Control

# Control with Intel Core Ultra 5 235 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

This combination of Intel's Core Ultra 5 235 and NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1080 Ti produces playable but not exceptional results in Control, with the GPU acting as the primary constraint across all resolutions. The combo ranks in the 55th percentile of tested configurations, and the data shows a clear pattern: 1080p delivers smooth performance at most settings, while 4K demands significant quality reductions to maintain playable frame rates.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control?

A: 1920x1080 is the strongest choice, delivering an average of 84 FPS at High settings and 133 FPS at Low. 2560x1440 remains viable at 64 FPS on High, but 3840x2160 drops to 43 FPS on High, making it marginal.

Q: How does the GTX 1080 Ti compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1080 Ti scores 15,548 on average, putting it 1.7% ahead of the RTX 2060 and GTX 580, 0.2% ahead of the Radeon R9 M380, and 0.8% behind the Radeon Pro W5500. Its 58th percentile ranking places it in the mid-range of all GPUs.

Q: What CPU performance level does the Core Ultra 5 235 offer?

A: The CPU posts an average benchmark score of 46,062, ranking in the 89th percentile of all CPUs. It scores 14,769 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,085 in single-core, with its nearest rival being the Core i9-13900HX at a 0.1% difference.

Q: Is the GTX 1080 Ti's memory configuration sufficient for Control?

A: The 11 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 352-bit bus provides 484.4 GB/s of bandwidth. This is ample for the game's demands, though the GPU's Pascal architecture lacks dedicated ray tracing cores, which affects visual feature support.

Q: Which settings preset delivers the best experience at 1440p?

A: Medium settings at 2560x1440 produce 72 FPS average with a minimum of 61 FPS, providing a smooth experience. High settings drop to 64 FPS, while Ultra falls to 55 FPS, so Medium offers the best balance of visual quality and performance.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: At High settings, average FPS drops from 84 at 1920x1080 to 43 at 3840x2160, representing a 51% reduction. The scaling pattern indicates the GPU becomes increasingly saturated as resolution increases.

GPU Role

The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti operates with a base clock of 1481 MHz and a boost clock of 1582 MHz, paired with 3584 shading units across 224 texture mapping units and 88 raster operation units. This configuration yields 11.34 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is the primary driver of Control's performance characteristics. The GPU's 11 GB memory pool at 484.4 GB/s bandwidth provides sufficient headroom for the game's texture streaming requirements, but the Pascal architecture's lack of dedicated ray tracing hardware means the game must run with standard rasterization techniques.

The measured FPS data reveals that the GPU is the bottleneck in this pairing. At 1920x1080 High settings, the combo achieves 84 FPS, which is respectable but not exceptional. The gap between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p—133 FPS versus 73 FPS—demonstrates that the GPU's compute resources are heavily taxed by higher quality presets. The GTX 1080 Ti's 58th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15,548, places it in a competitive but aging position relative to modern hardware.

The GPU's memory bandwidth of 484.4 GB/s becomes more critical at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages only 37 FPS, suggesting that both the pixel throughput and memory subsystem are near their limits. The 352-bit memory bus and 11 GB capacity are adequate for Control's assets, but the GPU's raw shader performance—11.34 TFLOPS—is what ultimately caps frame rates. The data shows that the CPU's 89th percentile ranking and strong multi-threaded performance (14,769 in Cinebench R23) are not the limiting factor; the GTX 1080 Ti's compute capacity is.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across settings. At High quality, the combo produces 84 FPS at 1920x1080, 64 FPS at 2560x1440, and 43 FPS at 3840x2160. This translates to a 24% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 33% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The overall decline from 1080p to 4K is 51%, indicating that the GPU is scaling as expected with pixel count but hitting compute limits at higher resolutions.

Low settings show a similar pattern but with higher absolute numbers: 133 FPS at 1080p, 101 FPS at 1440p, and 68 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 24% and 33%, respectively, mirroring the High settings trend. This consistency suggests that the resolution scaling is driven primarily by pixel throughput rather than settings-specific effects.

The Medium settings data provides additional insight. At 4K Medium, the combo averages 48 FPS with a minimum of 41 FPS and maximum of 56 FPS. The minimum frame rate is particularly telling—it indicates that even at Medium settings, the GPU occasionally struggles to maintain fluid motion at 4K. At 1440p Medium, the minimum rises to 61 FPS, and at 1080p Medium, it reaches 80 FPS. The frame time variance at 4K suggests the GPU is operating at the edge of its capability.

Ultra settings at 4K produce 37 FPS, which is below the 40 FPS threshold commonly considered minimum for playable action games. The data clearly indicates that 4K requires Low settings (68 FPS) for a consistently smooth experience, while 1440p can handle Medium and High settings comfortably. The scaling pattern points to the GPU as the limiting component—the CPU's 89th percentile performance would likely support higher frame rates if paired with a more capable graphics card.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and GTX 1080 Ti ranks 1585th out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the 54.9th percentile of all configurations. This mid-pack ranking reflects the GPU's age and mid-range standing relative to current hardware. The CPU is not the constraint—it ranks in the 89th percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 46,062, placing it just 0.1% behind the Core i9-13900HX and 0.1% ahead of the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375.

The GPU's 58th percentile ranking (average score 15,548) is more representative of this combo's overall standing. The GTX 1080 Ti sits 1.7% above the RTX 2060 and GTX 580, but 0.8% below the Radeon Pro W5500. This positioning means the combo competes with mid-range modern systems rather than high-end configurations. In Control specifically, the game's demanding lighting and physics effects expose the GPU's limitations more than the CPU's strengths.

The rank of 1585 out of 2888 suggests that roughly 45% of tested combos outperform this pairing. The CPU's strength—particularly its 14,769 Cinebench R23 multi-core score—does not translate into higher frame rates in Control because the game is GPU-bound at most settings. The combo's performance in Control is therefore more closely tied to the GPU's 11.34 TFLOPS compute capability than to the CPU's processing power. For users seeking higher rankings, upgrading the GPU would yield larger gains than upgrading the CPU, as the data indicates the CPU is not the bottleneck at any resolution tested.

Settings Recommendations

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is viable at 73 FPS average, providing the best visual quality while maintaining smooth gameplay. However, the High preset at 84 FPS offers a more comfortable margin for demanding scenes. Medium at 95 FPS is the optimal choice for high-refresh-rate displays, and Low at 133 FPS maximizes performance for competitive play.

For 2560x1440, Medium settings at 72 FPS provide the best experience, with a minimum of 61 FPS ensuring consistent frame delivery. High at 64 FPS is acceptable but leaves less headroom for complex scenes. Ultra at 55 FPS approaches the lower boundary of smoothness, while Low at 101 FPS is the choice for maximum fluidity.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings at 68 FPS deliver a consistently playable experience. Medium at 48 FPS is borderline, with a minimum of 41 FPS that may cause noticeable stutter during intense effects. High at 43 FPS and Ultra at 37 FPS are below acceptable thresholds for action gameplay. The data suggests 4K is only practical with Low settings, and even then, users should expect occasional frame drops.

The measured FPS rows show that each settings tier costs roughly 10-15% performance at the same resolution. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p reduces FPS from 133 to 95 (a 29% drop), while Medium to High costs another 12%, and High to Ultra costs 13%. This scaling is consistent across resolutions, indicating that the GPU handles each quality tier's additional workload proportionally.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo achieves 133 FPS on Low, 95 FPS on Medium (minimum 80, maximum 109), 84 FPS on High, and 73 FPS on Ultra. The Medium settings provide the only complete frame data in this resolution, showing a 29 FPS spread between minimum and maximum. This range suggests some scenes are significantly more demanding, but the 80 FPS minimum keeps gameplay smooth.

At 2560x1440, performance drops to 101 FPS on Low, 72 FPS on Medium (minimum 61, maximum 82), 64 FPS on High, and 55 FPS on Ultra. The Medium settings again show a 21 FPS range, with the 61 FPS minimum still meeting playability standards. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to 9 FPS at this resolution, compared to 11 FPS at 1080p, indicating diminishing returns from Ultra settings.

At 3840x2160, results are 68 FPS on Low, 48 FPS on Medium (minimum 41, maximum 56), 43 FPS on High, and 37 FPS on Ultra. The Medium settings show a 15 FPS range, with the 41 FPS minimum representing the weakest frame delivery in any tested configuration. The progression from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a 31 FPS total drop, with each settings tier reducing performance by roughly 5-10 FPS.

Comparing settings across resolutions, the data shows that Low at 4K (68 FPS) performs nearly identically to Medium at 1440p (72 FPS) and slightly worse than High at 1080p (84 FPS). This indicates that resolution has a larger impact on performance than settings quality—users prioritizing visual fidelity should choose lower resolutions with higher settings, while those wanting higher resolutions must accept reduced quality. The 4K Medium minimum of 41 FPS is the only sub-60 FPS minimum recorded, highlighting that 4K is only viable at Low settings for consistent performance.