Control

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H with the AMD Radeon 880M in Control?

A: This combination ranks 2817 out of 2888 tested combinations for Control, placing it in the bottom 2.5% of all tested hardware pairings for this title.

Q: At which resolution and settings does this system achieve playable frame rates?

A: The only configuration reaching 55 FPS average is 1920x1080 with Low settings. The 2560x1440 Low setting delivers 42 FPS average, while 1920x1080 Medium produces 39 FPS average.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 880M compare to its closest GPU rivals?

A: The Radeon 880M scores within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX. It sits 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375X.

Q: What is the CPU's benchmark percentile relative to all processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H ranks in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32697, placing it near the Intel Core i5-14600T which scores 32707.

Q: Does the system support modern graphics APIs needed for Control?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which covers all rendering paths available in Control.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration?

A: The Radeon 880M uses System Shared memory with System Shared type, bus width, and bandwidth, meaning performance depends entirely on the host system's RAM configuration.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is the primary bottleneck in this system for Control. With a PassMark G3D score of 7615, the GPU sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, which directly explains the low frame rates observed across all tested configurations. The integrated graphics solution draws from system memory with a shared pool, and its bandwidth is listed as System Dependent, meaning the measured performance reflects a typical mobile memory setup rather than dedicated VRAM.

The GPU's clock behavior shows a base of 400 MHz boosting to 2900 MHz, which is a wide boost range typical of integrated parts that scale with thermal headroom. The RDNA 3.5 architecture provides 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s are modest figures that align with the observed performance ceiling in Control.

The 880M's nearest rivals in raw benchmark scores are aging discrete GPUs: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX scores 8427 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 8458 (0.3% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M scores 8462 (0.3% ahead). This places the 880M in the same performance class as decade-old discrete solutions, which explains why Control's demanding rendering pipeline stresses the GPU heavily.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 535 reinforces the GPU's limited capacity for modern game workloads. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 40006 and OpenCL score of 31285 show the GPU can execute compute tasks reasonably well, but raw rasterization throughput remains constrained. The DirectX 11 PassMark score of 73 versus DirectX 12 score of 32 indicates the architecture handles legacy APIs better than modern ones, which is relevant because Control can run on either API path.

The GPU's 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 performance is the theoretical ceiling, but real-world Control performance lands far below what that figure might suggest due to memory bandwidth limitations inherent to shared memory architectures. The 16 ROPs severely limit fill-rate-bound scenarios, which Control's particle effects and destructible environments frequently trigger.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H provides substantial processing headroom that the GPU cannot fully utilize in Control. With 16 cores and 22 threads, the CPU has a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15028 and single-core score of 1743. The PassMark single-thread score of 3468 and multithread score of 24873 demonstrate strong computational capability that far exceeds what the Radeon 880M can pair with in gaming workloads.

The CPU's 83rd percentile ranking against all CPUs places it alongside the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707 average score, 0% delta), AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32662, 0.1% delta), AMD Ryzen 5 7400F (32750, -0.2% delta), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32812, -0.4% delta). This proximity to desktop-class parts shows the 155H is not the limiting factor in this gaming configuration.

Clock speeds range from a 3.80 GHz base to 4.80 GHz boost, with a 28W TDP indicating the mobile power envelope. The Meteor Lake architecture uses a 7 nm process from Intel, and the 24 MB shared L3 cache provides adequate data locality for game logic. The PassMark physics score of 1727 and floating-point math score of 63703 suggest the CPU handles physics calculations and game simulation without strain.

The data compression score of 277353 and encryption score of 16358 show strong general-purpose throughput, but these metrics are irrelevant to Control's frame rate. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus is the only CPU-side constraint that could indirectly affect GPU performance, since the iGPU shares this memory path.

In Control specifically, the CPU's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core of 1743, PassMark single-thread of 3468) is more than sufficient for the game's engine logic. The 22 threads provide ample parallelism for background tasks and the game's streaming systems. The CPU is never the bottleneck in any measured configuration, as evidenced by the consistent frame rate scaling with resolution changes that track GPU load.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its only playable results. Low settings deliver 55 FPS average, which is the highest measured performance across all configurations. Medium settings drop to 39 FPS average with a minimum of 33 FPS and maximum of 45 FPS. High settings yield 35 FPS average, while Ultra settings produce 30 FPS average. The 20 FPS spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p demonstrates that settings have a significant impact on the GPU's workload at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, all configurations become marginal. Low settings produce 42 FPS average, representing a 13 FPS drop from 1080p Low. Medium settings deliver 30 FPS average with a range of 25 to 34 FPS. High settings drop to 26 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 23 FPS average. The 1440p results show the GPU struggling to maintain playable frame rates outside of Low settings.

At 3840x2160, the system is effectively non-functional for gameplay. Low settings produce 28 FPS average, which is the only 4K configuration above 20 FPS. Medium settings yield 20 FPS average with a range of 17 to 23 FPS. High settings drop to 18 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 15 FPS average. All 4K results fall below the minimum threshold for smooth gameplay.

The frame rate deltas between settings presets are consistent across resolutions. From Low to Medium at 1080p, the drop is 16 FPS (55 to 39). At 1440p, the same transition costs 12 FPS (42 to 30). At 4K, the drop is 8 FPS (28 to 20). This shrinking delta at higher resolutions indicates the GPU becomes increasingly saturated regardless of settings.

The minimum and maximum frame data available only for Medium settings shows the frame pacing characteristics. At 1080p Medium, the 33-45 FPS range represents a 12 FPS variance. At 1440p Medium, the 25-34 FPS range tightens to 9 FPS. At 4K Medium, the 17-23 FPS range narrows further to 6 FPS. Lower resolutions show more frame time variance, suggesting CPU or driver overhead becomes more visible when the GPU has spare capacity.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 1440p reveals the GPU-bound nature of this system. At Low settings, 1080p produces 55 FPS, dropping to 42 FPS at 1440p, a 23.6% reduction. Medium settings drop from 39 FPS to 30 FPS, a 23.1% reduction. High settings drop from 35 FPS to 26 FPS, a 25.7% reduction. Ultra settings drop from 30 FPS to 23 FPS, a 23.3% reduction. These consistent percentage drops across all settings indicate the scaling is purely resolution-driven, with no CPU limitation interfering.

The 1440p to 4K transition shows a different pattern. Low settings drop from 42 FPS to 28 FPS, a 33.3% reduction. Medium settings drop from 30 FPS to 20 FPS, a 33.3% reduction. High settings drop from 26 FPS to 18 FPS, a 30.8% reduction. Ultra settings drop from 23 FPS to 15 FPS, a 34.8% reduction. The larger percentage drops at 4K confirm the GPU is being pushed into a region where pixel throughput dominates all other factors.

The pixel count increase from 1080p to 1440p is 77.8%, yet frame rates drop by only 23-26%. This sub-linear scaling suggests the GPU has some headroom at 1080p that partially absorbs the resolution increase. The pixel count increase from 1440p to 4K is 125%, and frame rates drop by 31-35%. This closer-to-linear scaling indicates the GPU is operating near its fill-rate limit at 1440p and above.

The limiting component is clearly the AMD Radeon 880M. The CPU's ability to maintain frame rates across resolution changes is evidenced by the consistent scaling behavior. If the CPU were the bottleneck, higher resolutions would show smaller percentage drops because the GPU would still be waiting on CPU work. Instead, the drops track pixel count growth, confirming GPU saturation.

At 4K Ultra, the 15 FPS average represents the absolute worst-case scenario, where the GPU is rendering 8.3 million pixels with the most demanding settings. The fact that Low settings at 4K only reaches 28 FPS reinforces that this system should not be paired with 4K displays for Control.

Settings Recommendations

For playable performance, 1920x1080 Low is the only configuration that exceeds 50 FPS, delivering 55 FPS average. This should be the default recommendation for any user attempting to play Control on this hardware. The jump to Medium at 1080p drops to 39 FPS, which is technically playable but introduces noticeable frame pacing inconsistency with a 33-45 FPS range.

At 2560x1440, only Low settings (42 FPS) approach acceptable playability. Medium settings at 30 FPS or below risk dropping into stutter territory during combat sequences. The 1440p Low configuration sacrifices visual fidelity but maintains a frame rate that most players would find tolerable for a game like Control, which relies heavily on fast-paced combat.

The 3840x2160 resolution should be avoided entirely. Even Low settings at 28 FPS will feel sluggish, and the 17-23 FPS range on Medium makes the game nearly unresponsive. No settings combination at 4K produces a frame rate that supports the game's action-oriented gameplay.

Between High and Ultra settings at any resolution, the performance cost is steep. At 1080p, High yields 35 FPS and Ultra yields 30 FPS, a 5 FPS difference for marginal visual gains. At 1440p, the same comparison shows 26 FPS versus 23 FPS. The Ultra preset is never worth the extra performance penalty on this hardware.

The best experience per the measured rows is 1920x1080 with Low settings. This configuration provides the highest frame rate and the most consistent performance headroom for demanding scenes. Players who prioritize visual quality over frame rate could consider 1080p Medium at 39 FPS, but the 33 FPS minimum suggests occasional dips below comfortable playability.

For users with 1440p displays, the Low preset at 42 FPS is the only viable option. The visual downgrade from Medium to Low is noticeable but less impactful than the frame rate loss from 42 to 30 FPS. The measured data provides no configuration where this system achieves both high visual quality and smooth gameplay, so prioritizing frame rate is the pragmatic choice.