Control

Control on this system pairs the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT, and the measured results show a configuration that is clearly more capable at 1080p and 1440p than at 4K. The CPU sits in the 90th percentile among all tested processors, while the GPU lands in the 60th percentile, which sets expectations for where the bottleneck will appear. This combination ranks 1817th out of 2888 tested combos in this game, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the field overall, though the frame rate data reveals that its positioning changes dramatically depending on resolution and settings.

CPU Role

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. It runs with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, and its 24 MB of shared L3 cache helps feed the six cores that matter most for gaming. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU scores 32,924 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4,648 in single-core, which puts it within 0.8% of the Intel Core i5-14600K and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 in average benchmark score. The single-core performance is what drives most of the frame rate in Control, since this game relies heavily on a few threads for physics and AI logic.

The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in most of the measured scenarios. At 1080p Low, the system hits 124 FPS average, which indicates the processor can feed the GPU well beyond what most displays can show. The 14 threads matter less than the per-core speed here, and the 5.10 GHz boost clock is the key spec for maintaining high minimum frames in action sequences. Compared to its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 5 245 sits essentially at parity with the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (0.4% slower) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.5% slower), while edging out the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H by 0.6% and the Core i5-14600K by 0.8%. These are all single-digit percentage differences, so swapping between these CPUs would not meaningfully change the outcome in Control at the settings tested.

The CPU’s 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for this game, but the architecture’s strength in integer and floating-point math (scores of 91,187 and 120,548 in PassMark) shows it can handle the game’s destructible environments and physics calculations without stalling the GPU. At 4K Ultra, where the system drops to 35 FPS average, the CPU is still not the bottleneck — the load shifts almost entirely to the graphics card. The CPU’s 90th percentile ranking among all processors confirms that it is a top-tier part for this workload, but pairing it with a GPU in the 60th percentile means the CPU will frequently be waiting on the graphics card to finish rendering frames.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, manufactured on a 6 nm process. It features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a generous amount of VRAM for a game from 2019. The GPU runs at a base clock of 1980 MHz, a game clock of 2470 MHz, and a boost clock of 2755 MHz, with 2,048 shading units and 64 ROPs. Its FP32 compute is rated at 22.57 TFLOPS, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RX 7600 XT scores 17,132 in PassMark G3D and 92,426 in Geekbench OpenCL. Its nearest rivals in average score are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (0.7% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (0.3% slower), the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (0.4% slower), and the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (0.9% slower). The RTX 3070 comparison is particularly relevant for Control, as it shows the RX 7600 XT is within striking distance of a card that was a popular choice for this game at launch. However, the GPU’s 60th percentile ranking among all GPUs reveals that it is a mid-tier part, and the measured frame rates reflect that ceiling.

The 16 GB VRAM is never a concern in Control at any resolution or setting tested here, since even 4K Ultra with the game’s highest textures stays well under that limit. The memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s is the more limiting factor, particularly at 4K where the pixel fill rate and texture rate (176.3 GPixel/s and 352.6 GTexel/s) are stretched thin. The GPU’s boost clock of 2755 MHz helps at lower resolutions, where the system can achieve 124 FPS at 1080p Low, but the card’s 64 ROPs become the bottleneck when the resolution climbs. The data clearly shows the GPU is the primary constraint in this pairing for Control, especially at 1440p and 4K with higher settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data tells a clear story about which component limits performance at each resolution. At 1080p with Low settings, the system averages 124 FPS, which is a strong result that indicates the CPU and GPU are both working efficiently. Moving to 1440p Low drops the average to 94 FPS, a 24% reduction, and 4K Low drops it further to 63 FPS, a 49% reduction from 1080p. These percentage drops are larger than what you would see if the CPU were the bottleneck, confirming that the GPU is carrying the load as resolution increases.

The gap between settings also widens with resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 56 FPS (124 down to 68). At 1440p, that difference shrinks to 43 FPS (94 down to 51). At 4K, it narrows to 28 FPS (63 down to 35). This pattern shows that as resolution increases, the GPU becomes so saturated that changing settings has less impact on the final frame rate. The 4K Ultra result of 35 FPS is below the playable threshold for most action games, while 4K Medium at 45 FPS and 4K High at 40 FPS are borderline.

For a 1080p display, this combo is excellent — even Ultra settings hold 68 FPS average, and the 75 FPS minimum at Medium ensures smooth gameplay. At 1440p, the system is still very usable, with High settings at 59 FPS and Ultra at 51 FPS, though those are closer to the edge of what most players would consider smooth. At 4K, the system falls below 60 FPS in every setting tested, with the best result being 63 FPS at Low settings. The scaling pattern suggests that players targeting 4K should stick to Low or Medium settings, or consider a more powerful GPU if they want to maintain high visual quality. The CPU’s performance headroom at 1080p — where it still delivers 124 FPS at Low — indicates that upgrading the GPU would yield significant gains at higher resolutions without needing to change the processor.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT ranks 1817th out of 2888 tested combos in Control, which places it in the 63rd percentile of all pairings. That ranking is a reflection of the GPU’s mid-tier positioning, since the CPU is in the 90th percentile and is clearly not holding the system back. The combo rank is higher than the GPU’s individual percentile, which suggests that the CPU’s strength helps lift the overall result above what the GPU alone would achieve.

The measured FPS data supports this interpretation. At 1080p High, the system delivers 78 FPS, which is above the average for many mid-range combos. At 1440p High, it drops to 59 FPS, which is still competitive but shows the GPU struggling to maintain 60 FPS at that resolution. The 4K results are where the combo rank takes a hit, with 40 FPS at High and 35 FPS at Ultra placing it below many configurations that feature stronger GPUs. If the same CPU were paired with a higher-tier GPU, the combo rank would improve substantially, as the CPU has demonstrated it can push frame rates well beyond what the RX 7600 XT delivers.

Comparing to other combos in the database, this pairing is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it ranks highest relative to other configurations. At 1440p, it is adequate but not exceptional, and at 4K, it falls into the lower quartile of results. The 1817th rank out of 2888 is a fair summary: this is a solid mid-range setup that excels at lower resolutions but struggles to keep up with high-end configurations at 4K. Players who prioritize high frame rates at 1080p with maximum settings will find this combo performs well, while those targeting 4K should look at alternatives with more GPU horsepower.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1080p with high settings?

A: Yes. Measured results show 78 FPS average at 1080p High, and 68 FPS at 1080p Ultra, both of which are comfortably above 60 FPS for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combo?

A: The data shows 1440p is the sweet spot if you want a balance of quality and performance, with 59 FPS at High and 51 FPS at Ultra. At 1080p you get higher frame rates, but 1440p High remains playable, while 4K drops below 60 FPS in all settings.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7600 XT is 0.7% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 in average benchmark score, and 0.3% faster than the GTX 690. It also outperforms the AMD Radeon HD 7970M by 0.4% and the NVIDIA Tesla M4 by 0.9%.

Q: Is the CPU powerful enough for this game?

A: Yes. The Core Ultra 5 245 scores in the 90th percentile of all CPUs and is within 0.8% of the Core i5-14600K. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 124 FPS, indicating the CPU is not the limiting factor.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 4K?

A: The measured results show 63 FPS at Low, 45 FPS at Medium, 40 FPS at High, and 35 FPS at Ultra. Only Low settings approach 60 FPS, so 4K gaming requires dropping quality significantly.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested configurations?

A: It ranks 1817th out of 2888 combos in Control, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. The ranking reflects the GPU’s 60th percentile positioning, while the CPU’s 90th percentile helps the overall result.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results across all settings. Low settings average 124 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate in the entire dataset. Medium settings drop to 88 FPS with a minimum of 75 FPS and a maximum of 101 FPS. High settings average 78 FPS, and Ultra settings average 68 FPS. All four settings at 1080p are above 60 FPS, making this resolution the most versatile for the combo.

At 2560x1440, performance remains playable but begins to show the GPU’s limitations. Low settings average 94 FPS, which is still excellent for a 1440p display. Medium settings average 67 FPS with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 76 FPS, putting the minimum just below the 60 FPS threshold. High settings average 59 FPS, and Ultra settings average 51 FPS. The step from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 20-30% of the frame rate depending on the setting, which is a typical scaling pattern.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 63 FPS, which is the only 4K result above 60 FPS. Medium settings average 45 FPS with a minimum of 38 FPS and a maximum of 52 FPS. High settings average 40 FPS, and Ultra settings average 35 FPS. The 4K results show a clear GPU bottleneck, as reducing settings from Ultra to Low only recovers 28 FPS at this resolution, compared to 56 FPS at 1080p. The minimum frame rate of 38 FPS at 4K Medium indicates that even with some quality reductions, the system will experience noticeable stuttering during intense scenes. For players who insist on 4K, Low settings are the only viable option, and even then, the 63 FPS average leaves little headroom for demanding sections of the game.