Control

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 sits at rank 1632 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. That places this configuration in the lower-middle portion of the database — roughly the 43rd percentile of all tested pairings. It's not a top-tier combination, but it's far from the bottom; the data shows a system that can handle the game at playable levels with some settings compromises.

The ranking reflects a fundamental imbalance in this pairing. The CPU is a strong performer — it sits in the 89th percentile among all tested CPUs in the database — while the GPU lands in the 59th percentile among all tested GPUs. When you pair a high-percentile processor with a mid-pack graphics card, the GPU becomes the limiting factor in most scenarios. This is exactly what the measured FPS data shows across resolutions and settings.

What's notable is that this combo outperforms its raw component averages would suggest. The CPU's average benchmark score of 46062 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals — the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 at 46030 (0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i9-13900HX at 46098 (0.1% behind), and the AMD EPYC 4364P at 45970 (0.2% behind). The GPU's average score of 16014 puts it right next to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti at 16129 (0.7% behind) and just ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7700 at 15852 (1% ahead).

In practical terms, this combo delivers 1080p Ultra at 71 FPS average, which is respectable for a mid-range pairing. The bottleneck is clearly the GPU, as evidenced by the scaling pattern: dropping from Ultra to Low at 1080p nearly doubles the frame rate from 71 to 130 FPS, which indicates the CPU can feed the GPU much faster than the GPU can render. The same pattern holds at higher resolutions, though the margins tighten as the GPU becomes even more saturated.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 4K?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings with a 66 FPS average. Medium drops to 47 FPS, High to 42 FPS, and Ultra falls to 36 FPS. For a smooth 4K experience, Low is the only viable preset.

Q: What is the best resolution for this pairing?

A: The data shows 1080p as the sweet spot. At Medium settings you get 92 FPS average with a minimum of 78 FPS, while High delivers 82 FPS. Even Ultra stays above 70 FPS at 1080p, which is not achievable at higher resolutions.

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

A: The RX 9060's average benchmark score is 16014 versus 16129 for the RTX 3060 Ti, a difference of 0.7%. In Control, this translates to nearly identical performance — the measured FPS figures reflect a GPU that trades blows with that class of hardware.

Q: Is the Core Ultra 5 235 holding back the RX 9060?

A: Not at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 130 FPS average, showing the CPU can push well beyond what the GPU can render at higher settings. The CPU's 14 cores and 14 threads with a 5.00 GHz boost clock are more than sufficient for this game.

Q: What kind of frame time consistency can I expect?

A: The only settings with min/max data are Medium across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the range is 78 to 106 FPS; at 1440p Medium, 59 to 80 FPS; at 4K Medium, 40 to 54 FPS. The spread is roughly 25-30% of the average, indicating moderate frame pacing variation.

Q: Should I prioritize CPU or GPU upgrades for better Control performance?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The CPU sits in the 89th percentile of all tested CPUs, while the GPU is in the 59th percentile. Upgrading the GPU would yield significantly larger FPS gains than upgrading the CPU.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a textbook GPU-bound scaling pattern. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at High settings drops the average from 82 to 62 FPS — a 24.4% reduction. Going from 1440p to 4K at High drops it further from 62 to 42 FPS, another 32.3% reduction. The cumulative effect is that 4K High runs at roughly half the frame rate of 1080p High.

At Low settings, the scaling is even more dramatic. The 1080p Low average of 130 FPS falls to 98 FPS at 1440p (a 24.6% drop) and then to 66 FPS at 4K (a 32.7% drop from 1440p). The fact that Low settings show the same proportional scaling as High settings confirms the GPU is the limiting component — if the CPU were the bottleneck, we'd expect the gap between resolutions to narrow at lower settings where the GPU has less work to do.

The Medium preset shows consistent behavior: 92 FPS at 1080p, 70 FPS at 1440p, and 47 FPS at 4K. Each resolution step costs roughly 24-33% of the frame rate. Ultra settings follow the same trend: 71 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 36 FPS at 4K.

The key insight from this scaling data is that the RX 9060's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth becomes increasingly stressed as resolution climbs. The 4K results — dipping to 36 FPS at Ultra — indicate the GPU simply cannot sustain the pixel throughput needed at that resolution with high visual fidelity. For 4K gaming, the Low preset at 66 FPS is the only reasonable option, and even that is borderline for smooth play on high-refresh displays.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce a 130 FPS average, which is the highest measured figure across all resolutions and settings in this dataset. Medium lands at 92 FPS with a minimum of 78 FPS and maximum of 106 FPS. High drops to 82 FPS, and Ultra to 71 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 59 FPS, showing that the GPU has significant headroom when the CPU is not the limiting factor.

At 2560x1440, performance remains playable across most presets. Low yields 98 FPS, Medium 70 FPS (min 59, max 80), High 62 FPS, and Ultra 54 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p costs between 23.8% (Low) and 24.4% (High) of the frame rate, a consistent penalty that points to GPU-bound rendering.

At 3840x2160, the picture changes considerably. Low is the only preset that stays above 60 FPS, averaging 66 FPS. Medium falls to 47 FPS (min 40, max 54), High to 42 FPS, and Ultra to 36 FPS. The 4K Ultra figure of 36 FPS is the lowest measured result in the entire dataset and represents a 49.3% reduction from 1080p Ultra.

The min/max data available for Medium settings across all three resolutions shows consistent frame pacing. At 1080p, the 78-106 range indicates the GPU can maintain reasonably stable delivery. At 1440p, the 59-80 range shows a tighter band relative to the average. At 4K, the 40-54 range suggests the GPU is working near its limit, with frame times becoming less predictable as the render load increases.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p displays, Ultra is the best choice. The 71 FPS average is smooth, and the visual uplift from High to Ultra is worth the 11 FPS cost. If you prefer maximum frame rates on a high-refresh monitor, Low at 130 FPS is the fastest option, but Medium at 92 FPS offers the best balance of image quality and speed.

For 1440p, High at 62 FPS is a solid choice for most players, though those sensitive to frame drops may prefer Medium at 70 FPS with its 59 FPS minimum. Ultra at 54 FPS is playable but sits close to the threshold where motion smoothness degrades noticeably. Low at 98 FPS is available for competitive play, but the visual compromise is substantial.

For 4K, the recommendation is straightforward: use Low settings. At 66 FPS, it's the only preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium at 47 FPS is playable for slower-paced sections but will struggle during intense combat sequences. High at 42 FPS and Ultra at 36 FPS are best avoided unless you prioritize visual fidelity over responsiveness.

The overall sweet spot for this combo is 1080p Medium or 1440p Medium. Both deliver frame rates that exceed 60 FPS with minimums above 59 FPS, and both benefit from the only available frame time data showing consistent delivery. The 1440p Medium result of 70 FPS with a 59 FPS minimum is particularly compelling — it offers a significant resolution upgrade over 1080p while maintaining a smooth experience.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 brings 14 cores and 14 threads to this pairing, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. This is a desktop-class processor built on Arrow Lake architecture at a 3 nm process node from TSMC, featuring 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Its benchmark results place it in the 89th percentile of all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 46062.

In Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. The data shows it performs this task admirably. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 130 FPS, which is well above what the GPU can sustain at higher settings. This indicates the CPU is not the limiting factor — the GPU's rendering capacity is what caps performance.

The CPU's single-thread performance is strong: 210 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 875 in R20, and 2085 in R23. These scores support fast game logic and physics updates, which Control requires for its physics-heavy combat and destructible environments. The multi-thread scores — 1488 in R15, 6202 in R20, and 14769 in R23 — show ample headroom for background tasks while gaming.

The Passmark suite reinforces this picture. Single-thread performance of 4516 and a multithread score of 37816 indicate a well-rounded processor. The floating-point math score of 117951 and integer math score of 87948 suggest strong compute capability that benefits game physics. Data compression at 390711 and encryption at 29293 reflect solid memory bandwidth utilization, supported by dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

The nearest rivals — the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (0.1% ahead), Intel Core i9-13900HX (0.1% behind), and AMD EPYC 4364P (0.2% ahead) — all perform within a fraction of a percent of this CPU. This means the Core Ultra 5 235 is not a weak link in this system. The bottleneck sits squarely with the RX 9060, which at 59th percentile among GPUs is a much more modest performer relative to its peers.

For Control specifically, the CPU's 5.00 GHz boost clock ensures that single-threaded game logic runs at high speed, while the 14 cores provide enough parallelism for modern game engines. The 65W TDP keeps thermals manageable in standard desktop cooling scenarios. The data clearly shows that if you were to upgrade the GPU in this system, you'd see substantial FPS gains without needing to touch the processor.