Control

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 580 presents a stark contrast in capabilities within Control. The data shows a modern, high-end processor constrained by an older, mid-range graphics card, resulting in a combination that ranks near the bottom of the database. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS to clarify where the bottleneck lies and what experience users can realistically expect.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock is 3.50 GHz, boosting up to 5.10 GHz. The CPU’s substantial 24 MB of shared L3 cache and support for DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s are designed for high throughput. In synthetic benchmarks, this processor demonstrates strong performance, achieving a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and a single-core score of 4648. Its average benchmark score of 48995 places it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, indicating it is a top-tier performer for general processing tasks.

However, the benchmark results in Control do not reflect this CPU's potential. The game's performance is heavily constrained by the GPU, meaning the Core Ultra 5 245 is likely not the limiting factor. The CPU sits near its rivals in overall performance: it is 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, while being 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600K. This suggests that in a CPU-bound scenario, this chip would deliver frame rates comparable to those other high-end parts. Yet, in this specific pairing, the measured FPS is low across all resolutions, pointing to the GPU as the primary constraint. The processor’s high single-thread performance, as indicated by its 4648 R23 single-core score, is more than sufficient to feed the RX 580, meaning the game’s logic and draw calls are not the source of the low frame rates. The data implies that if a more powerful GPU were installed, the Core Ultra 5 245 would be capable of significantly higher FPS.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is an older graphics card, based on the GCN 4.0 architecture and Polaris 20 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process. It features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. Its core clocks are 1257 MHz base and 1340 MHz boost. With 2304 shading units and a texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s, it delivers a compute performance of 6.175 TFLOPS. While this was a capable card at its launch, its age is evident in its benchmark percentile; it sits in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 12928 places it in close competition with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, which it trails by 0.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, which it trails by 0.4%.

In Control, the RX 580’s age and compute power are the dominant factors in the measured FPS. The game is known for its demanding visual effects, and the data clearly shows the GPU struggling to maintain playable frame rates at higher settings and resolutions. The 8 GB VRAM capacity appears sufficient for the game's assets at these settings, but the raw shading power is insufficient. The low FPS numbers, such as 20 FPS at 4K High, are a direct result of the GPU’s rendering limitations rather than a lack of memory. The card is simply overwhelmed by the game's requirements, making it the unequivocal performance bottleneck in this system. Its DirectX 12 benchmark score of 43 and DirectX 11 score of 60 further illustrate its limited API-level performance for modern titles.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data across resolutions provides a clear picture of the system's behavior under increasing load. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 63 FPS, which is the highest recorded for this combo. Moving to 1440p Low drops the average to 48 FPS, a 23.8% decrease. At 4K Low, the average falls to 32 FPS, a further 33.3% decrease from 1440p. This scaling pattern is typical of a system that is predominantly GPU-bound. As the resolution increases, the pixel count and shading load on the GPU rise, directly reducing the frame rate.

The trend is consistent across all settings. For High settings, the FPS drops from 40 at 1080p to 30 at 1440p, then to 20 at 4K. This represents a 50% decrease from 1080p to 4K. The data indicates that the frame rate is almost entirely dependent on the GPU's ability to render each frame. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see less variation in FPS between resolutions, as the CPU's workload would remain relatively constant. Instead, the steep drop-offs confirm that the Core Ultra 5 245 is not a limiting factor; the RX 580 is working at its maximum capacity, and its performance degrades predictably as the render resolution grows. The difference between 1080p and 4K highlights that this pairing is only suitable for lower resolutions, with 4K being nearly unplayable.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested combinations for Control, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 580 ranks at 2633 out of 2888 total combos. This places it in the bottom 9% of all tested systems, indicating a very poor performance level relative to the broader hardware landscape. This low rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's limitations, despite the CPU's high percentile ranking. The combination demonstrates that a top-tier processor cannot compensate for a dated graphics card in a GPU-intensive game.

The ranking suggests that the vast majority of other CPU/GPU pairings tested deliver higher frame rates in Control. This is not a reflection of the CPU's capabilities but rather the mismatch between the two components. The data shows that this combo is significantly underpowered for the game's demands. The Core Ultra 5 245 is a modern, high-performance part, but it is paired with a GPU that was released several years prior and is now considered an entry-level or legacy option. The result is a system that is severely bottlenecked, leading to a user experience that falls far behind what the CPU alone could offer. This ranking serves as a cautionary example of how a system's overall performance can be dragged down by its weakest link.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average FPS this combination can achieve in Control?*

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 63, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 or the AMD Radeon RX 580 the main limiting factor?

A: The data suggests the AMD Radeon RX 580 is the main limiting factor. The CPU is a high-performer, but the FPS drops significantly with resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck.

*Q: Can this system run Control at 4K resolution?*

A: Technically it can, but the performance is subpar. At 4K with Medium settings, it averages 23 FPS (with a minimum of 19), and at High settings, it averages only 20 FPS. These frame rates are below what is generally considered playable.

Q: How does the RX 580 compare to its nearest rival, the GTX 1660 SUPER?

A: The benchmark data shows the RX 580 has an average score of 12928, which is 0.4% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER's score of 12986. This indicates the GTX 1660 SUPER holds a slight performance edge.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops from 48 on Low settings to 26 on Ultra settings. This is a 45.8% reduction in frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

*Q: Is the CPU's performance in Control typical of its overall capabilities?*

A: No. The Core Ultra 5 245 ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs in general benchmarks. Its performance in Control is severely hampered by the GPU, so its low FPS in this game does not reflect its standalone processing power.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following data represents the exact measurements for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 580 in Control.

Resolution: 3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: Average FPS 32
• Medium: Average FPS 23, Minimum FPS 19, Maximum FPS 26
• High: Average FPS 20
• Ultra: Average FPS 18

Resolution: 2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: Average FPS 48
• Medium: Average FPS 34, Minimum FPS 29, Maximum FPS 39
• High: Average FPS 30
• Ultra: Average FPS 26

Resolution: 1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: Average FPS 63
• Medium: Average FPS 45, Minimum FPS 38, Maximum FPS 51
• High: Average FPS 40
• Ultra: Average FPS 35

The data shows a consistent pattern. At every resolution, the Low preset provides the highest frame rate, followed by Medium, High, and finally Ultra. The gaps between settings are significant, and the minimum FPS values at Medium settings indicate that there are noticeable frame drops during gameplay, which can affect smoothness. For example, at 1080p Medium, the FPS can dip to 38, suggesting occasional stuttering. The 4K data is uniformly poor, with all presets falling below the 32 FPS average of the Low setting, which itself is not a smooth experience.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this hardware combination is found at 1080p with the Low preset. This is the only configuration that breaks the 60 FPS average threshold, delivering a 63 FPS average. This provides the most responsive and fluid gameplay, which is crucial for an action-adventure title like Control. While the visual fidelity will be reduced, the playability is significantly better than any other option.

If a user prioritizes visual quality over raw frame rate, the 1080p Medium preset is the next viable option, offering a 45 FPS average. This is a playable frame rate, though not as smooth as 60 FPS. The minimum FPS of 38 suggests some potential for stutter in intense scenes. At 1440p, the Low preset offers a 48 FPS average, which is playable, but the Medium preset drops to 34 FPS, which starts to feel less responsive. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p, with averages of 30 and 26 FPS respectively, are not recommended for a satisfactory experience. All 4K presets are below 32 FPS and should be avoided.

The data implies that the "best experience" is a trade-off. For users with a standard 1080p monitor, the Low preset is the only one that guarantees a consistently high frame rate. The Medium preset is a compromise for those who want some visual enhancements but can tolerate occasional frame dips. Higher resolutions and settings are simply not viable with this GPU, as the frame rates fall into a range that is typically considered unplayable for an action game. The recommended path is to prioritize frame rate and lower the resolution to 1080p.