Control

# Control with Intel Core Ultra 5 235 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070

This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 ranks 2395th out of 2888 tested combos for Control, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. The CPU sits at the 89th percentile among all processors, while the GPU rests at only the 47th percentile among all graphics cards — a substantial imbalance that shapes every benchmark result in this pairing.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2395 out of 2888 corresponds to roughly the 17th percentile of tested systems for this game. This is a modest standing, driven almost entirely by the GTX 1070's age and position in the GPU hierarchy. The processor, by contrast, is a modern desktop part that outperforms or matches several high-end mobile and server chips in synthetic workloads.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database, the Core Ultra 5 235 posts an average benchmark score of 46062. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 scores 46030, a delta of 0.1% — essentially a statistical tie. The Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098, putting the Ultra 5 235 just 0.1% behind. The AMD EPYC 4364P and EPYC 7303 trail by 0.2%. These deltas are all within noise, meaning the Core Ultra 5 235 delivers compute performance comparable to a flagship mobile HX chip and dual-socket server parts.

The GPU tells a different story. The GTX 1070's average benchmark score is 9780, with its nearest rival being the AMD FirePro W5000 at 9803 (0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M at 9832 (0.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 at 9724 (0.6% behind). The GTX 1070 sits at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, placing it squarely in the middle of the pack — but for a demanding 2019 title like Control, middle-of-the-pack is not enough for high-refresh or high-resolution play.

The data indicates that this combo's rank is constrained by the GPU. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 97 FPS, which is playable, but the CPU is clearly capable of far more. The Ultra 5 235's multithreaded PassMark score of 37816 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14769 suggest headroom that the GTX 1070 cannot exploit in this title.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo better suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming in Control?

A: At 1080p, the system delivers between 53 FPS (Ultra) and 97 FPS (Low), making it viable for 60 FPS gameplay on Medium or High settings. At 1440p, average FPS ranges from 40 (Ultra) to 73 (Low), which requires dropping to Low settings for smooth 60 FPS performance. 4K is not recommended, as even Low settings yield only 49 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1070 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1070's average benchmark score of 9780 places it within 0.7% of all four nearest rivals. The Quadro M2000M and FirePro W5000 are 0.5% and 0.2% ahead respectively, while the Tesla M10 and Tesla C2070 trail by 0.6% and 0.7%. These differences are negligible in real-world gaming.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 235 bottleneck the GTX 1070 in Control?

A: Benchmark results indicate the CPU is not the limiting factor. The Ultra 5 235 ranks at the 89th percentile among all CPUs, while the GTX 1070 sits at the 47th percentile. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a consistent drop attributable to GPU load, not CPU limitations.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 60 FPS target at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Medium settings produce an average of 69 FPS with a minimum of 58 FPS, which meets the 60 FPS target. High settings average 61 FPS, but the minimum FPS is not reported. For a guaranteed 60 FPS floor, Medium is the safest choice.

Q: How much performance is lost between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution?

A: At 1080p, the drop from Low to Ultra is 44 FPS (97 to 53). At 1440p, the drop is 33 FPS (73 to 40). At 4K, the drop is 22 FPS (49 to 27). The diminishing absolute FPS loss at higher resolutions indicates the GPU is becoming the primary constraint.

Q: What memory configuration does this system use?

A: The CPU supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 256.3 GB/s bandwidth. No specific memory capacity or speed is provided in the measured data.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling across resolutions. At Low settings, the system produces 97 FPS at 1080p, 73 FPS at 1440p, and 49 FPS at 4K. This represents a 24.7% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a further 32.9% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is 49.5%.

At Medium settings, the scaling is similar: 69 FPS at 1080p, 52 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 24.6% and 32.7% respectively. At High settings, the system delivers 61 FPS at 1080p, 46 FPS at 1440p, and 31 FPS at 4K — drops of 24.6% and 32.6%. Ultra settings show 53 FPS at 1080p, 40 FPS at 1440p, and 27 FPS at 4K, with drops of 24.5% and 32.5%.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all four settings presets is striking. Regardless of whether the game runs at Low or Ultra, moving from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 24.5-24.7% of the frame rate, and moving from 1440p to 4K costs roughly 32.5-32.9%. This uniformity indicates that the scaling is purely resolution-driven, not settings-driven, which is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario. The pixel count increase from 1080p (2.07 million pixels) to 1440p (3.69 million) is about 78%, yet the FPS drop is only 25%, suggesting that the GTX 1070 has some headroom in its memory bandwidth or shading capacity. The jump to 4K (8.29 million pixels) represents a 125% increase over 1440p, and the 33% FPS drop reflects the GPU's diminishing ability to sustain fill rate.

The limiting component is unequivocally the GPU. The CPU's performance does not change with resolution, and the fact that FPS scales consistently with pixel count — not with scene complexity or physics load — points to the GTX 1070's rasterization and memory bandwidth as the bottleneck. At 4K Ultra, the system drops to 27 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS minimum for playable frame rates in most games.

Settings Recommendations

For a smooth 60 FPS experience at 1920x1080, the data points to Medium settings as the optimal choice. The measured average of 69 FPS with a minimum of 58 FPS ensures that the frame rate stays above the 60 FPS threshold in most scenes. High settings average 61 FPS, which is technically above 60, but the minimum FPS is not reported, introducing uncertainty about whether drops below 60 occur during intense action sequences.

At 2560x1440, the situation changes. Low settings produce 73 FPS average, which is comfortably above 60, while Medium drops to 52 FPS average with a minimum of 44 FPS. For 1440p gaming, Low settings are the only preset that reliably maintains 60 FPS. High and Ultra at 1440p yield 46 FPS and 40 FPS respectively, which are playable but not smooth for fast-paced action.

At 3840x2160, no settings preset achieves 60 FPS. Low settings deliver 49 FPS average, which is playable but not ideal. Medium produces 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS, dipping to the edge of playability. High and Ultra produce 31 FPS and 27 FPS respectively, which are below the 30 FPS threshold for acceptable performance.

The best experience per the measured rows depends on the user's resolution target. For 1080p users, Medium settings offer the best balance of visual quality and frame rate stability. For 1440p users, Low settings are the only option for 60 FPS, but the visual trade-off may not be worth it; Medium at 52 FPS might be preferable for those who prioritize image quality. For 4K users, Low settings at 49 FPS is the only viable option, and even that is marginal.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its best results. Low settings deliver an average of 97 FPS. Medium settings average 69 FPS with a minimum of 58 FPS and a maximum of 79 FPS. High settings average 61 FPS. Ultra settings average 53 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 44 FPS, with each settings tier costing roughly 12-16 FPS over the previous one.

At 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably. Low settings average 73 FPS. Medium settings average 52 FPS with a minimum of 44 FPS and a maximum of 60 FPS. High settings average 46 FPS. Ultra settings average 40 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 33 FPS, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium (21 FPS).

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 49 FPS. Medium settings average 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. High settings average 31 FPS. Ultra settings average 27 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 22 FPS, and the gap between Low and Medium is 14 FPS.

The Medium settings rows are the only ones with complete min/max data across all three resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the range is 58-79 FPS, a 21 FPS variance. At 1440p Medium, the range is 44-60 FPS, a 16 FPS variance. At 4K Medium, the range is 30-40 FPS, a 10 FPS variance. The narrowing variance at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is becoming consistently saturated, reducing the impact of scene complexity on frame rate.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake-S architecture, built on a 3nm TSMC process node. It has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a 65W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates strong performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 14769, and its single-core score is 2085. The PassMark multithread score is 37816, with a single-thread score of 4516. The data compression score of 390711 and floating-point math score of 117951 indicate robust compute capability.

For Control, an Action Adventure game that relies heavily on physics and particle effects, CPU performance matters for maintaining frame rate consistency. The Ultra 5 235's 14 cores and 14 threads provide ample parallel processing power, and its 5.00 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-thread performance for game logic and draw call submission.

However, the benchmark data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo. The consistent FPS scaling across resolutions, with the same percentage drops regardless of settings, indicates that the GPU is saturated before the CPU reaches its limits. The CPU's 89th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 47th percentile confirms this imbalance. In a game like Control, which can be CPU-intensive in complex scenes, the Ultra 5 235 has sufficient headroom to handle the game's demands without bottlenecking the GTX 1070.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5 may also play a role in feeding the GPU with data. While this is not a bottleneck in the measured results, it ensures that the system's memory subsystem does not constrain performance.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is a Pascal-architecture GPU built on a 16nm process, with 1920 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. It operates at a base clock of 1506 MHz and a boost clock of 1683 MHz, with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus providing 256.3 GB/s of bandwidth.

The GTX 1070's pixel rate is 107.7 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 202.0 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 6.463 TFLOPS. These specifications place it as a mid-range GPU from the 2016 era, and its 47th percentile ranking among all GPUs reflects its age relative to modern hardware.

In Control, the GTX 1070's performance is the primary constraint. At 1080p Low, it delivers 97 FPS, but this drops to 53 FPS at Ultra. At 1440p, the range is 73 FPS to 40 FPS, and at 4K, it is 49 FPS to 27 FPS. The GPU's 8 GB of VRAM is sufficient for the game at these settings, as no texture-related hitches or stutters are indicated in the min FPS data.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database are all professional or mobile parts, which underscores its mid-range positioning. The GTX 1070's average benchmark score of 9780 places it within 0.7% of the AMD FirePro W5000, NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, NVIDIA Tesla M10, and NVIDIA Tesla C2070. None of these are gaming-focused GPUs, highlighting that the GTX 1070 is an older gaming part competing with workstation hardware in synthetic tests.

For Control specifically, the GTX 1070's 256.3 GB/s memory bandwidth and 6.463 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are the determining factors. The game's use of physics-based destruction and particle effects stresses both compute and memory bandwidth. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU handles 1080p Medium and High settings well, maintaining averages above 60 FPS, but struggles at 4K where the pixel fill rate becomes the bottleneck.