

At 3840x2160, the performance is largely insufficient for smooth gameplay. The "Low" preset is the only one that manages an average above 40 FPS, at 46 FPS. The "Medium" preset averages 33 FPS, with a minimum of 28 FPS and a maximum of 38 FPS. The "High" preset averages 29 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset averages 25 FPS. These figures are below the playable threshold for most users, confirming that the GTX 1660 Ti is not suited for 4K gaming in Control. The minimum FPS of 28 at "Medium" also suggests potential stuttering, making this resolution impractical for this combo.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to achieve a high frame rate?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the combo can consistently exceed 50 FPS on "High" and "Ultra" settings, with an average of 57 FPS and 50 FPS, respectively.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU's benchmark scores place it in the 85th percentile, while the GPU is in the 41st percentile. The FPS scaling with resolution further confirms that the graphics card limits performance.

Q: Can this combo run Control at 4K resolution?

A: Yes, but not at a satisfactory level. The highest average FPS at 3840x2160 is 46 FPS on "Low" settings, with "Medium" and higher presets falling below 35 FPS, which is generally considered unplayable for a fast-paced action game.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 Ti compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 540?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti has an average benchmark score of 7723, while the AMD Radeon 540 has a score of 7673. This represents a delta of 0.7%, meaning the GTX 1660 Ti is only marginally faster in synthetic benchmarks.

Q: What is the performance difference between "Low" and "Ultra" settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the "Low" preset averages 91 FPS, while the "Ultra" preset averages 50 FPS. This is a difference of 41 FPS, indicating a significant visual quality cost.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 225's multi-core performance compare to the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 scores 25891 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F has an average benchmark score of 36945. The delta between them is 0%, meaning they have nearly identical average performance in the database.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user's priority for frame rate versus visual fidelity. At 1920x1080, the "High" preset offers the best balance, achieving an average of 57 FPS. This provides a smooth experience while retaining a good level of graphical detail. The "Ultra" preset is also viable at 50 FPS, but the 7 FPS gain from "High" to "Ultra" may not be worth the potential for frame drops in intense scenes.

For users who prefer a higher frame rate over visual quality, the "Medium" preset at 1080p is a strong choice, delivering 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 FPS. This ensures a consistent experience that is well above the 60 FPS threshold. The "Low" preset at 91 FPS is excessive for most displays and sacrifices too much visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the "Medium" preset is the highest quality setting that maintains a playable frame rate, averaging 49 FPS. The "Low" preset at 69 FPS is the better choice for a smoother experience, as the "High" and "Ultra" presets fall to 43 FPS and 38 FPS, respectively, which can feel sluggish. The data suggests that 1440p should be reserved for "Low" or "Medium" settings.

At 3840x2160, the only recommended setting is "Low," which averages 46 FPS. However, even this is marginal, and the "Medium" preset at 33 FPS is not recommended for action-oriented gameplay. The benchmark results indicate that this combo is not suited for 4K gaming, and users should either lower the resolution or upgrade the GPU to achieve a better experience at that level.

The overall recommendation is to play Control at 1920x1080 with the "High" preset. This provides an average of 57 FPS, which is a good compromise between smoothness and visual fidelity. If a stable 60 FPS is a hard requirement, the "Medium" preset at 1080p is the safest option, as it provides a 64 FPS average and a 55 FPS minimum. In all cases, the GPU is the limiting factor, and users should adjust their expectations for higher resolutions accordingly.