Control

Control’s benchmark results for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT show a configuration that consistently favors high refresh rates at 1080p but struggles to maintain smooth motion at 4K. The measured data reveals a system where the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck as resolution increases, while the CPU’s substantial core and thread count ensures the frame rate scales predictably with graphical load. The combo ranks in the 51st percentile of tested configurations, placing it in the middle of the pack with a clear performance ceiling defined by the graphics card.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, indicating that the Radeon RX 6700 XT is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 141 at 1920x1080 to 107 at 2560x1440, a 24% reduction, and then to 72 at 3840x2160, a further 33% drop. This pattern shows that even at the least demanding preset, the GPU cannot maintain high frame rates once pixel count increases, with the 4K result falling below the 75 FPS threshold that many users consider the minimum for a fluid experience.

The scaling behavior becomes more pronounced at higher settings. At Medium settings, the average FPS declines from 100 at 1080p to 76 at 1440p and then to 51 at 4K. The 1440p to 4K transition represents a 33% performance loss, nearly identical to the Low setting drop, which suggests that the GPU’s memory bandwidth and shading capabilities are saturated regardless of the preset. At High settings, the frame rate falls from 89 at 1080p to 67 at 1440p and then to 46 at 4K, with the 1440p to 4K loss again being exactly 31%. This consistency across presets points to a resolution-bound scenario where the GPU’s 12 GB of VRAM and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for the data set but the raw compute power is insufficient for 4K.

Ultra settings exhibit the worst scaling, with the average FPS dropping from 77 at 1080p to 59 at 1440p and then to 40 at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p loss is 23%, which is smaller than the 1080p to 1440p loss at Low settings (24%), indicating that the CPU is still feeding the GPU enough data at lower resolutions. However, the 1440p to 4K drop of 32% confirms that the GPU is the bottleneck, as the added pixel workload overwhelms the RDNA 2 architecture’s 13.21 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The data suggests that 1440p is the practical ceiling for this combo, with 4K only viable at Low settings where the 72 FPS average remains playable but far from ideal.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows indicate that Medium settings at 1440p offer the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, delivering a 76 FPS average with a minimum of 65 FPS and a maximum of 87 FPS. This preset provides a smooth experience that stays above the 60 FPS baseline for the majority of the frame time, with the 65 FPS minimum ensuring that dips are not jarring. Compared to High settings at the same resolution, which produce 67 FPS average, Medium offers a 13% higher frame rate while likely retaining most visual features, making it the optimal choice for users who prioritize consistency.

For 1080p users, Low settings at 141 FPS average are the clear winner for competitive play, but Medium at 100 FPS average provides a better visual experience while still maintaining triple-digit frame rates. The 100 FPS average with an 85 FPS minimum and 115 FPS maximum shows that the system has headroom, and the 41 FPS difference between Low and Medium is a significant trade-off that most players will find acceptable. High settings at 1080p drop to 89 FPS average, which is still smooth but only 11 FPS below Medium, making Medium the superior choice for the marginal visual upgrade.

At 4K, the data strongly recommends against Ultra or High settings, as the 40 FPS and 46 FPS averages, respectively, fall below the 50 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for a playable experience. Medium at 4K produces 51 FPS average with a 44 FPS minimum, which is playable but not ideal, while Low at 72 FPS average is the only preset that achieves a comfortable frame rate. The 31 FPS gap between Low and Medium at 4K is substantial, and users aiming for 4K should stick to Low settings unless they are willing to tolerate occasional dips below 45 FPS. The overall recommendation is to use Medium at 1440p for the best experience, with Low at 1080p for maximum frame rates and Low at 4K for playable performance.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT’s specifications align closely with the measured results, showing a GPU that is well-suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming but not for 4K. The 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for the game’s textures at all resolutions, as evidenced by the consistent frame rate deltas between presets. The boost clock of 2581 MHz and game clock of 2424 MHz indicate a high operating frequency for the RDNA 2 architecture, yet the 13.21 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is the limiting factor at 4K.

The GPU’s 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs are responsible for the pixel throughput, and the data shows that at 4K Ultra, the average FPS falls to 40, which is exactly half of the 1080p Low result. This halving of performance when pixel count quadruples suggests that the GPU is compute-bound rather than bandwidth-bound, as the 384.0 GB/s bandwidth would be enough to handle the increased data if the shading units could process it faster. The 160 TMUs and 413.0 GTexel/s texture rate are also not the bottleneck, as the frame rate scaling is consistent across settings, indicating a uniform compute limitation.

In the broader context, the RX 6700 XT’s benchmark scores place it at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27425. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090, has a 0.5% higher average score, which is a negligible difference in synthetic tests but may not translate to real-world gaming performance. The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2435 and Passmark G3D score of 19786 reinforce the notion that this is a mid-range card, and the measured FPS data confirms that it excels at 1440p where it delivers 67 FPS at High settings. The VRAM capacity of 12 GB is not a limiting factor in this game, as even at 4K Ultra, the frame rate does not exhibit the sudden drops typically associated with memory swapping.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and Radeon RX 6700 XT combination delivers excellent performance across all presets. The Low setting produces an average of 141 FPS, which is the highest score in the entire dataset and indicates that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU well above the refresh rate of most monitors. Medium settings achieve 100 FPS average with an 85 FPS minimum and 115 FPS maximum, showing a stable frame time distribution. High settings drop to 89 FPS average, while Ultra settings yield 77 FPS average. The gap between Low and Ultra is 64 FPS, which is a substantial 45% reduction, but even the Ultra result remains playable on a 75 Hz monitor.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance scales down proportionally. Low settings produce 107 FPS average, which is a 24% reduction from 1080p but still above the 100 FPS threshold. Medium settings deliver 76 FPS average with a 65 FPS minimum and 87 FPS maximum, which is the most balanced result in the dataset. High settings reach 67 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 59 FPS average. The 48 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is smaller than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is beginning to dominate the performance equation. The 59 FPS Ultra result is just below the 60 FPS standard, making it borderline for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck. Low settings achieve 72 FPS average, which is the only 4K result above 60 FPS, but it comes with significant visual compromises. Medium settings drop to 51 FPS average with a 44 FPS minimum and 59 FPS maximum, showing that frame times are inconsistent and may cause stuttering. High settings produce 46 FPS average, and Ultra settings yield 40 FPS average. The 32 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is the smallest of any resolution, confirming that the GPU cannot overcome the pixel workload regardless of settings. The 40 FPS Ultra result is the lowest in the entire dataset and is below the playable threshold for most action games.

How This Combo Ranks

The combined Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT configuration ranks 1484 out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it at the 51st percentile. This middle-of-the-pack ranking indicates that the system is neither a top-tier performer nor a weak configuration, but rather a balanced mid-range setup that excels at specific resolutions. The CPU’s 93rd percentile ranking among all processors is offset by the GPU’s 72nd percentile ranking, resulting in a combo that is limited by its graphics card in this game.

The CPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P, which has a 0.3% higher average benchmark score, and the AMD EPYC 9124, which is 0.7% higher. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, a near-identical variant, scores 0.3% lower, showing that the CPU is on par with its direct competition. However, these synthetic benchmarks do not fully translate to gaming performance, as the measured FPS data shows that the combo’s 4K results are below average for the GPU’s class. The GPU’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile, has an identical average benchmark score of 27435, which is 0% different from the RX 6700 XT, yet the desktop card’s higher power envelope does not yield a significant advantage in this game.

The 51st percentile ranking suggests that users with this combo will experience performance that is typical for the hardware, with no standout strengths or weaknesses. The combo performs best at 1080p where it achieves frame rates in the top tier, but at 4K it falls to the bottom quarter of results. The ranking also reflects the age of the GPU, which was released in 2021 and is now end-of-life, while the CPU is a newer 2025 release. This generational mismatch explains why the combo ranks lower than newer GPU pairings, even though the CPU has ample headroom.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 features 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This configuration provides substantial multi-threaded performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and Passmark multi-thread score of 49682. In Control, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations, and the data shows that it is more than capable at all resolutions. The fact that frame rates drop consistently when resolution increases, rather than exhibiting CPU-related stutters, confirms that the processor is not the bottleneck.

The CPU’s 20 threads are well-suited for modern games, and its 30 MB of shared L3 cache ensures that frequently accessed data is readily available. The single-thread performance, as measured by the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5960, is also strong, which is important for games that rely on a few fast cores. The boost clock of 5.30 GHz is among the highest in the dataset, and the measured FPS at 1080p Low (141 FPS average) indicates that the CPU can keep up with the GPU’s maximum output. The 65 W TDP is low for a 20-core processor, suggesting that thermal throttling is unlikely to impact gaming performance.

The CPU’s benchmark scores place it at the 93rd percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 64640. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7343, scores 0.7% higher, but the EPYC is a server-class chip that is not directly comparable for gaming. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, which is nearly identical, scores 0.3% lower, confirming that the CPU’s performance is consistent. In the context of Control, the CPU’s 20 cores and 20 threads may be overkill, as the game likely does not utilize all of them, but the high boost clock ensures that the few threads it does use are executed quickly. The data shows that the CPU is never the limiting factor, as even at 1080p Low, the frame rate is constrained by the GPU’s ability to render frames, not the CPU’s ability to issue commands.