Control

Control is an Action Adventure title that stresses both CPU and GPU heavily, and the measured data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER reveals a system with substantial headroom for high-refresh-rate play, though the scaling pattern indicates where the bottleneck shifts as resolution increases. The combination ranks 203rd out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the top 7% of all configurations, which is a strong showing for a desktop pairing built around a mid-range 14-core processor and an upper-tier graphics card. The following analysis breaks down the measured frame rates by resolution and settings, interprets the CPU and GPU contributions, and offers practical guidance based solely on the provided data.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and expected decline as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, but the magnitude of that decline varies significantly by settings preset, which tells us about the limiting component at each stage. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 245 FPS at 1080p to 185 FPS at 1440p, then further to 125 FPS at 4K, representing a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K. This steep drop indicates that even at Low settings, the GPU is becoming the primary constraint at higher resolutions, as the CPU has ample headroom to feed frames at 1080p where the 245 FPS result suggests a largely CPU-bound scenario.

Moving to Medium settings, the scaling is more moderate in percentage terms: 174 FPS at 1080p, 132 FPS at 1440p, and 89 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K is 49% again, but the absolute deltas are smaller, which suggests that the added GPU workload from Medium settings is smoothing out the transition. At High settings, the pattern continues with 155 FPS at 1080p, 117 FPS at 1440p, and 79 FPS at 4K, a 49% reduction overall. The consistency of this ~49% scaling across Low, Medium, and High presets implies that the RTX 4080 SUPER’s rendering pipeline is the dominant factor once resolution climbs, regardless of how much graphical detail is applied.

Ultra settings show the most pronounced scaling drop: 134 FPS at 1080p falls to 102 FPS at 1440p and then to 69 FPS at 4K, a 48.5% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The 4K Ultra result of 69 FPS is the lowest measured across all rows, but it still remains above common 60 FPS thresholds, indicating that the GPU can handle maximum detail at 4K, just with less margin. The fact that 1080p Ultra (134 FPS) is only 13 FPS lower than 1080p High (155 FPS) suggests that the CPU is not a limiting factor at lower resolutions, as the GPU has enough compute headroom to absorb the extra load from Ultra settings without a disproportionate frame rate penalty.

The overall picture from resolution scaling is that this combo is GPU-limited at 4K across all settings, CPU-limited at 1080p Low (where 245 FPS is likely near the CPU’s maximum frame delivery capability), and in a balanced zone at 1440p where both components contribute. The 1440p results show the tightest clustering of frame rates relative to the 4K and 1080p extremes, which is typical for a high-end GPU paired with a capable mid-range CPU.

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, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The CPU’s L3 cache is 24 MB shared, and it supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, which is relevant for feeding the GPU in a memory-intensive game like Control. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and single-core score of 4648 place it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48995, and it sits within 1% of rivals like the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and AMD Ryzen 9 7900, as well as the Intel Core i5-14600K.

In Control, the CPU’s role is most evident at 1080p Low, where the average FPS reaches 245, which is the highest measured result in the entire dataset. This number suggests that the Ultra 5 245 can push frame rates well beyond typical 144 Hz displays, but it also indicates that the processor’s 14 threads are being fully utilized in the game’s physics and AI calculations. The boost clock of 5.10 GHz is critical here, as Control’s single-threaded performance demands are significant, and the 4648 single-core score in Cinebench R23 confirms strong per-core capability. The fact that 1080p Low (245 FPS) is only 60 FPS higher than 1080p Ultra (134 FPS) shows that the CPU can maintain high frame rates even when the GPU is not the bottleneck, but the 49% drop to 125 FPS at 4K Low proves that the CPU is not what limits performance at higher resolutions.

Compared to its nearest rivals, the Ultra 5 245’s multi-core performance is essentially on par with the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (0.4% slower) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.5% slower), while being 0.6% faster than the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and 0.8% faster than the Intel Core i5-14600K. This places the CPU in a competitive mid-range position, and the measured FPS data suggests that it does not hold back the RTX 4080 SUPER in any of the tested configurations. For a game like Control, which is known for its destructible environments and complex physics, the 14-core count is advantageous for handling multiple simultaneous simulation threads, even though the processor lacks hyperthreading (14 threads for 14 cores).

The CPU’s 65 W TDP and 3 nm process node indicate efficient power delivery, which can help maintain boost clocks over extended gaming sessions, though the data does not include thermal or power measurements. The PCIe Gen 5 support with 20 lanes is more than sufficient for the RTX 4080 SUPER’s PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, ensuring no bandwidth bottleneck in data transfer.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with an AD103 chip, featuring 10240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, along with 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores. It has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus with 736.3 GB/s bandwidth, and its base clock is 2295 MHz with a boost clock of 2550 MHz. The GPU’s FP32 performance is 52.22 TFLOPS, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6600 and PassMark G3D score of 34245 place it in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54209. Its nearest rivals include the RTX 4080 (only 0.1% slower) and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (2.7% faster), which shows that the 4080 SUPER is positioned at the top tier of gaming graphics cards.

The GPU’s role in Control is most clearly demonstrated at 4K, where it becomes the definitive bottleneck across all settings. The 4K Ultra result of 69 FPS is the lowest measured, but it still exceeds 60 FPS, which is a solid achievement for maximum detail at 3840x2160. The 4K Medium result of 89 FPS with a min FPS of 76 and max of 102 shows that the GPU can maintain a consistent frame pacing, which is important for a game with intense action sequences. The 16 GB VRAM is likely sufficient for Control at 4K Ultra, as the game’s textures and effects can consume large amounts of memory, but the data does not include VRAM utilization figures.

Comparing the GPU to its nearest rivals, the RTX 4080 SUPER is essentially identical to the RTX 4080 in average benchmark score (0.1% difference), but it is 1.1% slower than the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X and 2.7% slower than the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB in aggregate benchmarks. However, these synthetic scores do not directly translate to Control’s measured FPS, which shows that this GPU delivers 79 FPS at 4K High and 117 FPS at 1440p High, indicating strong real-world performance. The GPU’s 2550 MHz boost clock is well-utilized in Control, as the frame rates at 1080p (155 FPS High) suggest that the card can output high frame counts when not constrained by the CPU.

The 320 W TDP and triple-slot design indicate that this is a high-power card, but the measured FPS data shows that it delivers on that power budget in Control. The memory clock of 1438 MHz (23 Gbps effective) and 736.3 GB/s bandwidth are critical for 4K textures, and the results support that the memory subsystem is not a limiting factor in any of the tested configurations.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + RTX 4080 SUPER combo ranks 203rd out of 2888 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the top 7% of all configurations. This rank reflects the balance between a high-end GPU and a mid-range CPU, and the measured FPS data confirms that the combo is capable of 4K play at all settings, with the only caveat being that Ultra settings dip to 69 FPS at 4K. The rank of 203 out of 2888 means that 2685 other combos perform worse, which is a strong indicator of this pairing’s overall capability.

The CPU’s 90th percentile ranking (relative to all CPUs) and the GPU’s 86th percentile ranking (relative to all GPUs) suggest that both components are above average, but the CPU is slightly stronger in its percentile placement. This means that the combo is likely not held back by either component, and the rank of 203 is a reflection of the synergy between the two parts. In practical terms, this rank places the combo in the upper echelon of gaming systems, suitable for high-refresh-rate 1440p monitors and 4K 60 Hz displays.

The nearest rival combos are not explicitly listed, but the individual component rivals provide context. The CPU’s performance parity with the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 and Intel Core i5-14600K suggests that swapping the Ultra 5 245 for either of those processors would yield similar FPS in Control, given the same GPU. Similarly, the GPU’s near-identical performance to the RTX 4080 means that a combo with that card would rank almost identically, barring other system differences.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Control?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 245, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: Can this combo run Control at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes, the measured average FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra is 69 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth play.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is 0.4% slower than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, 0.5% slower than the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, 0.6% faster than the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, and 0.8% faster than the Intel Core i5-14600K in average benchmark scores.

Q: What is the lowest measured FPS for this combo?

A: The lowest average FPS is 69, recorded at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. The lowest minimum FPS is 76, recorded at 3840x2160 with Medium settings.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the bottleneck at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the results are balanced, with High settings yielding 117 FPS and Low settings yielding 185 FPS, indicating that neither component is severely limiting, but the GPU is more likely to be the primary constraint at Ultra settings (102 FPS).

Q: What is the rank of this combo among all tested configurations?

A: This combo ranks 203rd out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the top 7% of all systems.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 245 at Low to 134 at Ultra, with Medium at 174 (min 148, max 200) and High at 155. This shows a 45% reduction from Low to Ultra, indicating that the GPU is not fully taxed at 1080p, as the CPU can drive high frame rates.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 185 at Low, 132 at Medium (min 112, max 152), 117 at High, and 102 at Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 45%, similar to 1080p, but the absolute values are lower, confirming that the GPU is becoming more involved. The Medium preset at 1440p shows the tightest min-max range (112 to 152), which suggests stable frame pacing.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 125 at Low, 89 at Medium (min 76, max 102), 79 at High, and 69 at Ultra. The reduction from Low to Ultra is 45%, consistent with the other resolutions, but the 4K results are the lowest overall. Notably, the 4K Medium result of 89 FPS is the only 4K row with min and max values, and the 76 FPS minimum is still above 60 FPS, indicating that even the worst-case frame dips are playable.

Across all rows, the scaling from Low to Ultra is roughly 45-49%, which indicates that the RTX 4080 SUPER’s performance scales predictably with settings, and the CPU does not introduce any unexpected variance. The data does not include any ray tracing or DLSS results, so the measured FPS reflects native rendering only.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1920x1080, all presets deliver above 134 FPS, which is sufficient for 144 Hz monitors, so players can choose Ultra settings for maximum visual quality without sacrificing smoothness. The 134 FPS at Ultra is well above the 60 FPS threshold, making this the recommended preset for 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the High preset (117 FPS) offers the best balance between visual fidelity and performance, as it stays above 100 FPS and is only 15 FPS lower than Medium (132 FPS) but provides better graphics. Ultra at 1440p (102 FPS) is also viable for 100 Hz displays, but High is recommended for those who prioritize frame rate stability, as the margin over 60 FPS is larger.

For 3840x2160, the High preset (79 FPS) is the sweet spot, as it delivers a comfortable 19 FPS margin above 60 FPS while maintaining high detail. Ultra at 4K (69 FPS) is playable but leaves only 9 FPS of headroom, which could result in noticeable drops during intense scenes. Medium at 4K (89 FPS) offers the best frame rate for 4K gaming, but the visual downgrade from High may not be worth the 10 FPS gain. Given that the 4K Medium row has a minimum FPS of 76, it is the safest choice for maintaining a consistent experience on a 60 Hz 4K display, while High is recommended for those with adaptive sync monitors.