Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title from 2019, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT produces a highly capable, though not universally effortless, experience. The benchmark data shows a system that scales predictably with resolution, where the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at 4K, while the CPU provides ample headroom to drive high frame rates at lower resolutions. This pairing lands in the 1036th spot out of 2888 tested combinations for this game, placing it in the upper-middle tier of performance.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is significant and clearly indicates a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 102 FPS at 1920x1080 to 77 FPS at 2560x1440, representing a 24.5% reduction. Moving to 3840x2160, the average drops further to 52 FPS, which is a 32.5% decrease from the 1440p figure and a 49% drop from the 1080p baseline. This steep curve is classic evidence of pixel-pushing limits; the Radeon RX 7700 XT simply runs out of fill rate and shading power as the pixel count increases.

The scaling pattern holds true across all settings presets. At Low settings, the system achieves 162 FPS at 1080p, 123 FPS at 1440p, and 83 FPS at 4K. The relative drop from 1080p to 4K is 48.8%, almost identical to the 49% drop seen at High settings. This consistency suggests that the rendering workload at 4K is overwhelmingly dominated by the GPU's raw throughput, regardless of the quality preset. Even at Low settings, where the CPU has less work to do per frame, the frame rate at 4K is still capped at 83 FPS, reinforcing that the GPU is the limiting component.

For Medium settings, the measured data includes minimum and maximum frame rates, providing additional insight into frame pacing. At 1080p Medium, the average is 115 FPS with a minimum of 98 FPS and a maximum of 133 FPS. The delta between min and max is 35 FPS, which is a reasonably tight window. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 87 FPS, with a min of 74 FPS and max of 100 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average falls to 59 FPS, with a min of 50 FPS and max of 68 FPS. The minimum frame rate at 4K Medium (50 FPS) is particularly telling, as it shows that the system can occasionally dip below the 60 FPS threshold, which may be noticeable in fast-paced combat.

The Ultra preset, which is the most demanding, shows the steepest absolute decline. The system manages 89 FPS at 1080p, 67 FPS at 1440p, and 45 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result of 45 FPS is the lowest recorded average across all configurations, and it falls below the commonly accepted 60 FPS smoothness target. This data clearly indicates that while the RX 7700 XT can handle 1080p and 1440p with ease, 4K gaming at maximum settings is beyond its comfort zone for this title.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is the definitive performance driver in this pairing, as evidenced by the resolution scaling analysis. This GPU, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip, operates with a base clock of 1435 MHz and a boost clock of 2544 MHz. It features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. These specifications are sufficient to feed the 3456 shading units and 96 ROPs, which are responsible for the pixel output that becomes the limiting factor at 4K.

In the broader context of all GPUs, the RX 7700 XT sits at the 67th percentile, indicating it outperforms a majority of graphics cards. Its average benchmark score of 22549 places it in close competition with several NVIDIA offerings. The nearest rival data shows a tight cluster: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile scores 22435 (0.5% higher), the RTX 4060 Mobile scores 22729 (0.8% lower), and the RTX 2080 scores 22895 (1.5% lower). This places the RX 7700 XT in a performance tier where it trades blows with last-generation high-end cards and current-generation mid-range mobile parts. Against the AMD Radeon RX 5700, it holds a 1.7% advantage, showing generational improvement within AMD's own lineup.

The GPU's VRAM allocation of 12 GB is a notable asset. Based on the benchmark results, the game does not appear to exceed this capacity at any tested setting, as the frame rates scale smoothly without sudden, catastrophic drops that would indicate VRAM swapping. The memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s is also sufficient, as the performance degradation from 1440p to 4K is smooth and predictable rather than showing a cliff-like drop that would suggest memory starvation. The boost clock of 2544 MHz is the peak advertised frequency, and the sustained performance in benchmarks indicates the cooling solution can maintain high clocks under load.

The GPU's compute capabilities, rated at 35.17 TFLOPS for FP32 operations, are well-suited for the visual effects in Control, which relies heavily on physics-based destruction and particle effects. The 54 RT cores also provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing, though the benchmark data does not isolate ray tracing performance. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) ensures full feature compatibility with the game's rendering pipeline.

CPU Role

While the GPU is the primary bottleneck at high resolutions, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 plays a crucial role in ensuring the system is not CPU-limited at lower resolutions. This processor, based on the Arrow Lake architecture and manufactured on a 3 nm process, offers 14 cores and 14 threads with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The lack of hyperthreading (14 threads for 14 cores) is compensated by high single-core boost frequencies, which are critical for game logic and draw call submission.

The CPU's benchmark results confirm its strength. In Cinebench R23, it scores 14769 in multi-core and 2085 in single-core. The single-core score of 2085 is particularly relevant for gaming, as most game engines rely heavily on one or two primary threads. The Passmark single-thread score of 4516 corroborates this strength. The multi-threaded performance is also solid, with a Passmark multithread score of 37816, ensuring that background tasks and game helper threads do not starve the main game thread.

The CPU's performance relative to its rivals is remarkably tight. Its average benchmark score of 46062 places it at the 89th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rivals show a margin of less than 1%: the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 scores 46030 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098 (0.1% lower), the AMD EPYC 4364P scores 45970 (0.2% higher), and the AMD EPYC 7303 scores 45960 (0.2% higher). This clustering indicates that the Core Ultra 5 235 is precisely in the performance sweet spot for its generation, matching much more expensive and power-hungry parts in synthetic benchmarks.

In the actual game data, the CPU's influence is most apparent at 1080p, where the frame rates are high enough that CPU overhead could become a limiting factor. The fact that the system achieves 162 FPS at 1080p Low settings indicates that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU well beyond the 60 FPS target. If the CPU were weak, we would expect to see a plateau in frame rates around 100-120 FPS at 1080p, regardless of GPU headroom. The data does not show such a plateau, confirming that the Core Ultra 5 235 provides ample headroom for this game.

The CPU's 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache are ample for game workloads. The DDR5 memory support with dual-channel configuration provides 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is sufficient to keep the 14 cores fed without creating a memory bottleneck. The 5.00 GHz boost clock is the key differentiator here, as Control's engine benefits from high per-thread performance for its physics and AI calculations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates provide a comprehensive view of the system's capabilities across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers excellent performance across the board. The Low preset achieves an average of 162 FPS, which is exceptionally smooth for fast-paced action. The Medium preset averages 115 FPS, with a minimum of 98 FPS and a maximum of 133 FPS, ensuring no noticeable stutter. The High preset averages 102 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 89 FPS. Even at the most demanding 1080p setting, the system stays well above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, performance remains strong but begins to show the GPU's workload. The Low preset averages 123 FPS, still providing a high-refresh-rate experience. The Medium preset averages 87 FPS, with a minimum of 74 FPS and a maximum of 100 FPS. The High preset averages 77 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 67 FPS. All 1440p configurations maintain an average above 60 FPS, making this resolution the sweet spot for this combo if a 60 FPS target is desired with high settings.

At 3840x2160, the system's limitations become apparent. The Low preset averages 83 FPS, which is still playable but significantly lower than the 1440p result. The Medium preset averages 59 FPS, with a minimum of 50 FPS and a maximum of 68 FPS. The High preset averages 52 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 45 FPS. The 4K results show that the RX 7700 XT is the limiting factor, and users seeking a locked 60 FPS experience at 4K will need to rely on the Low or Medium presets, with the Medium preset's minimum of 50 FPS representing the worst-case scenario in the tested data.

The Medium preset is the only configuration with complete min/max data across all three resolutions, offering a clear picture of frame pacing. At 1080p, the range is 98-133 FPS (35 FPS spread). At 1440p, the range is 74-100 FPS (26 FPS spread). At 4K, the range is 50-68 FPS (18 FPS spread). The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is becoming more consistently saturated, which paradoxically can lead to more stable frame times, albeit at lower absolute values.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K smoothly?

A: The data shows average frame rates of 45 FPS at Ultra, 52 FPS at High, and 59 FPS at Medium for 3840x2160. The Medium preset's minimum of 50 FPS indicates that a locked 60 FPS experience at 4K is not achievable with this GPU, as the average falls below 60 FPS on all presets.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain high frame rates?

A: At 1920x1080, all presets average above 89 FPS, with the Low preset reaching 162 FPS. At 2560x1440, all presets average above 67 FPS, with the Low preset at 123 FPS. Both resolutions offer a smooth experience, but 1440p provides a better balance of visual fidelity and performance.

Q: How does the RX 7700 XT compare to its closest rivals in this game?

A: The benchmark data for the GPU shows it is within 1.5% of the NVIDIA RTX 2080 (22895 vs 22549) and within 0.8% of the RTX 4060 Mobile (22729 vs 22549). It is 0.5% behind the RTX 5060 Mobile (22435 vs 22549) and 1.7% ahead of the AMD RX 5700 (22170 vs 22549).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor even at 1080p, as the frame rates vary significantly between Low (162 FPS) and Ultra (89 FPS) presets. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would be more similar across presets. The CPU's high single-thread performance (2085 in Cinebench R23) provides ample headroom.

Q: What is the system's overall ranking for this game?

A: This specific CPU and GPU combination ranks 1036th out of 2888 tested configurations for Control, placing it in the top 36% of all tested systems. This suggests it is a solid mid-to-high-tier performer for this title.

Q: Does the 12 GB VRAM cause any issues at 4K?

A: No. The frame rate scaling from 1440p to 4K is smooth and predictable across all presets, with no sudden drops that would indicate VRAM capacity being exceeded. The 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is sufficient for the workloads tested.

Settings Recommendations

For users prioritizing a smooth 60 FPS experience at 2560x1440, the High preset is the optimal choice. The data shows an average of 77 FPS at this configuration, providing a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS target while maintaining high visual quality. The Ultra preset at 1440p averages 67 FPS, which is still above 60 FPS and is recommended for users with 144Hz displays who want maximum visual fidelity, as the slightly lower average is offset by the higher quality settings.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is the clear recommendation, as it averages 89 FPS. This provides a high-quality experience with plenty of headroom for a standard 60Hz monitor or even a 144Hz display. The High preset at 1080p averages 102 FPS, which is also excellent, but given the performance headroom, there is no reason to sacrifice visual quality at this resolution.

For 3840x2160, the recommendations are more nuanced. The Medium preset averages 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 FPS, which is the only 4K configuration that comes close to a playable 60 FPS experience. However, the Low preset averages 83 FPS, which provides a more consistent and smoother experience if frame rate is prioritized over visual fidelity. For a locked 60 FPS at 4K, the Low preset is the safest choice, while the Medium preset is acceptable for users who can tolerate occasional dips to 50 FPS.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at 4K, as the 45 FPS average falls below the threshold for smooth, responsive gameplay in a fast-paced action title. Similarly, the High preset at 4K (52 FPS average) is borderline but may cause noticeable judder during intense combat sequences. The data suggests that the optimal experience for this system is either 1440p with Ultra settings or 1080p with Ultra settings, as both maintain high frame rates without compromising visual quality.