Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX and the AMD Radeon 760M integrated GPU places it firmly in the field of playability only at the most forgiving settings. The data indicates a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics solution, where even modest resolutions require significant compromises to achieve acceptable frame rates. This analysis examines the measured performance across resolutions and presets, breaks down the roles of the CPU and GPU, and provides practical settings guidance based strictly on the benchmark data.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate data reveals a classic pattern of GPU-bound scaling as resolution increases. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 40 FPS. Dropping to 1440p Low reduces that to 30 FPS, and at 4K Low, the average falls to 21 FPS. This represents a 25% performance hit when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and a 47.5% hit when moving from 1080p to 4K. This steep decline is a clear indicator that the AMD Radeon 760M is the limiting component, as the rendering workload grows exponentially with pixel count.

The scaling pattern holds across all settings presets. At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 25 FPS at 1080p to 19 FPS at 1440p (a 24% reduction) and further to 13 FPS at 4K (a 48% reduction from 1080p). Medium settings show a similar trajectory: 29 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p, and 15 FPS at 4K. The consistency of these percentage drops across presets suggests that the resolution scaling is uniform, and the bottleneck remains the GPU's fill rate and shading power rather than any CPU-side limitation.

What this means for the user is that 1080p is the only viable resolution for this iGPU configuration. The jump to 1440p costs roughly a quarter of the performance, pushing even Low settings below the 30 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for playable action games. The 4K results are effectively unplayable, with the best case being 21 FPS at Low settings. The data strongly suggests that users should treat this as a 1080p gaming platform, as any attempt to push higher resolutions will result in a sub-30 FPS experience across all quality presets.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX brings substantial processing power to this pairing, though its capabilities are largely untapped in this scenario. The CPU features 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The architectural foundation is Arrow Lake-HX, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, with a 24 MB shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, the processor scores 34,731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4,903 in single-core, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs.

The nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD EPYC 8124P (0.1% slower), the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (0.2% faster), the Intel Core i7-14700 (0.4% faster), and the Intel Core i9-13900F (0.7% faster). This places the 235HX in elite company, with performance essentially matching desktop-class processors from the previous generation. The PassMark multi-thread score of 40,849 reinforces this position, showing strong multi-core capability that would be beneficial in CPU-intensive titles.

However, the game's measured FPS data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor here. The consistent frame rate drops with resolution increases, without any signs of CPU-side stutter or frame pacing issues, indicate that the processor has ample headroom. Even at 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the 40 FPS average is more likely constrained by the iGPU's pixel throughput than by the CPU's ability to feed it draw calls. The CPU's high single-thread score of 4,683 in PassMark suggests it can handle game logic and physics easily, but the Radeon 760M simply cannot render frames fast enough to utilize that headroom.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is the decisive factor in this system's gaming performance. This integrated GPU, based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with a chip codename of Phoenix, operates with a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz. It features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, along with 8 ray tracing cores. The memory configuration is system-shared, meaning it uses the host's DDR5 memory with bandwidth that is system-dependent. The GPU's FP32 compute is rated at 5.323 TFLOPS.

In benchmark rankings, the Radeon 760M sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, with a PassMark G3D score of 5,310. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (0.3% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (0.3% faster), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (0.4% faster), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (0.5% slower). This positioning makes it comparable to entry-level discrete GPUs from several generations ago, which aligns with the modest frame rates observed in Control.

The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 400 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,336 further illustrate its limited capability. The PassMark DirectX 11 score of 52 and DirectX 12 score of 25 indicate that the GPU struggles with modern API workloads. In the context of Control, a game that relies heavily on DirectX 12 features, this translates directly to the sub-30 FPS results at most settings. The 16 ROPs are a particular bottleneck, as they limit pixel fill rate and explain why higher resolutions cause such dramatic frame rate drops. The system-shared memory also means that the GPU competes with the CPU for bandwidth, though the data does not show this as a separate limiting factor in the measured results.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience is achieved at 1080p with Low settings, which yields an average of 40 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches a smooth 60 FPS target, and it provides the headroom needed for action sequences that might cause frame dips. The minimum FPS data is only available for Medium settings, where the 1080p result shows a minimum of 24 FPS and a maximum of 33 FPS, suggesting that even Low settings could see occasional drops below 40 FPS in intense scenes.

At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 29 FPS, which is playable but noticeably less smooth. The minimum of 24 FPS recorded at this setting is borderline for a game like Control, where precise timing and quick reactions are required. 1080p High reduces the average to 25 FPS, and Ultra drops it to 22 FPS. None of these higher presets provide a meaningfully better visual experience that would justify the frame rate loss, given the GPU's limited capability.

For users prioritizing frame rate, 1080p Low is the clear choice. If visual quality is paramount and the user can tolerate sub-30 FPS, 1080p Medium offers a balance, but the data does not support venturing into High or Ultra presets. The 1440p and 4K resolutions are not recommended, as even Low settings fail to reach 30 FPS at 1440p (30 FPS average) and 4K (21 FPS average). The system's performance ceiling is firmly at 1080p, and the settings slider should be kept at Low for the best playable experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system in Control?

A: The data shows that 1080p with Low settings provides the best experience, achieving an average of 40 FPS. This is the only configuration that offers a smooth frame rate, as all other combinations fall below 30 FPS.

Q: Can this system run Control at 1440p?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, which yields an average of 30 FPS. Medium settings drop to 22 FPS, and High/Ultra fall to 19 FPS and 17 FPS respectively, making these presets less viable for action gameplay.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 760M compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Radeon 760M's PassMark G3D score of 5,310 places it nearly equal to the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (0.3% faster) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (0.3% faster). It is also comparable to the NVIDIA Quadro P2000, which is 0.5% slower.

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

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting component. The frame rate drops consistently with resolution increases, which indicates a pixel-rate bottleneck. The CPU's high benchmark scores, including a 91st percentile ranking, show it has ample headroom.

Q: What is the lowest frame rate recorded in the benchmarks?

A: The lowest average frame rate is 11 FPS at 4K Ultra settings. The minimum FPS data is limited, but the 4K Medium preset shows a minimum of 12 FPS and a maximum of 17 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX perform against its nearest rivals?

A: The 235HX is essentially on par with its nearest rivals. It is 0.1% slower than the AMD EPYC 8124P, 0.2% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, 0.4% slower than the Intel Core i7-14700, and 0.7% faster than the Intel Core i9-13900F.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full set of measured frame rates is presented below, organized by resolution and settings preset.

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: Average 40 FPS
• Medium: Average 29 FPS (Minimum 24 FPS, Maximum 33 FPS)
• High: Average 25 FPS
• Ultra: Average 22 FPS

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: Average 30 FPS
• Medium: Average 22 FPS (Minimum 18 FPS, Maximum 25 FPS)
• High: Average 19 FPS
• Ultra: Average 17 FPS

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: Average 21 FPS
• Medium: Average 15 FPS (Minimum 12 FPS, Maximum 17 FPS)
• High: Average 13 FPS
• Ultra: Average 11 FPS

This data confirms that the system's performance declines predictably with resolution and quality increases. The only configuration that breaks the 60 FPS barrier is 1080p Low, and even then, the average of 40 FPS suggests that demanding scenes will cause noticeable slowdowns. The 1440p Low result of 30 FPS is marginal, while all 4K results are below 21 FPS, making them unsuitable for gameplay. The combination of the high-end CPU and entry-level iGPU creates a system where the processor's potential is wasted in this title, as the graphics solution dictates the overall experience. Users should set expectations accordingly and prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity when playing Control on this hardware.