Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H paired with the AMD Radeon 760M produces a highly constrained gaming experience in Control, with the measured frame rates placing this combo in the bottom percentile of all tested configurations. The data reveals a system where the integrated GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck, yet the CPU’s performance characteristics still influence the overall playability profile.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data across resolutions paints a stark picture of performance collapse as pixel count increases. At the native 1080p resolution with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 40 FPS. Moving up to 1440p at the same Low preset, the average drops to 30 FPS, a 25% reduction. Pushing further to 4K at Low settings yields a mere 21 FPS average, which represents a 47.5% drop from the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering load grows faster than the integrated graphics can process.

The trend becomes more pronounced at higher quality presets. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 25 at 1080p to 19 at 1440p (a 24% drop), and then to 13 at 4K (a 48% drop from 1080p). The Medium preset shows a similar trajectory: 29 FPS at 1080p, 22 at 1440p, and 15 at 4K. This consistent halving of performance from 1080p to 4K across all presets strongly suggests that the AMD Radeon 760M’s shading units, texture units, and raster operations pipelines are saturated. The GPU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, and the data indicates these resources are simply insufficient for 4K rendering in Control.

What is particularly telling is the incremental performance loss between 1080p and 1440p versus 1440p and 4K. The drop from 30 FPS to 21 FPS at Low settings (1440p to 4K) is a 30% reduction, which is steeper than the 25% reduction seen from 1080p to 1440p. This non-linear scaling is typical of a component approaching its memory bandwidth or fill-rate ceiling. The Radeon 760M uses System Shared memory with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent," and the 4K resolution’s massive pixel throughput requirement likely overwhelms this shared memory subsystem. The benchmark results indicate that 1080p is the only resolution where the combo approaches playable frame rates, and even then, only at the lowest quality settings.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. Its clock behavior is critical to understanding the measured results: the base clock is 800 MHz, but the boost clock reaches 2599 MHz. This wide boost range suggests the GPU can ramp up significantly under load, yet the FPS data shows it cannot sustain adequate performance in Control. The GPU has 8 ray tracing cores, though the game’s implementation of ray tracing is not reflected in these measured presets.

The memory configuration is a major limiting factor. The 760M uses System Shared memory with a System Shared bus width, meaning it relies on the CPU’s DDR5 memory, which is dependent on the motherboard. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," and in this mobile configuration with the Core Ultra 7 155H, the memory bus is dual-channel with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. This shared bandwidth must serve both the CPU and GPU workloads. At 4K Ultra settings, the average FPS collapses to 11, which is effectively unplayable. The GPU’s pixel rate is 41.58 GPixel/s and texture rate is 83.17 GTexel/s, but these theoretical peaks are never approached in practice, as the 4K High preset yields only 13 FPS average.

The GPU’s performance percentile reinforces its limitations. It ranks in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6019. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, with delta percentages of 0.3% in both cases. This places the 760M in the same performance class as a decade-old discrete mobile GPU, which explains why it struggles with a 2019 title like Control. The FP32 compute capability is 5.323 TFLOPS, which is modest for modern gaming, and the DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) does not translate into playable frame rates at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based strictly on the measured FPS data, the only viable configuration for this combo is 1080p with Low settings, which produces an average of 40 FPS. This is the sole preset and resolution combination that approaches a playable threshold. The 1080p Medium preset yields 29 FPS average (with a minimum of 24 FPS and maximum of 33 FPS), which may be acceptable for less action-intensive sequences, but the Low preset is the only one that provides a consistent margin above 30 FPS.

At 1440p, the Low preset achieves 30 FPS average, which is borderline playable but drops uncomfortably close to the stutter threshold. The 1440p Medium preset falls to 22 FPS average, with a minimum of 18 FPS and maximum of 25 FPS. These numbers indicate that 1440p is only feasible at the absolute lowest quality settings, and even then, the experience will be compromised during combat-heavy scenes. The 4K resolution is entirely non-viable, with even the Low preset only managing 21 FPS average.

The data suggests a clear hierarchy: prioritize resolution reduction over quality settings. Dropping from 1080p High (25 FPS) to 1080p Low (40 FPS) yields a 60% performance increase, which is a substantial gain for a quality reduction. Conversely, keeping High settings and dropping from 1080p to 1440p only yields a 24% performance loss, but the resulting 19 FPS average is worse than the 1440p Low result of 30 FPS. For the best experience per the measured rows, users should select 1080p Low. If visual fidelity is paramount, 1080p Medium at 29 FPS average is the highest quality preset that stays above 25 FPS, though the minimum FPS of 24 suggests occasional dips.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Radeon 760M ranks 2878 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the 0.35% percentile of all configurations, meaning it outperforms only 10 other tested combinations. This ranking is consistent with the GPU’s individual performance percentile of 35%, but the combo ranking is dramatically worse, indicating that the pairing is particularly ill-suited for this specific game.

The CPU itself is not the primary culprit here. The Core Ultra 7 155H ranks in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32697. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600T (avg score 32707, deltaPct 0), AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (avg score 32662, deltaPct 0.1), AMD Ryzen 5 7400F (avg score 32750, deltaPct -0.2), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (avg score 32812, deltaPct -0.4). These rivals are all within 0.4% of the 155H’s average score, demonstrating that the CPU is a solid mid-range performer. However, the combo’s 2878th rank out of 2888 indicates that the integrated GPU drags the entire system down to near the bottom of the database.

This stark contrast between the CPU’s high percentile (83rd) and the combo’s low rank (0.35th percentile) reveals a fundamental imbalance. The data implies that the Radeon 760M is the sole determinant of gaming performance in Control, and even the robust 16-core, 22-thread CPU cannot compensate for the GPU’s limitations. The combo rank suggests that nearly every other tested configuration, including those with older or weaker CPUs, outperforms this pairing simply because they have more capable discrete graphics solutions.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H is a Meteor Lake architecture mobile processor with 16 cores and 22 threads, a configuration that includes both performance and efficiency cores. Its base clock is 3.80 GHz with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, and it has a 28W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. These specifications suggest a capable multi-threaded processor, which is reflected in its benchmark scores: Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15028 and single-core score of 1743.

In Control, the CPU’s role appears secondary to the GPU. The benchmark data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 40 FPS average, which is the highest measured value. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates plateau regardless of resolution or settings, but instead we see a consistent decline as resolution increases. This indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. However, the CPU’s single-thread performance is still relevant. The PassMark single-thread score is 3468, and the Cinebench R23 single-core score is 1743, which suggests adequate performance for game logic. The 22 threads provide ample parallel processing for the game’s physics and AI systems, but these are not heavily stressed at the low frame rates achieved.

The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s is a shared resource with the GPU, and this is where the CPU’s performance indirectly affects gaming. At 4K resolutions, the GPU’s demand for memory bandwidth grows, potentially starving the CPU of bandwidth for game logic. The measured 4K Ultra average of 11 FPS suggests a severe memory contention issue. The CPU’s PassMark physics score of 1727 and data compression score of 277353 indicate strong computational capabilities that are largely wasted in this gaming scenario, as the GPU cannot keep up with even moderate rendering workloads.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Control with this hardware?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only viable resolution. At Low settings, it achieves 40 FPS average, while 1440p Low drops to 30 FPS and 4K Low falls to 21 FPS.

Q: Can this combo handle Ultra settings in Control?

A: No. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 22, which is below playable thresholds. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 17 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it collapses to 11 FPS.

Q: How does the Radeon 760M compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019, ranking in the 35th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, deltaPct 0.3), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, deltaPct 0.3), and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, deltaPct 0.4).

Q: What is the CPU's performance classification relative to other processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H ranks in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32697. It is nearly identical in performance to the Intel Core i5-14600T (deltaPct 0) and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (deltaPct 0.1).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the primary bottleneck in Control?

A: The FPS scaling indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. Performance drops by roughly 50% when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings, while the CPU's high benchmark scores (83rd percentile) suggest it is not the limiting factor.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the Medium preset at 1080p?

A: The 1080p Medium preset has a minimum FPS of 24, an average of 29 FPS, and a maximum of 33 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The table below presents all measured average FPS values from the FACT PACK, organized by resolution and settings preset.

3840x2160 (4K)

• High: 13 FPS average
• Low: 21 FPS average
• Medium: 15 FPS average (min 12, max 17)
• Ultra: 11 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p)

• High: 19 FPS average
• Low: 30 FPS average
• Medium: 22 FPS average (min 18, max 25)
• Ultra: 17 FPS average

1920x1080 (1080p)

• High: 25 FPS average
• Low: 40 FPS average
• Medium: 29 FPS average (min 24, max 33)
• Ultra: 22 FPS average

The data reveals a consistent pattern: each resolution step down from 4K to 1080p roughly doubles the frame rate at the same settings. For example, at Low settings, the progression is 21 FPS (4K) → 30 FPS (1440p) → 40 FPS (1080p). At High settings, it is 13 FPS (4K) → 19 FPS (1440p) → 25 FPS (1080p). The Ultra preset shows the most dramatic scaling, going from 11 FPS at 4K to 17 FPS at 1440p to 22 FPS at 1080p. The Medium preset is the only one with min/max values recorded, showing a tight range at 1080p (24-33 FPS) that widens slightly at 1440p (18-25 FPS) and narrows at 4K (12-17 FPS).

The GPU’s DirectX 12 benchmark score of 25 (PassMark) and DirectX 11 score of 52 provide context for these gaming results. The DirectX 12 score is particularly low, suggesting the architecture struggles with modern API overhead. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 30336 is more robust, but this does not translate to playable frame rates in Control. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 400 further confirms the GPU’s limited DX12 capabilities. These synthetic benchmarks align with the measured in-game FPS, all pointing to a GPU that is fundamentally underpowered for demanding titles like Control at anything above the lowest settings.