Control

# Control with Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT produces a measurable performance profile in Control that is heavily dependent on resolution and quality settings. The dataset covers twelve distinct configurations across three resolutions and four quality presets, with the combination ranking 2141 out of 2888 tested combos in this game. The overall picture is one of a system that can deliver playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p with careful settings selection, but which struggles to maintain smooth performance at 4K, particularly at higher quality presets.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data reveals a clear hierarchy of performance across the four available quality presets. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers an average of 115 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded in the entire dataset. This drops to 82 FPS at Medium, 73 FPS at High, and 63 FPS at Ultra. The step from Low to Medium costs 33 FPS, while the step from High to Ultra costs only 10 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end of the quality spectrum.

At 1440p, the pattern shifts slightly. Low produces 87 FPS average, Medium drops to 62 FPS, High yields 55 FPS, and Ultra falls to 48 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 7 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is also 7 FPS, showing a more linear progression at this resolution. At 4K, the numbers compress further: Low averages 59 FPS, Medium 42 FPS, High 37 FPS, and Ultra 32 FPS.

The most balanced experience appears to be the Medium preset across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the system delivers 82 FPS average with a minimum of 70 FPS and a maximum of 94 FPS, providing a solid margin above typical display refresh rates. At 1440p Medium, the 62 FPS average with 53 FPS minimum and 71 FPS maximum remains playable, though the minimum dips below 60 FPS. At 4K Medium, the 42 FPS average with 36 FPS minimum and 48 FPS maximum is borderline, but it is the highest quality setting that maintains an average above 40 FPS at this resolution.

For users targeting high refresh rates at 1080p, the High preset at 73 FPS average offers a reasonable compromise between visual quality and speed. The Ultra preset at 1080p produces 63 FPS average, which is still playable but represents a 14% performance penalty over High for what is likely a modest visual improvement. The data suggests that Ultra is difficult to justify on this combination, as it consistently delivers the lowest frame rates at every resolution without providing a proportional benefit in the measured metrics.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT ranks 2141 out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the field. This ranking reflects the GPU's age and position in the performance hierarchy rather than any deficiency in the CPU, which sits in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in general benchmarks.

The GPU's general benchmark percentile is 59, indicating that it performs better than 59% of all tested graphics cards. This percentile, combined with the combo ranking, suggests that Control is a demanding title that pushes the GPU to its limits. The gap between the CPU's high percentile and the combo's middling rank points to the GPU as the primary constraint in this pairing.

In the context of all tested combos, this system is positioned well below the median performance tier. The 2888 total combos span a wide range of hardware configurations, and being in the 2141st position means roughly 74% of tested systems perform better in this game. However, this ranking does not tell the complete story, as the measured FPS data shows that the system can still deliver acceptable performance at lower resolutions and settings.

The CPU's nearest rivals in general benchmarks include the AMD EPYC 4464P, which scores 0.3% higher, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, which scores 0.3% lower. These differences are negligible and indicate that the CPU is performing as expected relative to its direct competitors. The GPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M at 0.1% higher and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell at 0.3% lower, again showing performance in line with its peer group.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is the primary performance bottleneck in this configuration for Control. The GPU features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock runs at 1605 MHz, with a game clock of 1755 MHz and a boost clock of 1905 MHz. The memory operates at 1750 MHz, which translates to 14 Gbps effective.

The GPU's memory capacity of 8 GB is sufficient for the resolutions tested, though the 4K Ultra preset likely approaches the limits of what this memory configuration can handle efficiently. The 256-bit memory bus and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth provide adequate throughput for the game's texture streaming requirements, but the raw compute power of 9.754 TFLOPS FP32 limits the GPU's ability to maintain high frame rates at demanding settings.

The GPU's architecture, RDNA 1.0, does not include dedicated ray tracing cores, which is notable for Control given the game's implementation of ray-traced reflections and other effects. The absence of dedicated RT hardware means any ray tracing workload falls on the standard shader units, potentially explaining the performance drops at higher quality presets. The 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs provide the baseline processing capability, with a pixel rate of 121.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 304.8 GTexel/s.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU's performance ceiling clearly. At 1080p Low, the 115 FPS average represents the maximum throughput this GPU can achieve in Control, and every increase in quality or resolution reduces this figure. The 4K Ultra result of 32 FPS average demonstrates the GPU's limitations at the highest settings, with the frame rate dropping below playable thresholds for most users.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the dataset provides complete coverage across all four quality presets. Low settings produce an average of 115 FPS, which is the highest recorded value in the entire dataset. Medium settings yield 82 FPS average, with a minimum of 70 FPS and a maximum of 94 FPS. High settings deliver 73 FPS average, while Ultra settings produce 63 FPS average. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 45% reduction in frame rate, from 115 to 63 FPS, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium at 33 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down proportionally. Low settings produce 87 FPS average, representing a 24% reduction from the 1080p Low result. Medium settings deliver 62 FPS average, with a minimum of 53 FPS and a maximum of 71 FPS. High settings yield 55 FPS average, and Ultra settings produce 48 FPS average. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 39 FPS, a 45% reduction matching the 1080p pattern.

At 3840x2160, the system's limitations become apparent. Low settings produce 59 FPS average, which is the only 4K preset that maintains an average above 50 FPS. Medium settings deliver 42 FPS average, with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 48 FPS. High settings yield 37 FPS average, and Ultra settings produce 32 FPS average. The 4K results show a 46% reduction from Low to Ultra, from 59 to 32 FPS, with the frame rate falling below 40 FPS for the three highest quality presets.

The Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum values across all three resolutions. At 1080p, the range spans 24 FPS (70 to 94), at 1440p it spans 18 FPS (53 to 71), and at 4K it spans 12 FPS (36 to 48). This narrowing range at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes more consistently saturated, reducing frame time variance as the workload becomes more uniform.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K reveals the scaling behavior of this combination in Control. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 115 to 87, a 24% reduction. At Medium settings, the drop is from 82 to 62, a 24% reduction. At High settings, the drop is from 73 to 55, a 25% reduction. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 63 to 48, a 24% reduction. The consistency of this 24-25% scaling across all quality presets indicates that the performance loss is primarily due to the increased pixel count rather than any settings-dependent factor.

Moving from 1440p to 4K, the scaling changes. At Low settings, the drop is from 87 to 59, a 32% reduction. At Medium settings, the drop is from 62 to 42, a 32% reduction. At High settings, the drop is from 55 to 37, a 33% reduction. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 48 to 32, a 33% reduction. The larger percentage drop between 1440p and 4K compared to 1080p to 1440p indicates that the GPU is approaching its memory bandwidth or fill rate limits at 4K.

The overall scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a 49% reduction at Low settings (115 to 59 FPS), a 49% reduction at Medium settings (82 to 42 FPS), a 49% reduction at High settings (73 to 37 FPS), and a 49% reduction at Ultra settings (63 to 32 FPS). This remarkably consistent 49% reduction across all quality presets suggests that the resolution scaling is uniform and that the GPU is the limiting component throughout.

The fact that the percentage reduction is nearly identical at every quality preset indicates that the bottleneck is resolution-dependent rather than settings-dependent. This points to the GPU's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth as the primary constraints, rather than compute or shader performance, which would show different scaling patterns across quality presets.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination in Control?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 provides the highest frame rates across all settings, with Low producing 115 FPS average and Ultra producing 63 FPS average. At 1440p, the maximum average is 87 FPS at Low settings, while at 4K, the maximum average is 59 FPS at Low settings.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Control?

A: The measured results show 4K performance is limited. Only Low settings achieve an average above 50 FPS at 59 FPS, while Medium produces 42 FPS, High produces 37 FPS, and Ultra produces 32 FPS. The minimum recorded at 4K Medium is 36 FPS, indicating potential frame rate dips below smooth playability.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, High settings produce 73 FPS average while Ultra produces 63 FPS average, a 10 FPS difference. This 14% reduction in performance may not justify the visual quality increase, depending on user preference.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this configuration?

A: The CPU ranks in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 59th percentile among all GPUs. The combo ranks 2141 out of 2888 in Control, indicating the GPU is the primary constraint, as the CPU's general performance is significantly stronger.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded in the dataset?

A: The only minimum values recorded are for Medium settings: 70 FPS at 1080p, 53 FPS at 1440p, and 36 FPS at 4K. No minimum values are recorded for Low, High, or Ultra presets.

Q: How consistent is the frame rate at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the spread between minimum and maximum is 24 FPS at 1080p (70 to 94), 18 FPS at 1440p (53 to 71), and 12 FPS at 4K (36 to 48). The narrowing spread at higher resolutions indicates more consistent frame pacing.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 provides substantial processing capability that is not fully utilized in this game combination. The CPU features 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its 30 MB of shared L3 cache, along with 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 192 KB of L1 cache per core, provides ample cache capacity for game workloads.

In general benchmarks, the CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and a single-core score of 5960, placing it in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. Its PassMark multi-thread score of 49682 and single-thread score of 4689 further confirm its strong processing capabilities. The CPU's nearest rivals in general performance include the AMD EPYC 4464P at 0.3% higher and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F at 0.3% lower, showing it performs within a narrow band of its peers.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5 support provides adequate data throughput for feeding the GPU. Its PCIe Gen 5 interface with 20 lanes ensures the GPU has sufficient bandwidth for data transfer. The CPU's 65 W TDP indicates efficient power consumption, though this is not directly reflected in the game's performance metrics.

In the context of Control, the CPU's high benchmark scores suggest it is not the limiting factor. The game's measured FPS results show consistent scaling with resolution and settings, which is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios. The CPU's strong multi-core and single-core performance, combined with its high percentile ranking, indicates it has ample headroom to handle the game's processing demands without becoming a bottleneck.

The gap between the CPU's 93rd percentile ranking and the combo's 2141st position out of 2888 in Control reinforces that the GPU is the constraining component. The CPU's performance class is significantly higher than what the GPU can utilize in this title, meaning that upgrading the GPU would likely yield substantial frame rate improvements without requiring a CPU change.