Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H paired with the AMD Radeon 880M delivers a playable but constrained experience in Control, landing it in the lower tier of tested hardware combinations. This pairing occupies a specific niche, offering a glimpse into what modern integrated graphics can achieve in a demanding action-adventure title, though the data clearly shows its limitations at higher resolutions and settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The benchmark results place this combo at rank 2817 out of 2888 tested combinations for Control. This position in the bottom percentile, roughly the 3rd percentile of all tested systems, indicates that the pairing is far from a high-performance solution for this title. The data suggests that while the hardware is capable of running the game, it does so with significant compromises, particularly when compared to dedicated graphics solutions or more powerful mobile chipsets.

Looking at the individual components, the CPU's overall percentile ranking is notably stronger than the combo's in-game rank. The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H sits at the 84th percentile when compared to all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 34083. This suggests the processor is a relatively capable part, and its performance is unlikely to be the primary bottleneck in most scenarios. Its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H with an average score of 33989, which is a mere 0.3% difference, and the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X at 34260, which is 0.5% slower. These close scores indicate that the 165H's processing power is competitive with several established desktop and mobile parts.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon 880M's integrated graphics performance is much more modest. It sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8436. Its nearest rivals in the GPU benchmark database are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, which scores 8427 (0.1% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8458 (0.3% higher). This positions the 880M's raw graphics capability near the level of older, entry-level discrete GPUs, which explains the combo's low in-game rank. The system's overall performance in Control is therefore heavily dictated by the GPU's limitations, dragging the CPU's potential down in this specific workload.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its specifications paint a picture of a chip designed for efficiency rather than brute force. The GPU has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, with a TDP of just 15 W. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. The compute power is rated at 4.454 TFLOPS for FP32 operations.

A critical aspect of this GPU is its memory configuration. It uses System Shared memory, meaning it draws from the main system RAM rather than having its own dedicated VRAM. The memory bandwidth is listed as System Dependent, and the bus width is also System Shared. This architecture is a major factor in the game's performance, as the GPU and CPU must share the same memory pool, which can lead to bandwidth bottlenecks. The CPU's memory support is DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, which is the theoretical ceiling for the shared memory. This shared configuration is typical for integrated graphics and is a key reason why the 880M struggles in a memory-intensive title like Control.

In the context of the measured FPS, the GPU's role is the primary limiter. At 4K with Ultra settings, the game only achieves 15 FPS, a clear sign that the GPU is overwhelmed. The GPU's performance in synthetic tests, such as a Passmark G3D score of 7615, confirms its position as an entry-level graphics solution. The data shows that the 880M is capable of rendering the game, but it requires significant reductions in resolution and graphical fidelity to do so at acceptable frame rates.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and predictable trend: performance scales dramatically with resolution. The difference between 1080p and 4K highlights how quickly the integrated GPU hits its limits. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 55 FPS. Moving up to 2560x1440 at the same settings, the average drops to 42 FPS, a 23.6% decrease. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average plummets to 28 FPS, a further 33.3% drop from the 1440p figure and a 49.1% drop from 1080p.

This scaling pattern strongly indicates that the system is GPU-bound at all resolutions tested. The number of pixels being rendered increases geometrically (1080p has ~2 million pixels, 1440p has ~3.7 million, and 4K has ~8.3 million), and the frame rate drops accordingly. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller performance gap between resolutions, as the CPU's workload would remain relatively constant. Instead, the consistent and significant FPS drops point to the Radeon 880M's pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth as the limiting factors.

The data implies that for a smoother experience, lowering the resolution is the most effective lever. The jump from 4K to 1440p provides a substantial FPS boost across all settings, and the jump from 1440p to 1080p provides another significant improvement. For this hardware, 1080p represents the most realistic target for achieving a playable frame rate, while 4K is only viable for a slideshow-like experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the combo's performance across a grid of resolutions and settings.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows:

• Low: Average 55 FPS.
• Medium: Average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45.
• High: Average 35 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 30 FPS.

This resolution is the only one where the combo approaches a consistently smooth experience. The Low setting is the only configuration that stays comfortably above 60 FPS, while Medium and High offer playable frame rates in the 30-40 range. Ultra dips to exactly 30 FPS, which is the bare minimum for many players.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably:

• Low: Average 42 FPS.
• Medium: Average 30 FPS, with a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 34.
• High: Average 26 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 23 FPS.

Here, even Low settings fall short of 60 FPS. The Medium setting is right at the edge of playability, but the minimum FPS of 25 suggests that demanding scenes will cause noticeable stuttering. High and Ultra settings are largely unplayable, with average frame rates in the low-to-mid 20s.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is severely overtaxed:

• Low: Average 28 FPS.
• Medium: Average 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 23.
• High: Average 18 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 15 FPS.

All 4K settings result in frame rates well below 30 FPS, confirming that this resolution is not a viable option for this hardware. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 13 FPS, indicating that the GPU is already operating at its absolute limit and the settings have a diminished impact.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H is a 16-core, 22-thread processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture, built on a 7 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a TDP of 28 W. The cache hierarchy includes 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 24 MB of L3 cache. The CPU's integrated graphics are the Arc Xe-LPG 128EU, though the discrete Radeon 880M is the primary GPU in this configuration.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 165H shows strong multi-threaded performance. It scores 14551 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 9233 in Cinebench R20 multi-core. Single-thread performance is also solid, with scores of 1759 in Cinebench R23 and 1303 in Cinebench R20. These results place the CPU in the 84th percentile, suggesting it has ample processing power for gaming workloads.

However, the data from Control suggests that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck. The FPS scaling with resolution is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario. In a CPU-bound game, we would expect similar frame rates across different resolutions, as the CPU's work per frame remains constant. Here, the FPS drops significantly as resolution increases, indicating the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's robust multi-core performance, as evidenced by a Passmark multithread score of 25933, is more than sufficient to feed the Radeon 880M in this title. The CPU's role is to handle the game's physics, AI, and game logic, which it does effectively, but the GPU's inability to render frames quickly enough masks the CPU's capabilities.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Control at 1080p?*

A: Yes, at 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 55 FPS. Medium settings also provide a playable 39 FPS average, but High and Ultra settings dip to 35 and 30 FPS respectively.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with the AMD Radeon 880M and Intel Core Ultra 7 165H?

A: Technically, yes, but the experience is poor. At 4K with Low settings, the average FPS is 28. All other settings at 4K result in averages below 20 FPS, making the game effectively unplayable.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H has an average benchmark score of 34083. It is 0.3% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H and 0.4% faster than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350. It is 0.5% slower than the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between 1080p and 1440p?

A: At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 55 at 1080p to 42 at 1440p, a decrease of 23.6%. At Medium settings, the drop is from 39 to 30 FPS, a 23.1% decrease.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more responsible for the low frame rates in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary limiting factor. The frame rate drops significantly as resolution increases, which is a hallmark of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU's high percentile ranking (84th) and robust multi-threaded scores suggest it has sufficient power.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a balance of visuals and performance at 1440p?

A: At 1440p, the Medium preset provides an average of 30 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches a consistent playable frame rate. Low settings are smoother at 42 FPS, but High and Ultra are too demanding, averaging 26 and 23 FPS respectively.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this hardware depend entirely on the user's target resolution and preference for frame rate versus visual quality.

For a smooth and responsive experience, 1920x1080 with Low settings is the clear choice. This configuration yields an average of 55 FPS, which is close to the 60 FPS target and provides the most fluid gameplay. The Medium preset at 1080p is also viable, offering an average of 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS, which is acceptable for a slower-paced action-adventure game. Pushing to High or Ultra at 1080p is not recommended, as the average frame rates of 35 and 30 FPS, respectively, are at the edge of playability and may result in noticeable stutter in action-heavy scenes.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more challenging. The Low preset is the only setting that provides a comfortably playable average of 42 FPS. The Medium preset is borderline, with an average of 30 FPS and a minimum of 25 FPS, which may feel inconsistent. For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, Medium at 1440p is the best compromise, but they should be prepared for occasional frame drops. The High and Ultra presets at this resolution are not recommended, as their averages of 26 and 23 FPS fall below the threshold for comfortable gameplay.

For 3840x2160, the data offers no good options. Even the Low preset only averages 28 FPS, which is well below a playable threshold. The Medium, High, and Ultra presets are all in the 15-20 FPS range, which is a slideshow. Users should avoid 4K entirely with this combo if they intend to play Control in a meaningful way.

In summary, the best experience is achieved at 1080p with Low settings. If a higher resolution is desired, 1440p with Low settings is the next best option, offering a significant visual upgrade over 1080p while maintaining an average frame rate above 40 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p is a secondary choice for those who want better visuals, but it requires accepting the risk of frame rate dips. The data clearly shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, with the understanding that high graphical presets will require compromises in frame rate.