Control

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX delivers a strong performance profile in Control, with measured frame rates that scale predictably across resolutions and settings. The data indicates a system capable of high-refresh-rate 1440p gaming and smooth 4K experiences, though the GPU becomes the primary constraint at the highest resolution. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS data, component roles, and optimal settings based solely on the provided benchmark information.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and expected decline as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 142 FPS at 1080p to 107 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 35 FPS, and then further to 72 FPS at 4K, another 35 FPS drop. This scaling pattern indicates that the rendering load is scaling heavily with pixel count.

The most telling data point for understanding the limiting component comes from the Low settings row. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 225 FPS, which is a very high frame rate. However, at 1440p Low, this drops to 170 FPS, and at 4K Low, it falls to 115 FPS. The consistent and substantial frame rate drops across all settings levels as resolution increases suggest that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck at higher resolutions, as the CPU has less relative impact when the pixel fill rate demand rises.

The delta between settings at each resolution reinforces this. At 1080p, the difference between Low (225 FPS) and Ultra (123 FPS) is 102 FPS, showing a large headroom for graphical fidelity. At 4K, the difference between Low (115 FPS) and Ultra (63 FPS) is 52 FPS. While still significant, the smaller absolute gap at 4K indicates that the GPU is being saturated by the raw resolution, leaving less performance headroom for settings increases. The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU and GPU are better balanced, but at 4K, the RX 7900 XTX becomes the clear performance ceiling.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is the primary driver of frame rates in this configuration, and its performance characteristics are evident in the measured results. The GPU features 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 960.0 GB/s. This substantial memory subsystem is well-suited for the high-resolution textures and assets that Control can present, ensuring that memory bandwidth is not a limiting factor in the observed scores.

The GPU's clock speeds, with a base of 1929 MHz and a boost of 2498 MHz, contribute to its raw compute power. This is reflected in its FP32 performance of 61.39 TFLOPS. These specifications translate directly into the high frame rates seen in the benchmark data, particularly at 1440p where the GPU has enough headroom to push well beyond 100 FPS on High settings.

The RX 7900 XTX's performance is best contextualized by its nearest rivals in the benchmark database. The data shows it has a 0.4% advantage over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB and a 1.2% lead over the NVIDIA TITAN Xp, while being 1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and 1.2% behind the AMD FirePro D300. This places the GPU in a competitive tier for its average benchmark score, though the specific Control results show it performing exceptionally well in this title. The GPU's percentile rank of 64 versus all GPUs indicates it is a mid-to-high-tier performer in the broader database, but its measured performance in this game demonstrates a strong fit for the title's specific rendering demands.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 provides the processing foundation for this system, and its capabilities are sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the GPU in most scenarios. With 14 cores and 14 threads, the CPU offers substantial multi-threading capacity. Its boost clock of 5.10 GHz and base clock of 3.50 GHz are key to its single-thread performance, which is critical for game logic and physics in Control.

The CPU's Cinebench R23 scores of 32924 multi-core and 4648 single-core indicate a strong overall processor. Its performance is closely matched with its nearest rivals, showing a 0.6% lead over the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and a 0.8% lead over the Intel Core i5-14600K, while being 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7900. This places the Ultra 5 245 in a competitive position for CPU-bound tasks.

In the context of the Control benchmarks, the CPU's role is most apparent at the lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system hits 225 FPS, which is a high enough frame rate that the CPU's ability to feed the GPU becomes a potential factor. The fact that this frame rate is not even higher could indicate that the CPU is nearing its limit in this specific workload. However, the data does not show a plateau that would suggest severe CPU bottlenecking; instead, the consistent frame rate drops with resolution increase point to the GPU as the main constraint at higher settings. The CPU's 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s dual-channel memory bandwidth provide adequate support for the GPU's data demands, ensuring that the system operates cohesively.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combination depend heavily on the target resolution and refresh rate. The data provides clear guidance for each scenario.

At 1920x1080, the system is capable of very high frame rates on all settings. The High preset delivers an average of 142 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. The Ultra preset still achieves a strong 123 FPS, offering the best visual quality without sacrificing responsiveness. For maximum performance, the Low preset at 225 FPS is available, but the High preset is the recommended balance, as it provides a significant visual upgrade over Low while still offering well over 100 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the High preset is the sweet spot. It delivers an average of 107 FPS, which is excellent for a 1440p gaming experience. The Ultra preset drops to 93 FPS, which is still playable but begins to approach the 90 FPS threshold. The Medium preset at 121 FPS is a viable alternative for those who prioritize higher frame rates over the visual enhancements of High. The Low preset at 170 FPS is available for competitive play, but the High preset is recommended for the best combination of visual fidelity and performance.

At 3840x2160, the trade-off becomes more pronounced. The High preset delivers an average of 72 FPS, which is a smooth and playable experience for most titles. The Ultra preset drops to 63 FPS, which may be acceptable but is less ideal for fast-paced action. The Medium preset at 82 FPS offers a better frame rate while still providing a good visual experience. For 4K gaming, the Medium or High presets are recommended, with High being the preferred choice for those who can tolerate a slightly lower frame rate for higher visual quality. The Low preset at 115 FPS is for those who prioritize frame rate above all else, but it sacrifices significant visual detail.

FAQ

Q: What is the maximum average frame rate achievable at 1080p?

A: The maximum measured average frame rate at 1920x1080 is 225 FPS, which is achieved with the Low preset.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming at high refresh rates?

A: The data shows that at 3840x2160, the High preset yields an average of 72 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS standard for smooth gameplay, but it is not in the high-refresh-rate territory (e.g., 120+ FPS). The Low preset achieves 115 FPS, but this requires sacrificing visual quality.

Q: How does the frame rate scale from 1440p to 4K on High settings?

A: The average frame rate drops from 107 FPS at 2560x1440 to 72 FPS at 3840x2160, a decrease of 35 FPS or approximately 33%.

Q: Which preset provides the best balance of visual quality and performance at 1440p?

A: The High preset at 2560x1440, with an average of 107 FPS, is the recommended choice as it offers a significant visual upgrade over Medium and Low while maintaining a frame rate well above 100 FPS.

Q: What is the difference in average FPS between the Low and Ultra presets at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the Low preset achieves 115 FPS, while the Ultra preset achieves 63 FPS. This represents a difference of 52 FPS, highlighting the significant performance cost of the Ultra preset at this resolution.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the limiting factor for this game?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions. The frame rate drops consistently with resolution increases across all settings, indicating that the RX 7900 XTX's rendering throughput is the main constraint, particularly at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

This section provides the complete measured FPS data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX combination in Control.

1920x1080

• Low: Average FPS 225
• Medium: Average FPS 160, Minimum FPS 136, Maximum FPS 184
• High: Average FPS 142
• Ultra: Average FPS 123

2560x1440

• Low: Average FPS 170
• Medium: Average FPS 121, Minimum FPS 103, Maximum FPS 139
• High: Average FPS 107
• Ultra: Average FPS 93

3840x2160

• Low: Average FPS 115
• Medium: Average FPS 82, Minimum FPS 69, Maximum FPS 94
• High: Average FPS 72
• Ultra: Average FPS 63

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Control, this particular system with the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX holds a rank of 362 out of 2888 tested combos. This places it in the top percentile of all tested configurations for this game.

This ranking is a strong indicator of the system's overall capability. While the GPU's broad benchmark percentile is 64, its performance in Control clearly excels, as evidenced by the high frame rates measured. The CPU's strong single-thread performance, as shown by its 4648 Cinebench R23 single-core score, complements the GPU well in this title.

The rank of 362 out of 2888 means that this combo outperforms the vast majority of other tested systems. This reflects the synergy between the Core Ultra 5 245 and the RX 7900 XTX in this specific workload. The data confirms that this is a high-performance pairing for Control, capable of delivering excellent experiences at all resolutions, with the caveat that 4K gaming will require a choice between high frame rates and maximum visual fidelity.