Control

Control pairs an Intel Core Ultra 5 245 with an AMD Radeon RX 7700, producing a combination that lands solidly in the middle of the pack for this action-adventure title. The data places this pairing at rank 1294 out of 2888 tested combos, which is a percentile position of roughly 55%. That is a firmly mid-table result, indicating that while the hardware is not at the bleeding edge for this game, it is also far from the bottom of the barrel. The pairing sits just above the median, meaning a majority of tested configurations outperform it, but it still delivers a playable experience across most settings, as the measured frames per second confirm.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame of 1294 out of 2888 places this system in the 55th percentile, a position that reflects a balanced but not exceptional pairing. This is not a configuration that will top any charts for Control, but it is also not one that struggles to keep up with the average system. The ranking suggests that the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 are well-matched for this specific title, with neither component acting as a severe bottleneck that would drag the combo down the list. However, the fact that roughly 45% of tested combos rank higher indicates that there is headroom in the game’s engine for more powerful hardware to shine.

When looking at the individual components, the CPU’s average benchmark score of 48995 places it in the 90th percentile against all processors, which is a strong showing. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G with a score of 49196 (a delta of -0.4%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 with 49228 (a delta of -0.5%), and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H with 48698 (a delta of 0.6%). The Intel Core i5-14600K trails slightly with a score of 48618 (a delta of 0.8%). These deltas are tiny, meaning the Ultra 5 245 is essentially trading blows with these chips, with performance differences well under 1%. This suggests the CPU is not the limiting factor in the combo’s mid-table ranking.

On the GPU side, the Radeon RX 7700 has an average benchmark score of 15852, which places it in the 58th percentile against all graphics cards. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R9 370X with 15862 (a delta of -0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 with 16014 (a delta of -1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 with 15679 (a delta of 1.1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti with 16129 (a delta of -1.7%). Again, the deltas are minimal, showing that the RX 7700 is competitive with these cards, but the 58th percentile GPU ranking combined with the 90th percentile CPU ranking does not translate into a top-tier gaming combo. The game’s demands likely favor other pairings, but the data shows this one is a reliable mid-tier performer.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with a Navi 32 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s. The memory clock runs at 2438 MHz, which translates to 19.5 Gbps effective. The GPU’s base clock is 1900 MHz, with a game clock of 2041 MHz and a boost clock of 2459 MHz. These specifications are substantial for a modern mid-range card, and the 16 GB frame buffer is particularly relevant for Control, a game known for its heavy use of physics and particle effects that can consume VRAM at higher resolutions.

In the measured results, the GPU’s role becomes clear when examining how the frame rate scales with settings. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 148 FPS, which is a high refresh rate territory. This suggests that at lower settings, the GPU has ample headroom and is not being pushed to its limits. However, as settings increase to Ultra at 1080p, the FPS drops to 81, indicating that the GPU is starting to work harder. The pattern continues at 1440p, where Low yields 112 FPS, but Ultra drops to 61 FPS. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the dominant factor, with Low producing 76 FPS and Ultra falling to 41 FPS. The data shows that the RX 7700 is capable of handling the game’s graphical load, but it needs settings adjustments to maintain smooth frame rates at higher resolutions.

The GPU’s 40 ray accelerators (RT cores) are present, but Control is not a title that heavily leverages ray tracing in the measured data, so the focus remains on traditional rasterization performance. The 2560 shading units and 96 ROPs provide the raw throughput needed for the game’s complex scenes. The 200 W TDP and dual-slot design are typical for this class of card, and the PCIe 4.0 x16 interface ensures adequate bandwidth. The GPU’s average benchmark score of 15852 and 58th percentile ranking confirm that it is a solid performer, but not one that will dominate demanding titles at maximum settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At 1080p, the combo delivers 93 FPS on High settings, which drops to 71 FPS at 1440p and further to 48 FPS at 4K. This represents a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 32% drop from 1440p to 4K. This scaling indicates that the GPU is becoming increasingly stressed as pixel count rises, which is typical for a mid-range card in a demanding game.

The pattern is more pronounced at lower settings. At Low, 1080p produces 148 FPS, which drops to 112 FPS at 1440p (a 24% reduction) and then to 76 FPS at 4K (a 32% reduction from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings suggests that the limiting factor is primarily the GPU’s pixel throughput, not the CPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rate to stay more constant as resolution increases, since the CPU workload does not change significantly with resolution. Instead, the steady decline in FPS with higher resolutions points squarely at the RX 7700 as the main constraint.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is even steeper. 1080p Ultra yields 81 FPS, 1440p Ultra drops to 61 FPS (a 25% reduction), and 4K Ultra falls to 41 FPS (a 33% reduction from 1440p). The 4K Ultra result of 41 FPS is below the 60 FPS target that most gamers prefer, indicating that this resolution and settings combination is too demanding for the GPU. The data suggests that the combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can maintain respectable frame rates across most settings, while 4K requires compromises to stay playable.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the combo’s performance across four settings presets and three resolutions. At 1920x1080, the results are strong across the board. Low settings produce an average of 148 FPS, which is excellent for competitive play or high refresh rate monitors. Medium settings yield 105 FPS with a minimum of 89 FPS and a maximum of 121 FPS, showing good consistency. High settings drop to 93 FPS, which is still very smooth, while Ultra settings produce 81 FPS, keeping the experience fluid. The 1080p results show that the combo has no trouble at this resolution, even at the highest preset.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains playable but with noticeable drops. Low settings average 112 FPS, which is still high, but Medium drops to 80 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 92 FPS. High settings yield 71 FPS, which is acceptable for most gamers, while Ultra settings produce 61 FPS, which is right at the edge of smoothness. The 1440p results indicate that the combo can handle this resolution well, but users will need to choose between High and Ultra settings based on their preference for visual fidelity versus frame rate stability.

At 3840x2160, the performance takes a significant hit. Low settings average 76 FPS, which is playable, but Medium drops to 54 FPS with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS. High settings produce 48 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 41 FPS. The 4K results show that the combo struggles to maintain 60 FPS at this resolution, even at Low settings, where it just barely exceeds that threshold. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium of 46 FPS indicates that there can be noticeable stutters in demanding scenes, making 4K gaming a less than ideal experience for this pairing.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, the Ultra preset delivers 81 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold and provides a high level of visual quality. The data shows no need to compromise at this resolution, as even the most demanding preset remains smooth. For gamers with high refresh rate monitors, the High preset at 93 FPS or even Medium at 105 FPS would be preferable, but Ultra offers the best balance of visuals and performance for most users.

At 1440p, the choice becomes more nuanced. The Ultra preset produces 61 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS target but leaves little headroom for drops. The High preset at 71 FPS offers a more comfortable margin, with only a slight reduction in visual fidelity. The Medium preset at 80 FPS is also a strong option, providing good smoothness and consistency. For the best experience at 1440p, the High preset is recommended, as it balances frame rate and image quality effectively, while Ultra is acceptable for those who prioritize visuals over a slight risk of frame dips.

At 4K, the recommendations change drastically. The Ultra preset at 41 FPS is not recommended for a smooth experience, and the High preset at 48 FPS is also below the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 54 FPS is closer but still not ideal, and the Low preset at 76 FPS is the only setting that provides a consistently playable frame rate. For 4K gaming, the data suggests that users should stick to Low or Medium settings, with Low being the safest choice for maintaining smooth gameplay. The 16 GB of VRAM is sufficient for 4K textures, but the GPU’s raw compute power is the limiting factor, so settings must be reduced accordingly.

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. Its base clock is 3.50 GHz, with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, and it has a 65 W TDP. The CPU features a 24 MB shared L3 cache, with 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 192 KB of L1 cache per core. This specification set is robust for a desktop processor, and its benchmark results confirm its strength. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 48995 places it in the 90th percentile, with a multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 32924 and a single-core score of 4648. These numbers show a capable processor that can handle both threaded and single-threaded workloads effectively.

In Control, the CPU’s role is less pronounced than the GPU’s, as evidenced by the resolution scaling data. The fact that frame rates drop consistently as resolution increases indicates that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck in this combo. The Ultra 5 245’s high single-core performance, as shown by its 468 score in Cinebench R15 single-core and 1952 in R20 single-core, ensures that the game’s main thread is well-served. The 14 cores and 14 threads also provide ample multi-threading capability for background tasks and the game’s physics simulations, though Control is not known for being heavily multi-threaded.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 and the Intel Core i5-14600K, with deltas of -0.5% and 0.8% respectively. This shows that the Ultra 5 245 is directly comparable to these popular processors. In the context of this combo, the CPU is performing its role adequately, never holding back the GPU in the measured results. The 5.10 GHz boost clock is particularly beneficial for gaming, as it ensures high responsiveness in scenes that are not GPU-bound. Overall, the data indicates that the CPU is a strong partner for the RX 7700, allowing the GPU to be the primary driver of performance in Control.