Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H paired with the AMD Radeon 890M delivers playable frame rates in Control only at 1080p with Low settings, and even then it barely crosses the 60 FPS threshold. Benchmark results place this combo at rank 2728 out of 2888 tested combinations, putting it in the bottom 6% of all systems measured for this game. The data shows a component pairing that is heavily GPU-limited across every resolution and settings preset, with the integrated Radeon 890M consistently acting as the bottleneck.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H is a 16-core, 22-thread mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 1, built on the Meteor Lake architecture at Intel's 7 nm process node. It carries a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a 28 W TDP that classifies it as a low-power mobile part. The cache hierarchy includes 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5, running on a dual-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The CPU's integrated graphics are the Arc Xe-LPG 128EU, though in this configuration the system also uses the discrete-class AMD Radeon 890M.

In Control, the CPU's role is largely secondary to the GPU. The game's physics and AI systems can be demanding, but the measured frame rates are so low at every resolution that the CPU is never the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 58 FPS, which is the highest score recorded across all 12 measured rows. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect to see frame rates plateau regardless of resolution or settings changes. Instead, the data shows a clear pattern: dropping resolution from 1440p to 1080p at Low settings improves average FPS from 44 to 58, a 32% gain. This scaling behavior indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck, not the CPU.

The Core Ultra 7 165H's benchmark scores support the notion that it has ample headroom for this game. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 14551 points, and in single-core it scores 1759. PassMark single-thread testing yields 3509 points, with a multithread score of 25933. These figures place the CPU at the 84th percentile among all tested processors, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of chips in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H with an average score of 33989 (0.3% delta), the AMD EPYC 4244P at 34220 (-0.4% delta), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 at 34222 (-0.4% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X at 34260 (-0.5% delta). The Core Ultra 7 165H's average benchmark score is 34083, which is statistically indistinguishable from these rivals.

The 16-core, 22-thread configuration with a 5.00 GHz boost clock provides more than enough computational power for Control's CPU demands. The game was released in 2019, and its CPU requirements are modest by modern standards. The PassMark physics score of 1806 and integer math score of 89415 indicate strong general-purpose performance. However, none of this CPU capability translates into higher frame rates because the Radeon 890M cannot keep up. The data shows that even at the lowest settings and resolution, the system only achieves 58 FPS, which is a GPU-bound result.

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

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process node. It is part of the Strix Point generation, with the chip carrying 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die. The GPU has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, with a 15 W TDP that is extremely low for a graphics solution. It features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 raster operation units, and 16 ray tracing cores. The pixel rate is 92.80 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 185.6 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance rated at 5.939 TFLOPS.

Memory is system shared, meaning the GPU uses the same DDR5 memory as the CPU. The memory bus width and bandwidth are both listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively, which means performance is tied to the system's memory configuration. In this case, the dual-channel DDR5 setup with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth is shared between CPU and GPU, and the GPU's access to this memory is a significant constraint. The Radeon 890M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring full API compatibility with Control's rendering requirements.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it at the 45th percentile among all tested GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 9210. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Vega 8 at 9221 (-0.1% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 at 9273 (-0.7% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 at 9294 (-0.9% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M at 9302 (-1% delta). This places the 890M in the same performance tier as older discrete GPUs from a decade ago, which explains its difficulty running Control at higher settings.

The GPU's performance in Control is the primary determinant of the system's frame rates. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 58, which drops to 37 at High settings, 41 at Medium, and 32 at Ultra. These numbers show a clear relationship between settings and performance. The Radeon 890M's 5.939 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 32 ROPs are simply insufficient for Control's post-processing effects, particle systems, and physics-based destruction at higher presets. The 16 ray tracing cores are present but underutilized, as Control's ray tracing features would further cripple an already marginal frame rate.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This combo ranks 2728 out of 2888 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the bottom 5.5% of all systems measured. This is a poor ranking that reflects the GPU's limitations rather than the CPU's capabilities. The Core Ultra 7 165H is a strong mobile processor, but the Radeon 890M is an integrated GPU that is not designed for demanding AAA games at high resolutions.

To contextualize this rank, consider that the CPU sits at the 84th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits at the 45th percentile among all GPUs. The combo's rank of 2728 out of 2888 suggests that most other CPU-GPU pairings in the database outperform this combination. The nearest rival GPUs (Vega 8, GTX 960, GTX 465, GTX 850M) all have similar average benchmark scores, and they would likely produce similar results in Control. The delta percentages among these rivals are all within 1% of the 890M's score, indicating that this GPU is part of a tightly clustered performance tier.

The ranking also reflects the fact that Control is a GPU-intensive title. The game's visual effects, including its signature altered-world physics and environmental storytelling, require significant graphics processing power. The measured FPS data shows that the 890M cannot maintain 60 FPS at any settings combination except 1080p Low, where it hits 58 FPS. This is a marginal result that would be considered unplayable by many users, especially in a game that rewards smooth motion during combat sequences.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. Starting with 3840x2160 (4K), the results are uniformly poor. At Low settings, the average FPS is 30, which is the only 4K result that approaches playability. Medium settings drop to 21 FPS average, with minimum and maximum of 18 and 24 FPS respectively. High settings yield 19 FPS average, and Ultra settings produce just 16 FPS average. None of these 4K results are playable for a fast-paced action game like Control.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance improves but remains below acceptable thresholds for most players. Low settings produce an average of 44 FPS, which is the best 1440p result. Medium settings average 31 FPS with a range of 27 to 36 FPS. High settings average 28 FPS, and Ultra settings average 24 FPS. The 1440p results show a consistent pattern of diminishing returns as settings increase, with a 20 FPS gap between Low and Ultra presets.

At 1920x1080, the results are more varied. Low settings produce an average of 58 FPS, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 41 FPS with a range of 35 to 47 FPS. High settings average 37 FPS, and Ultra settings average 32 FPS. The 1080p Low result is the only row where the system comes close to hitting 60 FPS, and even then it falls 2 FPS short. The 1080p Medium result of 41 FPS is playable but not smooth, while High and Ultra presets dip below 40 FPS.

The data shows that the Radeon 890M's performance scales predictably with resolution and settings. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 58 FPS, which is 93% of the 60 FPS target. At 1440p Low, it drops to 44 FPS, a 24% decrease. At 4K Low, it drops to 30 FPS, a 48% decrease from the 1080p Low result. This scaling is consistent with a GPU that is running out of fill rate and memory bandwidth at higher resolutions.

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

Resolution scaling analysis reveals the GPU as the definitive bottleneck. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 58 at 1080p to 44 at 1440p and 30 at 4K. This represents a 24% decrease from 1080p to 1440p and a 48% decrease from 1080p to 4K. If the CPU were the limiting factor, these drops would be much smaller, as the CPU's workload does not scale directly with pixel count. The fact that frame rates nearly halve at 4K indicates that the GPU's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth are the constraints.

At Medium settings, the scaling is similar: 41 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K. This is a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 49% drop from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the numbers are 37 FPS at 1080p, 28 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K, representing a 24% and 49% decrease respectively. At Ultra settings, the pattern holds: 32 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 16 FPS at 4K, with 25% and 50% decreases.

This consistent ~25% drop per resolution step (from 1080p to 1440p, and from 1440p to 4K) is classic GPU-bound behavior. The pixel count increases by 1.78x from 1080p to 1440p and by 2.25x from 1440p to 4K, yet the frame rate drops are roughly proportional to the increased pixel workload. This indicates that the Radeon 890M is operating at its compute and memory bandwidth limits, with no CPU-induced ceiling.

Additionally, the settings scaling at each resolution shows the GPU's texture and shader performance limits. At 1080p, going from Low to Ultra drops the average FPS from 58 to 32, a 45% reduction. At 1440p, the same settings change drops FPS from 44 to 24, a 45% reduction. At 4K, it drops from 30 to 16, a 47% reduction. This consistent ~45% penalty from Low to Ultra across all resolutions confirms that the GPU is the bottleneck, as the CPU would not be affected by texture quality or shadow resolution changes to this degree.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable settings preset for this combo is 1080p Low, which produces an average of 58 FPS. This is the only row that approaches the 60 FPS target that most players consider smooth for an action game. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 41 FPS, which is playable but will exhibit noticeable frame pacing issues during combat. The minimum FPS of 35 at Medium settings suggests that the game will experience dips below 40 FPS, which can be distracting in a game that relies on precise timing.

At 1440p, even Low settings only produce 44 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. This resolution is not recommended for this combo, as the visual fidelity gains from higher resolution are outweighed by the loss in frame rate. At 4K, all settings presets produce frame rates below 30 FPS, making the game effectively unplayable. The 4K Low result of 30 FPS is technically above the slideshow threshold, but it would feel sluggish and unresponsive.

For players who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, 1080p Medium at 41 FPS is the best compromise. The Medium preset includes moderate texture quality and shadow details, and the 41 FPS average with a 35 FPS minimum is tolerable for a slower-paced exploration game. However, for combat-heavy sections, the 58 FPS at Low settings is clearly superior. The data suggests that players should start at 1080p Low and only increase settings if they can tolerate sub-40 FPS frame rates.

The Ultra preset is never worth the performance cost. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS of 32 is barely playable, and at higher resolutions it drops below 24 FPS. The visual difference between High and Ultra in Control is minimal, while the performance penalty is substantial. Similarly, the High preset at 1080p produces 37 FPS, which is only 4 FPS lower than Medium but offers marginal visual improvements. Given the GPU's limitations, the recommended settings are 1080p Low for smooth gameplay, with 1080p Medium as an alternative for players who prefer better visuals at the cost of frame rate.

In summary, this hardware combination is not well-suited for Control. The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H provides ample CPU performance, but the AMD Radeon 890M's integrated graphics solution lacks the raw power to run the game at higher resolutions or settings. The data shows that 1080p Low is the only playable configuration, and even then, the 58 FPS average leaves little headroom for demanding scenes. Players seeking a better experience would need to lower their expectations or consider a different GPU solution.