Control

# Control with Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB

This combination of Intel's Arrow Lake-based Core Ultra 5 245 and NVIDIA's entry-level Ampere GPU produces a playable but constrained experience in Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title that stresses both ray tracing and traditional rasterization. The pairing lands at rank 2522 out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the lower 13th percentile of all system configurations evaluated in this game. That ranking reflects a GPU that sits at the 50th percentile among all graphics cards while the CPU ranks at the 90th percentile among all processors — a clear imbalance that shapes every benchmark result below.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2522 out of 2888 tested combinations puts this system firmly in the lower tier of what can run Control acceptably. With 466 combos ranked below it, the Core Ultra 5 245 + RTX 3050 4 GB setup is not the worst performer in the database, but it is far from competitive with mid-range or high-end configurations. The data indicates that this pairing is best suited for 1080p gaming at moderate settings, where it can maintain playable frame rates, rather than pushing high resolutions or maximum quality presets.

The imbalance between CPU and GPU capability is stark. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 achieves a 90th percentile ranking across all CPUs tested, with an average benchmark score of 48,995. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (delta -0.4%), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (delta -0.5%), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (delta +0.6%), and Intel Core i5-14600K (delta +0.8%). These deltas are all within one percentage point, meaning the CPU is squarely in the middle of a tightly-bunched group of high-performing desktop and workstation processors. In contrast, the RTX 3050 4 GB sits at exactly the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with no nearest rivals listed in the data — an indication that it is a thoroughly average, unremarkable graphics solution.

What this ranking means in practical terms is that the GPU, not the CPU, will be the limiting factor in nearly every scenario. Control is a visually demanding game with heavy use of physics and particle effects, but the Core Ultra 5 245 has ample headroom to feed the RTX 3050. The benchmark results confirm this: frame rates scale predictably with resolution and settings changes, and the CPU never appears to bottleneck the system.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is built on the Ampere architecture using the GA107 chip, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process with 8,700 million transistors across a 200 mm² die. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1545 MHz and boosts to 1740 MHz, with memory running at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus. This yields 192.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth — a figure that becomes critically important in Control, a game known for streaming large textures and complex environments.

The 4 GB GDDR6 frame buffer is the most significant constraint. At 3840x2160 resolution, the card cannot maintain playable performance: High settings produce just 27 FPS average, Medium drops to 30 FPS, and Ultra falls to 23 FPS. Even at Low settings, 4K only reaches 43 FPS — below the 60 FPS threshold most players consider smooth. The 128-bit memory bus and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth are simply insufficient for 4K textures and geometry, forcing the GPU to constantly swap data in and out of the limited VRAM. This creates the steep performance cliff observed between 1440p and 4K resolutions.

At lower resolutions, the GPU's compute resources become more relevant. With 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units, the RTX 3050 4 GB delivers 7.127 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s. The card also includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, though Control's RT effects are likely to be too demanding for this GPU given its 90 W TDP. The pixel rate of 55.68 GPixel/s helps explain why the card performs better at 1080p and 1440p, where the rasterization workload is more manageable.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 3 nm process. It operates at a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boosts to 5.10 GHz, with 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

For Control, this processor is overkill. The game's physics simulation and AI routines benefit from single-thread performance, and the Core Ultra 5 245 delivers strong results: 4,648 points in Cinebench R23 single-core and 32,924 in multi-core. PassMark single-thread performance is 4,394, while the multi-thread score reaches 38,706. The CPU's 90th percentile ranking among all processors means it outclasses the vast majority of CPUs in the database — yet the measured frame rates in Control are entirely GPU-bound.

The data shows no scenario where the CPU becomes the bottleneck. Even at 1080p Low settings, where the GPU has the least work to do, the system achieves 83 FPS — a solid result that indicates the CPU can feed the GPU effectively. The Core Ultra 5 245's 14 cores and 14 threads (no hyperthreading) provide plenty of headroom for Control's multi-threaded rendering and physics workloads. The processor's 65 W TDP and 3 nm process node suggest efficient operation, though the data does not include power consumption measurements for this specific game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combination delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 83 FPS, making this the only configuration in the entire dataset to break the 80 FPS barrier. Medium settings yield 59 FPS average with a minimum of 50 and maximum of 68, providing a smooth experience with some headroom for dips. High settings drop to 53 FPS average, while Ultra falls to 46 FPS — both playable but with less margin for demanding scenes.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance degrades noticeably. Low settings still manage 63 FPS average, which is respectable for this resolution. Medium settings produce 45 FPS average with a minimum of 38 and maximum of 51, keeping the experience playable but with occasional stutter in heavy combat sequences. High settings fall to 40 FPS, and Ultra drops to 35 FPS — both below the 60 FPS ideal but still within the range of playability for slower-paced sections of the game.

At 3840x2160, the RTX 3050 4 GB simply runs out of resources. Low settings achieve 43 FPS, which is the only 4K configuration above 40 FPS. Medium settings produce 30 FPS average with a tight range of 26 to 35, indicating consistent performance but at a level that will feel sluggish. High settings drop to 27 FPS, and Ultra falls to 23 FPS — both effectively unplayable for a game that requires quick reflexes and precise aiming.

The minimum FPS data is only available for Medium settings at each resolution: 50 FPS at 1080p, 38 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K. These minimums are relatively close to the averages, suggesting that Control's performance is stable rather than spiky, which is a positive sign for gameplay consistency even when frame rates are low.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals the GPU as the clear limiting factor. At High settings, the transition from 1920x1080 (53 FPS) to 2560x1440 (40 FPS) represents a 24.5% reduction, and the further drop to 3840x2160 (27 FPS) is another 32.5% reduction. The cumulative loss from 1080p to 4K is 49.1% — meaning 4K High runs at barely half the frame rate of 1080p High.

Low settings show a similar pattern: 83 FPS at 1080p, 63 FPS at 1440p, and 43 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 24.1%, and from 1440p to 4K is 31.7%, for a total reduction of 48.2%. Medium settings follow the same trend: 59 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K, representing a 23.7% drop followed by a 33.3% drop, totaling 49.2% overall.

These consistent percentages across all settings presets indicate that the scaling bottleneck is purely resolution-driven, not settings-driven. The GPU's memory bandwidth and fill rate are being saturated as pixel count increases, and the CPU's performance is irrelevant to this scaling. The fact that the percentage drops are nearly identical across Low, Medium, and High settings confirms that the RTX 3050 4 GB's rendering pipeline — not any CPU or memory subsystem limitation — is the determining factor.

The data suggests that 1440p is the practical ceiling for this combination. At 1440p Low (63 FPS) and Medium (45 FPS), the experience remains playable, while 4K is only viable at Low settings with a compromised 43 FPS. The 128-bit memory bus and 4 GB VRAM are the primary culprits, as Control's high-resolution textures exceed the available frame buffer capacity, causing the GPU to resort to slower memory paging.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal experience for this combination is 1920x1080 at Medium settings. This configuration delivers 59 FPS average with a minimum of 50 FPS, providing smooth gameplay with sufficient visual quality. The 50 FPS minimum means the game will rarely drop below playable thresholds, even during intense physics sequences or particle-heavy combat. Low settings at 1080p (83 FPS) offer higher frame rates but sacrifice too much visual fidelity for a game with Control's atmospheric presentation.

For players who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, 2560x1440 at Medium settings (45 FPS average, 38 FPS minimum) is a viable alternative. The 38 FPS minimum is low enough to cause perceptible stutter in fast-paced encounters, but the additional resolution provides sharper textures and more detail. High settings at 1440p (40 FPS) and 1080p (53 FPS) are both playable, though the frame rate is borderline for a game that rewards precise aiming.

Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution. At 1080p Ultra (46 FPS), the visual improvement over High (53 FPS) is marginal while the frame rate penalty is significant. At 1440p Ultra (35 FPS) and 4K Ultra (23 FPS), the experience becomes too sluggish for comfortable play. Low settings are only worth considering at 4K (43 FPS), where it is the only way to achieve a somewhat playable frame rate, though the visual compromise is substantial.

The data indicates that Medium settings at 1080p or 1440p represent the sweet spot for this hardware combination. The 4 GB VRAM is sufficient for these resolutions at Medium quality, and the GPU's 7.127 TFLOPS of compute power is adequate for the game's rendering demands without exceeding the memory bandwidth available. Players seeking higher frame rates should prioritize resolution reduction over settings reduction, as the scaling data shows that dropping from 1440p to 1080p yields roughly a 24% performance improvement — similar to the gain from dropping from High to Low settings at a fixed resolution.