Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 570 produces a combination that is fundamentally constrained by its graphics processor in Control. The data indicates a system that can approach playability only at its lowest settings and lowest resolution, with the CPU’s substantial multi-threaded capacity remaining largely underutilized. This pairing ranks near the bottom of the tested database, making it suitable only for the most modest graphical expectations.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific hardware pairing sits at rank 2768 out of 2888 tested combinations in Control. That places it in the bottom 4% of all tested combos, a position that reflects the RX 570’s age and the demanding nature of this title's rendering engine. The combination of a modern, high-core-count CPU with a legacy GPU creates a stark performance imbalance that the benchmark results consistently confirm.

The ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU’s standing among all tested graphics cards. The Radeon RX 570 holds a percentile rank of 74 among all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 28766 places it within 1% of rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (deltaPct -0.4) and the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (deltaPct 0.7). While these synthetic benchmarks suggest the GPU is a mid-tier performer, the in-game results tell a different story, as Control's specific demands push the card to its limits.

The CPU, in contrast, is a high performer. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64640. Its nearest rivals are all server-class processors, with the AMD EPYC 4464P scoring 0.3% higher and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scoring 0.3% lower. This contrast between a top-tier CPU and a mid-tier GPU is the defining characteristic of this combo, and it is the primary reason the overall rank is so low.

The combination’s low rank is not due to a faulty component but rather a severe bottleneck. The benchmark data shows that the CPU is capable of feeding frames far faster than the GPU can render them. This is a classic case where the graphics card is the limiting factor, and the system’s overall performance in Control is therefore tied directly to the GPU’s capabilities.

Settings Recommendations

The measured frame rate data clearly indicates that there is only one viable settings preset for this combo: Low. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 57 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that crosses the 60 FPS threshold. This is the only preset where the experience can be considered fluid and responsive.

Every other settings preset results in average frame rates that fall below 60 FPS. At 1920x1080, Medium settings drop the average to 40 FPS, High to 36 FPS, and Ultra to 31 FPS. While these are technically playable for some, they represent a significant compromise in smoothness. The step from Low to Medium alone represents a 30% drop in average frame rate, which is a substantial penalty for the visual improvements gained.

The situation becomes far more critical at higher resolutions. At 2560x1440, even the Low preset only manages an average of 43 FPS, which is below the standard for a comfortable experience. At 3840x2160, all presets fall into the unplayable range, with the Low preset averaging just 29 FPS and the Ultra preset averaging a mere 16 FPS.

For users who prioritize a stable frame rate, the Low preset at 1920x1080 is the only recommended configuration. The data suggests that attempting to use Medium or higher settings will result in an experience that is noticeably less fluid, and the visual trade-off may not be worth the performance cost. This is a system that must be tuned for performance, not visual fidelity.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate data reveals a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern. As resolution increases, the average frame rate drops almost linearly, confirming that the AMD Radeon RX 570 is the primary limiting component. The CPU, with its 20 cores and 20 threads, has ample headroom to process the game’s logic and draw calls, but it is starved of work by the GPU’s rendering speed.

At Low settings, the progression is clear: 57 FPS at 1920x1080 drops to 43 FPS at 2560x1440, a 25% decrease, and then to 29 FPS at 3840x2160, a further 33% decrease from 1440p. This pattern indicates that the GPU’s pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth are being saturated as the number of pixels increases. The RX 570’s 224.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 39.81 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering in this game.

At High settings, the scaling is similar but with lower absolute values: 36 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 25% and 33% respectively, matching the Low settings pattern. This consistency suggests that the bottleneck is purely resolution-driven and not affected by the specific graphical workload.

The data strongly implies that the CPU is never the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates that remain relatively constant across resolutions, as the CPU would be producing the same number of frames regardless of pixel count. Instead, the steep decline in FPS at higher resolutions is a definitive sign of a GPU-limited system. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is effectively waiting for the RX 570 to finish rendering each frame.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following data represents the exact measured average frame rates for this combination. Minimum and maximum frame rates were only recorded for the Medium preset at each resolution.

1920x1080:

• Low: Average 57 FPS. This is the highest score recorded for this combo at any resolution or setting.
• Medium: Average 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS. This shows a playable range but with noticeable dips.
• High: Average 36 FPS. A 10% drop from Medium, indicating diminishing returns for the increased visual load.
• Ultra: Average 31 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is 14%, making this preset only suitable for screenshots.

2560x1440:

• Low: Average 43 FPS. This is the only 1440p preset that approaches a playable frame rate.
• Medium: Average 30 FPS, with a minimum of 26 FPS and a maximum of 35 FPS. The minimum frame rate here is borderline unplayable.
• High: Average 27 FPS. A 10% drop from Medium, continuing the trend.
• Ultra: Average 24 FPS. This is a 20% drop from High, showing that the most demanding settings are out of reach.

3840x2160:

• Low: Average 29 FPS. This is below the threshold for a smooth experience.
• Medium: Average 21 FPS, with a minimum of 17 FPS and a maximum of 24 FPS. The minimum frame rate indicates severe stuttering.
• High: Average 18 FPS. This is effectively a slideshow.
• Ultra: Average 16 FPS. This is the lowest recorded score and represents the worst-case scenario.

The data shows a consistent pattern: each step from Low to Medium costs roughly 25-30% of the frame rate, while the step from High to Ultra costs a further 10-15%. This suggests that the Medium preset offers the best balance between visual quality and performance, but only at 1080p. At higher resolutions, the Low preset is the only option that provides a somewhat interactive experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for this combo?

A: Based on the measured data, the Low preset at 1920x1080 is the only configuration that achieves an average frame rate near 60 FPS (57 FPS). All other presets and resolutions result in average frame rates below 50 FPS.

*Q: Can this system run Control at 4K resolution?*

A: No. The measured average frame rates at 3840x2160 range from 29 FPS on Low to 16 FPS on Ultra. These are all well below the playable threshold, and the minimum frame rate of 17 FPS on Medium confirms a stuttering experience.

Q: How much of a performance drop is there from 1080p to 1440p?

A: At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 57 FPS to 43 FPS, a 25% decrease. At High settings, it drops from 36 FPS to 27 FPS, also a 25% decrease. This confirms a consistent resolution-based scaling.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The steep frame rate decline with increasing resolution is a classic sign of a GPU-limited system. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, which is more than sufficient for this game.

Q: What is the difference between the High and Ultra presets at 1080p?

A: The High preset averages 36 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 31 FPS. This is a 5 FPS difference (a 14% drop) for the highest visual quality settings, which may not be a worthwhile trade-off for most users.

Q: How does the RX 570 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RX 570 has an average benchmark score of 28766. It is 0.4% slower than the AMD Radeon RX 6800M and 0.8% slower than the AMD Radeon RX 470. It is 0.7% faster than the AMD Radeon R9 M295X. This indicates it is a mid-tier performer in general compute tasks, but its in-game performance is limited by its 4 GB of memory and older architecture.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, which gives it significant single-threaded and multi-threaded capability. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 42216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5960 in single-core, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs.

In this specific game, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and process game logic. Given the RX 570’s performance, the CPU is never stressed. The measured frame rates are entirely dependent on the GPU’s rendering speed. The high core count and clock speeds of the 265 are largely irrelevant to the final FPS output.

The data suggests that the CPU is operating in a state of significant underutilization. The benchmark results for the 265 show it outperforming the AMD EPYC 4464P by 0.3% and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F by 0.3% in average score. This level of processing power is wasted on a game where the graphics card cannot keep up. The 30 MB of L3 cache and DDR5 memory support are also features that have minimal impact on this particular workload.

The fundamental issue is that the RX 570, with its 2048 shading units and 5.095 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, is the limiting factor. The CPU has enough power to run the game at maximum settings, but the GPU cannot translate that into higher frame rates. Therefore, the CPU’s role is simply to ensure that the system never introduces a CPU-related stutter, which it achieves with ease. The bottleneck is entirely on the graphics side, and any upgrade path would require a more powerful GPU to unlock the potential of the 265.