Control

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 lands at rank 2248 out of 2888 tested combinations in Control. That places this combo in the bottom half of the field, at roughly the 78th percentile from the top — meaning a substantial majority of tested system pairings deliver higher average frame rates in this title. The ranking reflects a significant bottleneck dynamic: the CPU is far more capable than the GPU, and the RX 6600's mid-range positioning holds back what is otherwise a high-end processor.

For context on the processor side, the Core Ultra 7 265 sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 64640. Its nearest rivals in synthetic testing are the AMD EPYC 4464P at 64823 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F at 64438 (0.3% lower), the AMD EPYC 9124 at 65104 (0.7% higher), and the AMD EPYC 7343 at 64202 (0.7% lower). The GPU, meanwhile, ranks at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 19036. Its closest competitors include the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 at 19030, the GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19049, the Tesla K20m at 19089, and the RTX 2000 Ada Generation at 18954 — all within a 0.4% delta of the RX 6600.

The gap between the CPU's 93rd-percentile standing and the GPU's 63rd-percentile standing is the defining feature of this pairing. Benchmark results in Control reflect that imbalance consistently across resolutions. At 1080p, the combo manages 108 FPS on Low settings but drops to 59 FPS on Ultra — a 45% performance swing purely from settings changes. At 1440p, the spread narrows slightly: 82 FPS at Low versus 45 FPS at Ultra. At 4K, the ceiling falls to 55 FPS at Low and 30 FPS at Ultra. These numbers indicate that the GPU is the primary constraint, as the CPU should have ample headroom to feed the graphics card even at lower resolutions.

# GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1626 MHz, with a game clock of 2044 MHz and a boost clock of 2491 MHz. The memory runs at 1750 MHz, or 14 Gbps effective. These specifications position the card as a 1080p-class solution, and the measured FPS data in Control aligns with that expectation.

At 1080p, the RX 6600 produces playable frame rates across all settings presets. The jump from Low to Medium costs 31 FPS (108 to 77), while Medium to High costs another 9 FPS (77 to 68). The step from High to Ultra costs 9 FPS as well (68 to 59). The card's 8 GB VRAM appears sufficient at this resolution, as even Ultra settings maintain a playable 59 FPS average. However, the frame rate curve suggests the GPU is nearing its architectural limits at the highest settings.

Moving to 1440p, the RX 6600's limitations become more apparent. Low settings yield 82 FPS, Medium drops to 58 FPS, High to 52 FPS, and Ultra to 45 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra here is 37 FPS, a 45% reduction. The card's 128-bit memory bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth likely contribute to the scaling pattern, as higher resolutions demand more memory throughput. The 8 GB VRAM capacity remains adequate, but the bandwidth constraint becomes more pronounced.

At 4K, the RX 6600 struggles to maintain smooth gameplay. Low settings produce 55 FPS, Medium drops to 39 FPS, High falls to 35 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 30 FPS. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS, indicating noticeable frame pacing variance. The card's 1792 shading units and 64 ROPs, paired with its 8.928 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, simply cannot keep up with 4K pixel counts in Control's demanding scenes. The RT cores (28 in total) are present, but Control's ray tracing effects likely further tax the GPU if enabled.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on measured frame rates, the optimal settings preset for this combo depends on the target resolution and frame rate preference. At 1080p, the High preset delivers 68 FPS average, which provides a smooth experience for most players. The Medium preset offers 77 FPS at a modest visual cost, while Ultra drops to 59 FPS — still playable but closer to the threshold where frame drops become noticeable. For players prioritizing frame rate consistency, Medium at 1080p offers the best balance: 77 FPS average with a minimum of 65 FPS and maximum of 88 FPS, according to the measured data.

At 1440p, the choice narrows. Low settings deliver 82 FPS, which is playable but visually compromised. Medium drops to 58 FPS with a minimum of 49 FPS — a playable experience for most action-adventure titles. High settings at 52 FPS are borderline, and Ultra at 45 FPS may feel less responsive during combat sequences. The data suggests Medium at 1440p is the sweet spot for this pairing, offering a 58 FPS average while maintaining acceptable visual fidelity.

At 4K, no preset delivers a consistently smooth experience. Low settings achieve 55 FPS, which is technically playable but sacrifices significant visual detail. Medium drops to 39 FPS, High to 35 FPS, and Ultra to 30 FPS. Given that Control is an action-adventure game with fast-paced combat, the 35 FPS at High and 30 FPS at Ultra would likely feel sluggish. The recommendation for 4K is to use Low settings if playability is the priority, or to consider lowering the resolution entirely. The measured data shows that the RX 6600 is not well-suited for 4K gaming in this title, regardless of settings.

# FAQ

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

A: Based on measured FPS data, 1080p provides the most consistent experience. At Medium settings, the combo achieves 77 FPS average with a minimum of 65 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 58 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it falls to 39 FPS.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640, placing it at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. It trails the AMD EPYC 4464P by 0.3%, matches the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F within 0.3%, and sits 0.7% below the AMD EPYC 9124 while leading the AMD EPYC 7343 by 0.7%.

Q: Is the RX 6600 sufficient for 4K gaming in Control?

A: The measured data indicates no. At 4K Low settings, the combo achieves 55 FPS, but at Medium it drops to 39 FPS, High to 35 FPS, and Ultra to 30 FPS. None of these meet the 60 FPS threshold typically desired for smooth gameplay.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1080p Ultra?

A: The measured average is 59 FPS at 1080p Ultra settings. This is 9 FPS lower than High settings (68 FPS) and 18 FPS lower than Medium (77 FPS). The performance cost of Ultra is notable but playable.

Q: How does the GPU's benchmark standing compare to its rivals?

A: The RX 6600 has an average benchmark score of 19036, ranking at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs. It performs within 0.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile, Tesla K20m, and RTX 2000 Ada Generation, with deltas ranging from -0.3% to +0.4%.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this game?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU ranks at the 93rd percentile while the GPU ranks at the 63rd percentile. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 108 FPS, but this drops to 59 FPS at Ultra — a pattern consistent with GPU-bound performance rather than CPU limitation.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear resolution scaling pattern for this combo in Control. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 108 FPS at 1080p to 82 FPS at 1440p and 55 FPS at 4K. That represents a 24% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a 33% further reduction from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the progression is 77 FPS at 1080p, 58 FPS at 1440p, and 39 FPS at 4K — a 25% drop, then a 33% drop. High settings show 68 FPS at 1080p, 52 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K, while Ultra settings yield 59 FPS, 45 FPS, and 30 FPS respectively.

The consistency of these percentage drops — roughly 25% from 1080p to 1440p and another 33% from 1440p to 4K — indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck across all resolution steps. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rate would remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the processor's workload does not scale directly with pixel count. Instead, the steady decline in FPS as resolution climbs points to the RX 6600's rendering throughput and memory bandwidth as the constraints.

The 4K data is particularly telling. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages only 30 FPS, which is exactly half of the 1080p Ultra result of 59 FPS. This halving of performance from 1080p to 4K is a classic sign of a GPU that is fully saturated at higher pixel counts. The RX 6600's 8.928 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are simply insufficient to maintain higher frame rates at 4K resolution in Control. The card's 64 ROPs also limit pixel throughput, which becomes more critical at 4K where the pixel count quadruples from 1080p.

The scaling behavior suggests that players seeking higher frame rates at 1440p or 4K would need to either reduce settings significantly or upgrade the GPU. The CPU's role in this equation is minimal, as its 20 cores and 20 threads provide ample processing headroom that remains underutilized in this GPU-bound scenario.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU features 30 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Its 93rd-percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64640, confirms its high-end positioning.

In Control, the CPU's role appears secondary to the GPU. The measured frame rates at 1080p Low (108 FPS) suggest the CPU can handle even high frame rate scenarios without becoming a bottleneck. However, the frame rate ceiling at 1080p Ultra (59 FPS) is dictated by the GPU, not the CPU. The processor's 20 cores and 20 threads provide substantial headroom for game logic, physics, and AI computations, but Control's workload does not appear to stress the CPU to its limits.

The CPU's benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and a PassMark multi-thread score of 49682. Its single-core performance is also robust, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5960 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4689. These numbers indicate the CPU can handle both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads efficiently. In Control, which is typically not CPU-bound at moderate resolutions, this processing power ensures smooth frame delivery as long as the GPU can keep up.

The data shows that the Core Ultra 7 265 is significantly overqualified for pairing with the RX 6600 in this game. The GPU's 63rd-percentile ranking versus the CPU's 93rd-percentile ranking creates an imbalance where the processor idles while the graphics card works at full capacity. This is not necessarily a poor configuration — it leaves headroom for future GPU upgrades — but in Control specifically, the CPU contributes little to the frame rate outcomes. The measured FPS patterns across resolutions and settings are consistent with a GPU-limited scenario, confirming that the CPU's 20 cores and 5.30 GHz boost clock are more than sufficient for this title's demands.