Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H paired with the AMD Radeon 760M produces a severely constrained gaming experience in Control, ranking 2878th out of 2888 tested combos. This position places the system in the bottom 0.3% of all configurations, indicating that the integrated graphics solution is the dominant bottleneck across all tested settings. The data shows a platform that is fundamentally unsuited for the game's demands, with performance levels falling below playable thresholds even at the lowest settings.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling behavior reveals a classic case of GPU-bound performance, where the integrated Radeon 760M struggles to maintain frame rates as pixel count increases. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at High settings drops the average FPS from 25 to 19, representing a 24% reduction. The scaling from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 at the same settings is even more punishing, with the average falling from 19 to 13 FPS, a 31.6% decline. This pattern demonstrates that the rendering pipeline becomes progressively more overwhelmed as resolution increases, with the GPU's limited shading units and texture units unable to keep pace with the growing pixel workload.

At Low settings, the scaling curve shows a similar but slightly less severe trajectory. The 1920x1080 result of 40 FPS drops to 30 FPS at 2560x1440, a 25% reduction, and then falls to 21 FPS at 3840x2160, a 30% drop from the 1440p figure. This consistency across settings indicates that the resolution penalty is largely independent of the graphics preset, confirming that the GPU is the limiting component rather than memory bandwidth or CPU throughput. The fact that even the lowest settings cannot maintain 30 FPS at 4K underscores the fundamental inadequacy of the integrated solution for this title.

The delta between Low and High settings at each resolution provides additional insight into the scaling behavior. At 1080p, the gap is 15 FPS (40 to 25), while at 1440p it narrows to 11 FPS (30 to 19), and at 4K it compresses to 8 FPS (21 to 13). This narrowing gap at higher resolutions suggests that pixel fill rate becomes the primary constraint, overwhelming the differences in shader complexity between presets. The data indicates that users seeking higher resolutions will find diminishing returns from lowering settings, as the GPU simply lacks the raw throughput to render the additional pixels regardless of quality level.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear verdict on settings selection: Low at 1920x1080 is the only configuration that approaches playability, delivering 40 FPS average. This represents a 33% improvement over the Medium preset at the same resolution, which manages only 29 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 11 FPS, while the subsequent step to High costs 4 FPS (25 FPS), and High to Ultra costs 3 FPS (22 FPS). This diminishing returns curve suggests that the game's visual quality settings have a nonlinear impact on performance, with the Low preset avoiding the most demanding effects.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset produces 30 FPS, which is technically playable but marginal by modern standards. The Medium preset at this resolution yields 22 FPS, and the measured minimum of 18 FPS indicates significant frame time spikes that would manifest as visible stuttering. The data suggests that 1440p Low is the most balanced option for users who prioritize resolution over visual fidelity, though the 30 FPS average leaves little headroom for demanding scenes. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p, delivering 19 and 17 FPS respectively, are not viable options for sustained gameplay.

For 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor across all settings, with the best case being Low at 21 FPS. The Medium preset at this resolution shows a measured minimum of 12 FPS and maximum of 17 FPS, indicating severe frame time variance that would produce an inconsistent experience. The recommendation is unambiguous: avoid 4K entirely on this platform. The optimal experience, such as it is, comes from 1080p Low, which provides the highest average FPS and the most stable frame delivery. Users should accept the visual compromises of the Low preset as the necessary trade-off for functional gameplay.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. Its 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units operate at a base clock of 800 MHz with a boost of 2599 MHz, delivering 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The GPU shares system memory with the CPU, with bandwidth described as system dependent, which introduces variable performance based on the installed RAM configuration. The 15 W TDP reflects the power envelope of this integrated solution, which is designed for efficiency rather than raw gaming performance.

The benchmark data for this GPU places it in the 35th percentile of all tested graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 6019. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400, which scores 0.3% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, also 0.3% higher. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 0.4% higher, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is 0.5% higher. This clustering of scores around the 6000 mark indicates that the 760M performs at a level comparable to entry-level discrete GPUs from several generations ago, confirming its position as a basic integrated solution.

The memory situation deserves particular attention in the context of Control, a game known for its demanding visual effects. With system-shared memory and no dedicated VRAM, the GPU must compete with the CPU for bandwidth, and the "System Dependent" bandwidth figure highlights the variability users may experience. The 178 mm² die size and 25,390 million transistors provide a compact footprint that enables integration into mobile processors, but this comes at the cost of memory bandwidth headroom. The measured FPS results, which show the GPU struggling to exceed 40 FPS even at 1080p Low, are consistent with a part that lacks the memory throughput and shading capacity for modern AAA titles.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data reveals a clear hierarchy across presets. Low settings deliver 40 FPS average, making it the only preset to reach a 40 FPS threshold. Medium settings produce 29 FPS average with a measured range of 24 to 33 FPS, indicating frame time variability of 9 FPS between minimum and maximum. High settings drop to 25 FPS average, while Ultra falls to 22 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra represents a 45% reduction in frame rate, from 40 to 22 FPS, demonstrating the significant cost of higher visual quality on this integrated GPU.

At 2560x1440, the performance curve shifts downward substantially. Low settings achieve 30 FPS average, representing a 25% drop from the 1080p result. Medium settings deliver 22 FPS with a measured range of 18 to 25 FPS, showing a 7 FPS spread. High settings produce 19 FPS, and Ultra drops to 17 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 13 FPS, a 43% reduction, roughly proportional to the 1080p scaling. This consistency suggests that the GPU's relative performance across presets is preserved as resolution increases, though the absolute numbers become increasingly untenable.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings manage 21 FPS, a 30% drop from the 1440p figure. Medium settings produce 15 FPS with a measured range of 12 to 17 FPS, showing a 5 FPS spread that indicates unstable frame delivery. High settings drop to 13 FPS, and Ultra falls to 11 FPS. The Low to Ultra delta at 4K is 10 FPS, a 48% reduction, representing the steepest percentage drop across all resolutions. This suggests that the GPU's architectural limitations become more pronounced at higher pixel counts, with the shading units and memory subsystem reaching their absolute limits.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and AMD Radeon 760M ranks 2878th out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 0.3% of all configurations. This ranking reflects the fundamental mismatch between the game's requirements and the integrated GPU's capabilities. The CPU component of this combo, when evaluated independently, shows a different story: the Core Ultra 7 165H scores 34083 in average benchmark tests, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs. This discrepancy between CPU and GPU performance underscores the severity of the GPU bottleneck.

The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, which scores 0.3% higher, and the AMD EPYC 4244P and AMD Ryzen AI 7 350, both 0.4% lower. The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is 0.5% lower. These margins are minimal, indicating that the CPU is competitive with other mid-range processors. However, the GPU's 35th percentile ranking and its proximity to the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (0.3% higher) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (0.3% higher) demonstrate that the graphics component is the limiting factor in this pairing.

The combo ranking of 2878 out of 2888 suggests that nearly every other tested configuration outperforms this setup in Control. The data indicates that users would need to significantly reduce both resolution and settings to achieve playable frame rates, and even then, the results would remain marginal. The ranking serves as a clear warning that this integrated graphics solution is not suitable for the game, regardless of the CPU's capabilities.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H features 16 cores and 22 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The processor is built on Intel's Meteor Lake architecture using a 7 nm process, with a 28 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration provides substantial multi-threaded performance, as evidenced by benchmark scores including 14551 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 9233 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.

The CPU's benchmark results indicate strong computational capability. The PassMark multi-thread score of 25933 and single-thread score of 3509 reflect a balanced processor that can handle both multi-threaded workloads and single-threaded tasks effectively. The 84th percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms that the 165H is a capable processor by general standards. However, in Control, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU, and the measured FPS results show no indication of CPU limitation.

The core and thread configuration provides ample resources for the game's physics and AI systems, but the data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck at all tested settings. The fact that performance scales consistently with resolution and settings changes, rather than showing CPU-bound behavior at low resolutions, confirms that the integrated graphics is the limiting factor. The CPU's 16 cores and 22 threads are more than sufficient for Control, and the system's poor performance cannot be attributed to processor limitations. The mismatch between the CPU's 84th percentile ranking and the combo's 2878th ranking in-game highlights the importance of GPU selection for gaming workloads.