Control

Settings Recommendations

For Control with the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, the measured data indicates that the High preset at 1440p delivers the most balanced experience, producing an average of 93 FPS. This sits comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold while maintaining substantial visual fidelity. The Medium preset at 1440p yields 104 FPS average with a minimum of 89 FPS, offering a slightly larger performance buffer for demanding scenes, but the High preset’s quality uplift is minimal in cost.

At 1080p, the High preset achieves 122 FPS average, which is well-suited for high-refresh-rate displays. The Ultra preset at 1080p drops to 106 FPS, still playable but with diminishing returns given the visual complexity of Control’s environments. The Low preset at 1080p reaches 194 FPS, but this sacrifices the game’s atmospheric lighting and particle effects, which are central to its presentation.

For 4K gaming, the High preset is the recommended choice, producing 62 FPS average. This is the only 4K setting that stays above the 60 FPS target without requiring compromises. The Medium preset at 4K averages 70 FPS with a minimum of 60 FPS, providing a safer margin for frametime consistency, though the visual downgrade from High to Medium is noticeable in texture detail. The Ultra preset at 4K falls to 54 FPS average, which is below the ideal threshold for smooth gameplay in a title that relies on fast camera movements and physics interactions. The Low preset at 4K reaches 99 FPS, but this is an impractical setting for a game where visual storytelling is paramount.

The data suggests that the sweet spot for this combination is High settings at 1440p for the best balance of image quality and framerate, while Medium at 4K serves as the maximum fidelity option for those prioritizing resolution over settings. The Ultra preset is best reserved for 1080p where the 106 FPS average remains acceptable, but the performance cost relative to High is not justified by the marginal visual gains.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is the dominant component in this pairing, and the measured FPS data reflects its capability. The GPU features 24 GB of GDDR6X memory across a 384-bit bus, providing 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is more than sufficient for Control’s texture streaming and asset loading, even at 4K resolution where the game’s detailed environments demand substantial VRAM headroom.

The GPU’s boost clock of 2520 MHz, combined with 16,384 shading units, delivers raw compute throughput that scales well across resolutions. The benchmark results show a clear GPU-bound pattern: at 1080p High, the system produces 122 FPS, while at 1440p High it drops to 93 FPS, and at 4K High it falls to 62 FPS. This scaling behavior indicates that the RTX 4090’s performance is being utilized progressively more as resolution increases, with the CPU providing sufficient headroom to avoid becoming a bottleneck until lower resolutions.

The RTX 4090’s 82.58 TFLOPS FP32 performance is evident in the High preset’s 4K result of 62 FPS, which represents a demanding workload given Control’s use of real-time ray tracing for reflections and volumetric lighting. The GPU’s 128 RT cores are particularly relevant here, as the game’s physics-driven destruction and particle effects benefit from hardware-accelerated ray tracing. However, the data shows that even with this hardware, the Ultra preset at 4K cannot sustain 60 FPS, indicating that the game’s maximum settings exceed what is reasonably achievable at high resolutions.

The GPU’s 88th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 60,347, places it in the top tier of available hardware. Its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Arc Pro A60 with a 0% delta, and the AMD Radeon Pro VEGA 48 with a 0.3% delta, though these comparisons are based on aggregate benchmarks rather than game-specific performance. In Control, the RTX 4090’s real-world results are what matter, and the data shows it handles the game’s requirements with ease at mainstream resolutions while remaining capable but not flawless at 4K Ultra.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for a consistent 60+ FPS experience in Control?

A: The data shows that 1440p with the High preset produces 93 FPS average, and 4K with the Medium preset produces 70 FPS with a minimum of 60 FPS. For a guaranteed 60 FPS at 4K, the Medium preset is the safest choice, while 1440p High offers a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High in terms of performance?

A: At 1080p, Ultra averages 106 FPS compared to High’s 122 FPS, a 16 FPS difference. At 1440p, Ultra averages 80 FPS versus High’s 93 FPS, a 13 FPS gap. At 4K, Ultra averages 54 FPS versus High’s 62 FPS, an 8 FPS difference. The performance cost of Ultra diminishes as resolution increases, but it never provides a meaningful visual advantage worth the framerate loss.

Q: Is the RTX 4090 sufficient for 4K gaming in Control?

A: Yes, but with caveats. The High preset at 4K achieves 62 FPS average, which is just above the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset provides 70 FPS with a minimum of 60 FPS, offering more consistent performance. The Ultra preset falls to 54 FPS average, which is not ideal for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and High settings?

A: At 1080p, Low averages 194 FPS while High averages 122 FPS, a 72 FPS difference. At 1440p, Low averages 147 FPS versus High’s 93 FPS, a 54 FPS gap. At 4K, Low averages 99 FPS versus High’s 62 FPS, a 37 FPS difference. The relative performance gap narrows as resolution increases, suggesting the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

Q: Can this system achieve 144 FPS at 1080p?

A: Only at Low settings, which produce 194 FPS average. The Medium preset achieves 138 FPS, slightly below 144 FPS. High settings produce 122 FPS, and Ultra produces 106 FPS. For 144 FPS at 1080p, the Medium preset is the closest option, but it does not quite reach the target.

Q: How does the CPU’s performance affect the results?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX has 14 cores and 14 threads, with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 34,731 and single-core score of 4,903 indicate strong processing power. In Control, the FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows that the CPU is not a bottleneck at higher resolutions, as the framerate drops consistently with increased GPU load.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 ranks 612th out of 2,888 tested combinations in Control. This places the system in the top 21% of all tested configurations, which is a strong showing given the game’s demanding nature. The ranking reflects the balance between the CPU’s 91st percentile performance among all processors and the GPU’s 88th percentile among all graphics cards.

The CPU’s average benchmark score of 52,073 places it in close proximity to several high-end desktop processors. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8124P at 52,121 (0.1% difference), the Intel Core i7-14700 at 52,301 (0.4% difference), and the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X at 51,947 (0.2% difference). These comparisons are based on aggregate synthetic benchmarks, but they indicate that the Ultra 5 235HX performs at a level comparable to many desktop-class chips, which is notable for a mobile processor.

The GPU’s average benchmark score of 60,347 places it near the Intel Arc Pro A60 at 60,326 (0% difference) and the AMD Radeon Pro VEGA 48 at 60,140 (0.3% difference). These are workstation-class GPUs, and the RTX 4090’s gaming performance is substantially stronger in real-world titles like Control, as evidenced by the measured FPS data.

The combo’s rank of 612 suggests that while this system is powerful, there are 611 other combinations that achieve higher performance in Control. This is likely due to the fact that the RTX 4090, while a top-tier GPU, is paired with a mobile CPU that, despite its strong scores, does not reach the absolute highest tier of desktop processors. However, the combination still delivers excellent gameplay experiences across all tested resolutions and settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance scaling as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the system produces 122 FPS at 1080p, 93 FPS at 1440p, and 62 FPS at 4K. This represents a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 33% drop from 1440p to 4K. The cumulative drop from 1080p to 4K is 49%, meaning the system loses roughly half its framerate when moving to the highest resolution.

At Low settings, the scaling is more pronounced: 194 FPS at 1080p, 147 FPS at 1440p, and 99 FPS at 4K. This represents a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 33% drop from 1440p to 4K, mirroring the High preset’s relative scaling. The absolute drops are larger at Low settings because the starting framerate is higher, but the percentage changes are consistent.

At Medium settings, the scaling shows 138 FPS at 1080p, 104 FPS at 1440p, and 70 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 25%, and from 1440p to 4K is 33%. At Ultra settings, the numbers are 106 FPS at 1080p, 80 FPS at 1440p, and 54 FPS at 4K, representing a 25% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 33% drop from 1440p to 4K.

The consistent percentage drops across all settings suggest that the GPU is the primary limiting factor at all resolutions. The RTX 4090’s performance scales predictably with pixel count, and the CPU does not introduce additional bottlenecks as resolution increases. This is corroborated by the fact that the 1080p results are not disproportionately higher than 1440p results, which would indicate CPU limitation. Instead, the smooth scaling pattern indicates a GPU-bound workload across the board.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and High settings narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, Low is 59% faster than High (194 vs 122 FPS). At 1440p, Low is 58% faster (147 vs 93 FPS). At 4K, Low is 60% faster (99 vs 62 FPS). This consistency indicates that the GPU’s capacity is the dominant factor, and settings adjustments have a proportional impact regardless of resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1080p Results:

• Low: 194 FPS average
• Medium: 138 FPS average (min: 117 FPS, max: 158 FPS)
• High: 122 FPS average
• Ultra: 106 FPS average

At 1080p, the system delivers exceptional performance across all settings. The Medium preset’s minimum of 117 FPS ensures smooth gameplay even in demanding scenes, while the Low preset’s 194 FPS provides headroom for high-refresh-rate displays up to 180 Hz. The Ultra preset’s 106 FPS remains well above the 60 FPS threshold, making 1080p Ultra a viable option for those prioritizing visual quality.

1440p Results:

• Low: 147 FPS average
• Medium: 104 FPS average (min: 89 FPS, max: 120 FPS)
• High: 93 FPS average
• Ultra: 80 FPS average

At 1440p, the system remains highly capable. The Low preset’s 147 FPS is excellent for competitive play, while the Medium preset’s 104 FPS with a minimum of 89 FPS provides a strong balance. The High preset’s 93 FPS is comfortable for most displays, and even the Ultra preset’s 80 FPS maintains a smooth experience. The Medium preset’s minimum of 89 FPS is particularly notable, as it ensures consistent performance without significant frametime spikes.

4K Results:

• Low: 99 FPS average
• Medium: 70 FPS average (min: 60 FPS, max: 81 FPS)
• High: 62 FPS average
• Ultra: 54 FPS average

At 4K, the system’s performance drops significantly but remains playable at most settings. The Low preset’s 99 FPS is remarkably high for 4K, while the Medium preset’s 70 FPS with a minimum of 60 FPS provides a consistent experience. The High preset’s 62 FPS is marginally above the 60 FPS target, but the minimum is not recorded. The Ultra preset’s 54 FPS falls below the ideal threshold, making it unsuitable for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset is the recommended 4K setting, offering the best balance of quality and performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX is a mobile processor with 14 cores and 14 threads, based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 34,731 and single-core score of 4,903 demonstrate strong performance that rivals many desktop processors.

In Control, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. The game’s dynamic environments, destructible objects, and AI-driven enemies create substantial CPU workload. The measured FPS data indicates that the Ultra 5 235HX handles these tasks effectively, as evidenced by the consistent scaling of framerates across resolutions.

The CPU’s 91st percentile ranking among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 52,073, places it in the upper echelon of available chips. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8124P at 52,121 (0.1% difference), the Intel Core i7-14700 at 52,301 (0.4% difference), and the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X at 51,947 (0.2% difference). These comparisons show that the Ultra 5 235HX performs within a narrow margin of some of the best desktop processors available.

The CPU’s single-thread performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4,903, is particularly relevant for Control’s game logic and scripting. The game’s physics engine and AI routines are largely single-threaded, and the 5.10 GHz boost clock provides the necessary responsiveness. The CPU’s multi-threaded performance, with a PassMark multi-thread score of 40,849, ensures that background processes and streaming assets do not interfere with gameplay.

The CPU’s 14 threads, while fewer than some competing chips with hyper-threading, are sufficient for Control’s requirements. The game is not heavily multi-threaded, and the CPU’s strong single-core performance compensates for the lack of additional threads. The data shows that the CPU does not bottleneck the RTX 4090 at any resolution, as the FPS scaling is consistent with GPU-bound behavior. This is a positive indicator for the Ultra 5 235HX’s gaming capabilities, as it demonstrates the processor can keep pace with one of the most powerful GPUs on the market.