Control

Control pairs a 14-core Intel Core Ultra 5 245 with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, a combination that lands near the bottom of the tested field for this 2019 action-adventure title. The combo ranks 2471 out of 2888 tested configurations, placing it in the lower 15th percentile of all pairings in the database for Control. This is a modest result, and the data suggests that while the CPU is far from a bottleneck, the GPU’s age and memory capacity define the experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 2471 out of 2888 tested combos indicates that most other hardware pairings deliver higher frame rates in Control. With only 417 configurations ranked below it, this setup sits firmly in the lower tier of tested systems. The GPU drives this placement; the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER holds a 53rd percentile ranking among all GPUs, meaning it performs better than just over half of the graphics cards in the database. The CPU, by contrast, ranks in the 90th percentile among all processors, showing a clear imbalance between the two components.

Benchmark results from synthetic tests reinforce this split. The GTX 1660 SUPER’s average benchmark score is 12986, with a Passmark G3D score of 12699 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1278. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (avg score 12940, 0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 580 (avg score 12928, 0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon 740M (avg score 12870, 0.9% higher). The Core Ultra 5 245, meanwhile, posts an average benchmark score of 48995, with nearest rivals like the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, 0.4% ahead) and the Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, 0.8% behind). This contrast in relative standing—90th versus 53rd percentile—explains why the combo’s overall rank is low: the CPU has headroom that the GPU cannot use.

In Control specifically, the measured frame rates at 1080p Ultra average 50 FPS, which is playable but far from smooth for an action game. At 4K Ultra, the average drops to 25 FPS, making the experience borderline. The data shows a system that is CPU-capable but GPU-limited across all resolutions and settings, with the GPU’s 6 GB VRAM and Turing architecture struggling as resolution increases.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 brings 14 cores and 14 threads, running at a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. This Arrow Lake-S processor, built on TSMC’s 3 nm process, has a 24 MB shared L3 cache and 192 KB of L1 cache per core, with 3 MB of L2 cache per core. It supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, offering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The CPU’s synthetic scores are strong: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and a single-core score of 4648, alongside Passmark multi-thread and single-thread scores of 38706 and 4394, respectively. Its 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms that processing power is not the limiting factor here.

In Control, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations, but the measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low—where CPU load is relatively higher—the system reaches 91 FPS, which is the highest average across all tested rows. This suggests the CPU can handle the game’s demands without breaking a sweat. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p (91 FPS versus 50 FPS) is large, but it reflects GPU workload rather than CPU limitations. The CPU’s 14 threads are more than enough for a game from 2019, and its boost clock of 5.10 GHz provides strong single-thread performance for game logic.

Comparing to rivals, the Core Ultra 5 245’s average benchmark score of 48995 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, 0.4% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, 0.5% ahead), while edging out the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, 0.6% behind) and the Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, 0.8% behind). These deltas are tiny, meaning the CPU is not a differentiator in this combo’s low rank. The bottleneck lies elsewhere, and the FPS data points squarely at the GPU.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is built on the TU116 chip with Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process by TSMC. It has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU’s base clock is 1530 MHz with a boost clock of 1785 MHz, and memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). With 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units, it offers 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its Passmark G3D score of 12699 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 57102 place it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, showing it is an average performer by current database standards.

In Control, the GTX 1660 SUPER’s 6 GB VRAM is a critical constraint. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS falls to 25, and at 4K High it is 29, indicating that the GPU cannot maintain playable frame rates at that resolution. Even at 1440p Ultra, the average is 38 FPS, which is below the 40 FPS threshold many players consider minimum for a smooth experience. The GPU’s 48 ROPs and 157.1 GTexel/s texture rate are modest, and the data shows that increasing settings from Low to Ultra at any resolution costs roughly 40-45% of the frame rate. For example, at 1080p, Low averages 91 FPS while Ultra averages 50 FPS, a drop of 41 FPS. At 1440p, the same settings drop from 69 to 38 FPS, a 31 FPS difference. At 4K, Low hits 46 FPS but Ultra drops to 25 FPS.

The GPU’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (avg score 12940, 0.4% higher) and the AMD Radeon RX 580 (avg score 12928, 0.4% higher), both of which are close in synthetic performance. In Control, the GTX 1660 SUPER’s lack of ray tracing cores and Tensor cores—neither of which are listed in the fact pack—does not matter for this title, but its memory bandwidth and VRAM capacity do. The 336.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for 1080p but becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions where texture data exceeds 6 GB.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). At 1080p, the averages are 91 FPS (Low), 64 FPS (Medium), 57 FPS (High), and 50 FPS (Ultra). The Medium setting at 1080p also reports a min FPS of 55 and a max FPS of 74, providing the only frame time variance data in the entire set. This narrow range suggests consistent performance at that setting, with no severe stutters.

Moving to 1440p, the averages drop to 69 FPS (Low), 49 FPS (Medium), 43 FPS (High), and 38 FPS (Ultra). The Medium setting again shows min/max values of 41 and 56 FPS, respectively, indicating a wider spread than at 1080p. This suggests that as resolution increases, the GPU’s workload grows and frame pacing becomes less stable, though the average remains above 30 FPS for all settings except Ultra, which sits at 38.

At 4K, the averages are 46 FPS (Low), 33 FPS (Medium), 29 FPS (High), and 25 FPS (Ultra). The Medium setting at 4K has a min of 28 FPS and a max of 38 FPS, showing that even the best-case frame rates barely reach playable levels. Low at 4K is the only setting that averages above 40 FPS, and even then, it is only 46 FPS. The data shows a clear trend: every step up in resolution or settings costs a significant number of frames, with the largest absolute drops occurring between Low and Medium at each resolution.

The measured rows are all from actual testing (dataIsMeasured is true), so these numbers reflect real-world performance rather than estimates. The lack of min/max data for most rows means we only have averages, but the Medium settings that do include min/max values show that the GPU maintains a relatively stable frame rate, with the 4K Medium min of 28 FPS being the only sub-30 dip.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings. At Low, 1080p averages 91 FPS while 4K averages 46 FPS, a 49% reduction. At Medium, the drop is from 64 to 33 FPS, a 48% reduction. At High, it goes from 57 to 29 FPS, a 49% reduction. At Ultra, 1080p’s 50 FPS falls to 25 FPS at 4K, a 50% reduction. This near-uniform scaling—roughly half the frame rate when quadrupling the pixel count—indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at all settings.

If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS difference between 1080p and 4K to shrink, because 1080p would be CPU-limited while 4K would be GPU-limited. Instead, the FPS scales almost exactly with pixel count, which is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario. The 14-core CPU has plenty of headroom, as evidenced by its 90th percentile ranking, but the GTX 1660 SUPER cannot keep up as resolution increases.

The scaling also highlights the GPU’s memory bandwidth constraint. At 1080p, the 336.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient to feed the render pipeline, but at 4K, the 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit bus struggle to handle the larger textures and higher pixel fill rates. The 85.68 GPixel/s pixel rate is the same at all resolutions, but the number of pixels to process quadruples, which explains the consistent 50% drop. This pattern suggests that users targeting 4K would need to significantly lower settings—the data shows Low at 4K (46 FPS) is the only playable option, and even that is marginal.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS, the best experience depends on the target resolution. At 1080p, Ultra delivers 50 FPS on average, which is playable for most action-adventure games, and it offers the highest visual quality without dropping below 50 FPS. The Medium setting at 1080p provides 64 FPS with a min of 55 FPS, which is smoother and still looks good, making it the recommended choice for players who prioritize frame rate stability over maximum detail. The data shows that the jump from Medium to Ultra costs 14 FPS (64 to 50), which is noticeable, so Medium is a balanced option.

At 1440p, the situation is tighter. Ultra averages 38 FPS, which is below the 40 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, so High at 43 FPS is marginal. Medium at 49 FPS is the best option, offering playable frame rates with a min of 41 FPS. The High setting at 43 FPS is acceptable but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes. Low at 69 FPS is the smoothest, but it sacrifices visual fidelity. For 1440p, Medium is the recommended preset because it stays above 40 FPS on average and the min FPS of 41 indicates relatively consistent performance.

At 4K, no setting reaches 60 FPS. Low averages 46 FPS, which is the only setting above 40 FPS, making it the sole viable option for 4K play. Medium drops to 33 FPS, High to 29 FPS, and Ultra to 25 FPS. If a player insists on 4K, Low is the only choice, but the data suggests that 1440p Medium or 1080p Ultra would provide a better balance of quality and performance. The min FPS of 28 at 4K Medium indicates occasional dips below 30 FPS, which can be jarring in a fast-paced game like Control. For most users, 1080p Medium or 1440p Medium are the sweet spots, as they offer frame rates in the 49-64 FPS range with acceptable visual settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control?

A: Based on the measured FPS, 1920x1080 is the best resolution. At Medium settings, it averages 64 FPS with a min of 55 FPS, which is the highest average above 60 FPS in the data. Higher resolutions drop below 50 FPS on most settings.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 12986. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 0.4% higher (12940), the AMD Radeon RX 580 is 0.4% higher (12928), and the AMD Radeon 740M is 0.9% higher (12870). The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 is 0.7% lower (13075). These differences are small, meaning the GPU performs similarly to its closest competitors.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The GPU is the bottleneck. The Core Ultra 5 245 ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the GTX 1660 SUPER ranks in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K is nearly linear (roughly 50% reduction), which indicates GPU-bound performance.

Q: Can this combo run Control at 4K?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, which averages 46 FPS. Medium at 4K drops to 33 FPS, High to 29 FPS, and Ultra to 25 FPS. The 4K Medium setting has a min FPS of 28, showing that frame rates can dip below playable levels.

Q: What settings provide the smoothest experience at 1440p?

A: Medium settings at 1440p average 49 FPS with a min of 41 FPS, which is the smoothest option above 40 FPS. Low at 1440p averages 69 FPS but reduces visual quality, while High and Ultra fall to 43 and 38 FPS, respectively.

Q: How does the CPU’s performance compare to its rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G is 0.4% ahead (49196), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 is 0.5% ahead (49228), the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H is 0.6% behind (48698), and the Intel Core i5-14600K is 0.8% behind (48618). These deltas are all under 1%, showing near-identical synthetic performance.