Control

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 produces a combination that is positioned at the very bottom of the performance hierarchy for Control. The data places this setup at rank 2789 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all systems tested. This is a configuration that struggles to maintain playable frame rates at most resolutions and settings, with the GPU acting as a severe bottleneck throughout the entire test range.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame metric places this specific CPU-GPU pairing at 2789 out of 2888 tested combinations, meaning it outperforms only 99 other tested systems for Control. This is a remarkably low position, indicating that the vast majority of hardware combinations deliver a better experience in this title. The ranking reflects not just the individual weaknesses of each component, but the compounding effect of pairing a modern 14-core processor with an entry-level GPU that was already aging when the game released.

The CPU itself, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235, is a capable processor in isolation. It sits at the 89th percentile when compared against all CPUs in the benchmark database, with an average benchmark score of 46062. Its nearest rivals show how tightly grouped the upper mid-range is: the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 scores 46030, a delta of just 0.1% below, while the Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098, a 0.1% advantage. The AMD EPYC 4364P and EPYC 7303 round out the group with scores of 45970 and 45960, respectively, all within 0.2% of the Ultra 5 235. This shows the processor is more than adequate for gaming workloads.

The GPU, however, is a different story. The GeForce GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447 (0.3% lower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (0.6% lower). The closest competitor above it, the Intel Arc A310, scores 7550, a 1% advantage. This is a GPU that is barely above integrated graphics solutions from several years prior, which explains why the overall combo ranking is so poor. The data shows a clear mismatch: a modern CPU held back by a GPU that is fundamentally underpowered for this title.

FAQ

Q: What is the best frame rate this combination can achieve in Control?

A: The highest average FPS recorded across all tested configurations is 56 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that approaches a smooth 60 FPS experience.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is the clear limiting factor. The CPU ranks in the 89th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits at the 40th percentile. The massive performance drop when moving from 1080p to 4K, combined with the GPU's low benchmark scores, indicates the GTX 1650 is the bottleneck.

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K?

A: Technically yes, but the results are not playable. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset averages 16 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, Medium averages 20 FPS, and even Low only reaches 29 FPS. None of these are acceptable for a real-time action game.

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

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average of 56 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 31 FPS. This is a 25 FPS difference, representing roughly a 45% performance penalty for the highest visual quality preset.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its closest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 7472 on average, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447), 0.4% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441), and 0.6% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425). The Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster at 7550.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 hold back the GTX 1650 in any way?

A: No. The CPU's performance is far above what the GPU requires. With an average benchmark score of 46062 and a position at the 89th percentile, the Ultra 5 235 has ample headroom. The 14-core processor is not the constraint in this pairing.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a predictable but severe scaling pattern across resolutions. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combination achieves 56 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same settings drops the average to 43 FPS, a 23% reduction. At 3840x2160, the average plummets to 29 FPS, which is 48% lower than the 1080p result. This steep decline is typical of a GPU-bound scenario where the pixel throughput requirements outpace the GTX 1650's capabilities.

The pattern holds across all settings presets. High settings scale from 36 FPS at 1080p to 27 FPS at 1440p (a 25% drop) and then to 18 FPS at 4K (a 50% drop from 1080p). Medium settings show a similar trajectory: 40 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 20 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings are the most demanding, falling from 31 FPS at 1080p to 23 FPS at 1440p and finally to 16 FPS at 4K.

This scaling behavior strongly indicates that the GPU is the limiting component. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235, with its 14 cores and 5.00 GHz boost clock, has more than enough processing power to feed the GPU. The consistent halving of performance from 1080p to 4K is a hallmark of a graphics card that is overwhelmed by the increasing pixel count. A CPU-bound system would show much smaller frame rate differences across resolutions, as the processor's workload does not scale with resolution in the same way.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the configuration produces its best results. Low settings yield an average of 56 FPS, which is the only playable configuration in the entire test matrix. Medium settings average 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS. High settings drop to 36 FPS, while Ultra settings bottom out at 31 FPS. The 1080p resolution is the only one where any preset approaches the 60 FPS target, and even then, only at the lowest visual quality.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degrades noticeably. Low settings average 43 FPS, which is still playable but no longer smooth. Medium settings average 30 FPS, with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 35. High settings drop to 27 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 23 FPS. At this resolution, the GTX 1650's 4 GB of VRAM and 128-bit memory bus begin to show their limitations, as the increased texture and shading demands strain the GPU.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unusable for a game like Control. Low settings average 29 FPS, which is technically playable but far from ideal. Medium settings average 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 24. High settings average 18 FPS, and Ultra settings average 16 FPS. The drop from 1080p Low (56 FPS) to 4K Low (29 FPS) represents a 48% reduction, demonstrating how quickly the GPU's performance collapses as resolution increases.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake-S architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a modern, high-performance desktop processor that is more than capable of handling Control's CPU demands.

In the context of this game, the CPU's role is largely to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. Control is an action-adventure game with destructible environments and telekinetic abilities, which can be CPU-intensive in certain scenes. However, the benchmark data shows that the Ultra 5 235 is not the bottleneck. The CPU's average benchmark score of 46062 places it at the 89th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.2% of its score. This suggests that the CPU has significant headroom in this pairing.

The 14 cores and 14 threads are more than sufficient for Control, which is not known for heavy multi-threading. The high boost clock of 5.00 GHz helps with single-threaded performance, which is often more important for game logic. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5 support also ensures that the GPU has access to data without significant delays. In short, the CPU is not the limiting factor; the GTX 1650 is.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only truly playable configuration is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which averages 56 FPS. This is the only preset that comes close to the 60 FPS target that most players consider smooth for an action game. At this setting, the game will look noticeably less detailed, with reduced textures, shadows, and effects, but it will be responsive and playable.

If players are willing to accept a lower frame rate, 1920x1080 with Medium settings offers an average of 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 FPS. This is a more balanced experience, providing better visual quality while still maintaining acceptable responsiveness. The minimum FPS of 34 indicates that there will be noticeable dips during intense scenes, but it may be acceptable for players who prioritize visuals over smoothness.

At 2560x1440, Low settings at 43 FPS is the only viable option, but it is a compromise. The visual quality will be poor, and the frame rate is still below the 60 FPS target. The 4K resolution is not recommended at any setting, as even Low averages only 29 FPS. For the best experience with this hardware, players should stick to 1080p, choosing between Low for smoothness or Medium for a visual upgrade, accepting the associated frame rate trade-off.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the dominant component in this pairing, and not in a good way. It is based on the Turing architecture, using the TU117 chip manufactured on a 12 nm process by TSMC. The GPU has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. It features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth.

The GPU's benchmark scores paint a clear picture of its performance class. It has a passmark G3D score of 7880, a DirectX 11 score of 58, and a DirectX 12 score of 35. It sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals are all older or lower-tier parts, such as the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and Intel UHD Graphics 750. This is a GPU that was entry-level at its launch in 2019 and is now significantly outclassed by modern hardware.

In Control, the GTX 1650's limitations are evident. The 4 GB VRAM is likely a constraint at higher resolutions and settings, as the game's textures and effects can easily exceed this amount. The 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth also limit the GPU's ability to feed the shading units with data. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the primary reason why the system cannot maintain playable frame rates above 1080p Low. The 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate a low-power design, but this does not compensate for the fundamental lack of compute performance.