Control

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is a study in contrast: a modern, high-efficiency CPU built on a 3 nm process paired with a last-generation mainstream GPU. This combination delivers a playable, if not spectacular, experience in Control, with performance that scales predictably with resolution and settings. The data shows a system that is firmly capable of 1080p gaming but begins to strain under the load of higher resolutions and maximum detail levels.

FAQ

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

A: Based on the measured frames per second, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system consistently maintains a playable framerate across all settings. At High settings, the average is 57 FPS, while Low settings reach 91 FPS.

Q: Can this system handle 4K (3840x2160) gaming?

A: The data indicates no. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 25, which is below the standard for smooth gameplay. Even at 4K Low, the average is 46 FPS, which is borderline, and the 4K High average of 29 FPS is not a suitable target.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in raw processing power?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is essentially tied with its nearest competitors. Its average benchmark score of 46062 is only 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and 0.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 4364P. It is 0.1% lower than the Intel Core i9-13900HX.

Q: Where does the GPU stand relative to other graphics cards?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER sits in the middle of the pack, with a percentile ranking of 53 against all GPUs. Its benchmark scores are nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 580, which it beats by only 0.4%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, which it also beats by 0.4%.

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

A: The jump is significant. Moving from Low to Ultra at 1920x1080 results in a 41 FPS drop in average framerate, from 91 FPS down to 50 FPS. This represents a roughly 45% performance penalty for the highest visual quality.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the limiting factor?

A: The benchmark results suggest the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU's performance is in line with top-tier rivals, while the GPU's 6 GB of VRAM and 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are modest by current standards, and framerates drop significantly as resolution and settings increase, a classic sign of GPU limitation.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the workhorse of this pairing, and its specifications dictate the overall performance envelope in Control. The GPU is built on the Turing architecture using the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It operates at a base clock of 1530 MHz and can boost up to 1785 MHz. The memory subsystem consists of 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. This configuration yields a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s, with a raw compute power of 5.027 TFLOPS.

The data from the measured FPS shows a clear pattern: the GPU's performance is heavily influenced by both resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the card can stretch its legs, delivering a 91 FPS average on Low settings. However, as the resolution increases, the demand on the GPU's pixel fillrate and memory bandwidth grows. At 2560x1440, the average FPS on Low drops to 69, a 24% decrease. At 3840x2160, the Low preset average falls to 46 FPS, which is just half of the 1080p Low performance. This scaling is typical for a GPU with a 192-bit memory bus, as it struggles to feed the shader units at higher pixel counts.

The settings presets also reveal the GPU's limitations. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is a 41 FPS gap (91 vs. 50 FPS). At 1440p, that gap narrows to 31 FPS (69 vs. 38 FPS), and at 4K, it's a 21 FPS gap (46 vs. 25 FPS). The narrowing gap at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is becoming the primary bottleneck, and the absolute framerates at 4K Ultra (25 FPS) and 1440p Ultra (38 FPS) are too low for a fluid experience. The GTX 1660 SUPER is a capable 1080p card, but the data clearly shows it lacks the headroom for high-refresh or high-resolution gaming in Control.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a modern desktop processor that provides ample computational headroom for this gaming workload. It features 14 cores and 14 threads, a configuration that emphasizes parallel processing for a variety of tasks. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz, with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The CPU's architecture is Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, which contributes to its 65 W TDP. It has a 24 MB L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, offering a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and handle game logic, physics, and AI. The benchmark data for the CPU shows it is a strong performer, with an average benchmark score of 46062 and a percentile rank of 89 against all CPUs. This places it in the top tier of processors, essentially on par with the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Intel Core i9-13900HX, which are within a 0.1% deltaPct of its score. Its single-threaded performance, as indicated by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2085, is robust, which is critical for gaming.

The 14-core, 14-thread configuration is more than sufficient for a game like Control, which launched in 2019 and was designed to run on a wide range of hardware. The CPU’s high boost clock of 5.00 GHz ensures that it can handle the primary game thread with ease. The data shows that the CPU is unlikely to be a limiting factor in most scenarios. The significant framerate drops observed when moving from 1080p to 4K are not indicative of CPU bottlenecking; rather, they align perfectly with the GPU's inability to process the increased pixel workload. The CPU's performance headroom suggests it could support a more powerful GPU in the future without being a significant bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks

The combined performance of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER places this system at rank 2471 out of 2888 tested combinations for Control. This puts it in the lower 15% of all tested systems, a reflection of the GPU's age and market position. The CPU itself is a top-tier part (89th percentile), but the GPU sits near the median (53rd percentile). The combo’s ranking is heavily dragged down by the graphics card, which is the weak link in this pairing.

This ranking is consistent with the measured FPS data. While the system is capable of hitting playable framerates at 1080p, its performance at higher resolutions is poor. The fact that it ranks in the bottom 15% of all combos indicates that the vast majority of tested systems can achieve higher framerates or better visual quality in Control. The combination of a high-end CPU with a mid-range, end-of-life GPU results in a system that is well-balanced for 1080p gaming but is not competitive with more modern pairings. The low ranking serves as a warning that while the experience is acceptable at lower settings, it does not hold up against the broader field of hardware.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the system's performance across a matrix of resolutions and settings. The results are presented as average FPS, with some entries including minimum and maximum FPS for a more complete picture of framerate stability.

At 1920x1080, the system performs best. On Low settings, it achieves an average of 91 FPS, which is excellent for a smooth experience. Moving to Medium settings, the average drops to 64 FPS, with a minimum of 55 and a maximum of 74 FPS, indicating a stable and playable range. The High preset yields an average of 57 FPS. The Ultra preset, however, brings the average down to 50 FPS. This is still technically playable, but the margin for error is smaller, and any demanding scene could cause noticeable dips.

At 2560x1440, the performance impact is clear. The Low preset averages 69 FPS, which is still good, but a significant drop from the 1080p result. The Medium preset averages 49 FPS, with a minimum of 41 and a maximum of 56 FPS. The High preset drops to an average of 43 FPS. The Ultra preset is the worst performer here, with an average of only 38 FPS, which makes for a less fluid experience.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable framerates. The Low preset is the only one that approaches a usable level, with an average of 46 FPS. The Medium preset drops to an average of 33 FPS, with a minimum of 28 and a maximum of 38 FPS. The High preset averages 29 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages just 25 FPS. These results clearly show that 4K gaming is not a viable option for this hardware configuration.

Here is a summary of the key measured FPS values:

• 1080p Low: 91 FPS avg
• 1080p Medium: 64 FPS avg (55 min, 74 max)
• 1080p High: 57 FPS avg
• 1080p Ultra: 50 FPS avg
• 1440p Low: 69 FPS avg
• 1440p Medium: 49 FPS avg (41 min, 56 max)
• 1440p High: 43 FPS avg
• 1440p Ultra: 38 FPS avg
• 4K Low: 46 FPS avg
• 4K Medium: 33 FPS avg (28 min, 38 max)
• 4K High: 29 FPS avg
• 4K Ultra: 25 FPS avg

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this hardware is found at the 1920x1080 resolution. The goal is to balance visual quality with a framerate that remains consistently fluid and responsive.

For players with standard 60 Hz monitors, the High preset at 1920x1080 is the clear recommendation. The 57 FPS average is close enough to the 60 FPS target that any minor dips will be largely imperceptible, and it offers a significant visual upgrade over the Medium preset. This setting provides the best balance of image quality and performance, ensuring that the game looks good without sacrificing smoothness.

For those who prioritize a higher, more consistent framerate, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 is an excellent choice. The 64 FPS average, with a minimum of 55 FPS, guarantees a stable experience that is well above the playable threshold. This setting is ideal for players who want to maximize responsiveness, and it provides a buffer against framerate drops in more intense scenes. The Low preset at 1080p, while yielding 91 FPS, compromises too much visual fidelity for the gains, making Medium the better value.

At higher resolutions, the data suggests that compromises are necessary. At 2560x1440, the Low preset, with its 69 FPS average, is the only setting that provides a consistently smooth experience. The Medium preset's 49 FPS average is borderline, and the High and Ultra presets fall below the desired threshold for smooth gameplay. At 3840x2160, none of the settings provide an ideal experience. The Low preset at 46 FPS is the only one that approaches playability, but even it may suffer from noticeable stutters. Therefore, it is recommended to avoid 4K and stick to 1080p for the best overall experience with this hardware.