Control

# Control — Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + AMD Radeon RX 7600

Control, the 2019 action-adventure title, exhibits a pronounced GPU-bound behavior across the measured configurations for this combo. The dataset spans three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 clearly acting as the performance ceiling in most scenarios. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265, with its 20 cores and 20 threads, provides ample headroom, as evidenced by the FPS scaling patterns that closely track GPU workload rather than CPU capability. The overall combo ranking of 2028 out of 2888 tested combinations places this pairing in the lower-middle tier of the benchmark database, a position consistent with the GPU's 57th percentile standing among all GPUs.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, revealing a classic GPU-limited scenario. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 75 FPS at 1920x1080 to 56 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 19 FPS (approximately 25%), and then further to 38 FPS at 3840x2160, which is roughly half the 1080p figure. This pattern indicates that the Radeon RX 7600's rendering throughput — not the CPU — dictates performance as pixel count rises. The 4K High result of 38 FPS sits below the 60 FPS threshold commonly associated with smooth gameplay, while 1440p High at 56 FPS is borderline playable.

Low settings show an even more dramatic scaling curve. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 118 FPS, dropping to 89 FPS at 1440p and 60 FPS at 4K. The 4K Low figure exactly matches the 1080p High result, suggesting that the GPU's raw pixel throughput is the binding constraint; reducing settings effectively lowers per-pixel cost, allowing higher resolutions to reach similar FPS levels. The delta between 1440p and 4K on Low is 29 FPS, a larger absolute drop than the 19 FPS seen between 1080p and 1440p, indicating that the 4K pixel count (over 8.3 million pixels) imposes a near-linear workload increase that this GPU cannot fully absorb.

Medium settings provide the only complete FPS range in the dataset, with min/max values recorded. At 1080p Medium, the average is 84 FPS with a min of 71 and max of 97. At 1440p Medium, the average falls to 64 FPS (min 54, max 73), and at 4K Medium it reaches 43 FPS (min 36, max 49). The min-to-max spread narrows proportionally with resolution: a 26 FPS range at 1080p, 19 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K. This tightening suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is consistently saturated, reducing frame-time variance as every frame becomes uniformly expensive to render.

Ultra settings deliver the lowest absolute numbers: 65 FPS at 1080p, 49 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-4K drop of 32 FPS (from 65 to 33) represents a 49% reduction, slightly less severe than the High preset's 49% drop (75 to 38), indicating that Ultra's additional effects (likely ray tracing or advanced post-processing) consume GPU resources at all resolutions, but the relative scaling remains consistent. The data points to a GPU that is fully utilized at 1440p and above, with the CPU never becoming a bottleneck across any measured configuration.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with a Navi 33 chip, brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock of 2655 MHz (with a game clock of 2250 MHz) powers 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. These specifications translate to a peak FP32 throughput of 21.75 TFLOPS, yet the measured FPS in Control suggests that memory bandwidth and ROP throughput are the limiting factors at higher resolutions. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is not exceeded in this dataset — no texture-related stutters or min FPS anomalies appear — but the 128-bit bus is narrow for 4K workloads.

The GPU's benchmark profile shows a PassMark G3D score of 16634 and a percentile ranking of 57 among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (avg score 15199, delta -0.2%) and the AMD Radeon 680M (15270, delta -0.7%), placing the RX 7600 in a tightly contested mid-range segment. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2310 further contextualizes its capabilities, though Control's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) means the GPU's 32 RT cores are available for enhanced effects, which likely explains the significant FPS cost of the Ultra preset over High.

Clock behavior is critical here. The boost clock of 2655 MHz is relatively high for a mid-range GPU, and the data suggests it sustains this frequency at 1080p where the 118 FPS Low result indicates headroom. However, at 4K, the FPS collapses to 33-60 depending on settings, implying the GPU is hitting power or thermal limits that prevent sustained boosts under full load. The texture rate of 339.8 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s are modest figures that directly constrain fill-rate-heavy scenes common in Control's physics-driven environments. The 18 Gbps effective memory speed helps, but the 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is insufficient to feed the 2048 shading units at 4K Ultra, explaining the 33 FPS floor.

FAQ

Q: Why does the FPS drop so sharply from 1080p to 4K?

A: The Radeon RX 7600's memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s and 128-bit bus width become the limiting factor as pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 75 at 1920x1080 to 38 at 3840x2160, a 49% reduction, indicating that the GPU's fill rate and bandwidth cannot keep pace with the increased pixel workload.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 a bottleneck in Control?

A: No. The CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads, combined with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, provide far more processing headroom than Control requires. Evidence comes from the FPS scaling: at 1080p Low (118 FPS) and 1440p Low (89 FPS), the GPU is clearly the constraint, as a CPU bottleneck would show flat FPS regardless of resolution or settings changes.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 60 FPS gameplay?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 118 FPS, Medium 84 FPS, High 75 FPS, and Ultra 65 FPS — all above 60. At 2560x1440, Low (89 FPS), Medium (64 FPS), and High (56 FPS) are the only options, with High falling just below 60. At 3840x2160, only Low reaches exactly 60 FPS, making it the sole 4K preset capable of hitting that target.

Q: How does the RX 7600 compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 15171, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM at 15199 (delta -0.2%, meaning the RTX 3050 is 0.2% faster). The AMD Radeon Pro 560X trails at 15082 (RX 7600 is 0.6% faster), while the AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270 (RX 7600 is 0.7% slower), showing these cards are nearly identical in raw compute.

Q: Does the Ultra preset provide a playable experience at any resolution?

A: At 1920x1080, Ultra averages 65 FPS, which is playable. At 2560x1440, it drops to 49 FPS, and at 3840x2160, it falls to 33 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is well below the 60 FPS threshold, and even the 1440p Ultra figure may feel less smooth for competitive play, though it remains functional for a single-player action-adventure game.

Q: Why are min/max FPS only recorded for Medium settings?

A: The dataset includes min and max values exclusively for the Medium preset across all three resolutions. This provides a frame-time consistency snapshot: at 1080p, the range is 71-97 FPS (26 FPS spread), at 1440p it is 54-73 (19 FPS spread), and at 4K it is 36-49 (13 FPS spread). The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests more consistent frame pacing as the GPU becomes fully saturated.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 118 FPS, the highest figure in the entire dataset. Medium averages 84 FPS with a measured range of 71-97 FPS, indicating some frame-time variability but generally smooth performance. High settings reduce the average to 75 FPS, while Ultra drops further to 65 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 53 FPS spread (118 to 65), demonstrating that settings have a substantial impact at 1080p, but even the most demanding preset remains comfortably above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance tier shifts downward. Low averages 89 FPS, still strong for 1440p. Medium averages 64 FPS with a range of 54-73 FPS, placing the minimum just below the 60 FPS threshold. High averages 56 FPS, which is marginally below ideal smoothness, and Ultra falls to 49 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 40 FPS (89 to 49), slightly smaller than at 1080p, suggesting the GPU is beginning to hit bandwidth limits regardless of settings.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations become pronounced. Low averages exactly 60 FPS, matching the 1080p High result. Medium averages 43 FPS with a range of 36-49 FPS, High averages 38 FPS, and Ultra averages 33 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread at 4K is 27 FPS (60 to 33), the narrowest of all resolutions, confirming that pixel throughput dominates and settings adjustments yield diminishing returns. Notably, the 4K Medium minimum of 36 FPS is lower than the 4K Ultra average of 33 FPS, showing that frame pacing can dip significantly under load.

Cross-resolution comparisons reveal consistent scaling. At High settings, the FPS sequence is 75 (1080p), 56 (1440p), 38 (4K) — a roughly 25% drop per resolution step. At Low settings, it is 118, 89, 60, showing similar proportional declines. The Medium preset, with its complete FPS data, exhibits the same trend: 84, 64, 43 average, with min values of 71, 54, 36 and max values of 97, 73, 49. This uniformity indicates a stable GPU-bound scenario with no anomalous CPU interference.

Settings Recommendations

For 60 FPS gameplay at 1920x1080, the High preset is the optimal choice. It delivers 75 FPS average, leaving headroom above the 60 FPS target while providing better visual fidelity than Medium (84 FPS) or Low (118 FPS). The Ultra preset at 65 FPS is also viable, but the 10 FPS penalty over High (75 to 65) may not justify the visual gains, especially in a game where physics-based destruction can cause sudden frame drops.

At 2560x1440, Medium is the only preset that consistently averages above 60 FPS (64 FPS), though its minimum of 54 FPS means occasional dips below the target. Low averages 89 FPS and is the safest choice for locked 60 FPS performance, while High (56 FPS) and Ultra (49 FPS) require accepting sub-60 averages. For players prioritizing smoothness, Low at 1440p offers a 25 FPS advantage over Medium with acceptable visual tradeoffs. For those wanting better visuals, Medium provides the best balance, with High being a compromise for users tolerant of occasional frame drops.

At 3840x2160, the situation is stark. Low averages exactly 60 FPS, making it the only preset that hits the target. Medium (43 FPS), High (38 FPS), and Ultra (33 FPS) all fall short. The recommendation is unambiguous: use Low for 4K, or consider dropping to 1440p if visual quality is paramount. The 4K Low experience matches 1080p High in FPS (60 vs 75, with 4K slightly lower), but the resolution increase may compensate for reduced settings. The Ultra preset at 4K (33 FPS) is only suitable for screenshot purposes or cinematic viewing, not interactive gameplay.

The data suggests that this combo is best utilized at 1080p or 1440p, where it can maintain playable frame rates across multiple presets. The 4K Low result of 60 FPS is a unique data point — it exactly matches the 1080p High average — indicating that the GPU's performance ceiling is consistently around 118 FPS maximum regardless of resolution, with the lowest settings at 4K being the only way to reach the 60 FPS baseline.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265, with 20 cores and 20 threads, is a desktop-class processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock of 2.40 GHz boosts to 5.30 GHz, and it features 30 MB of shared L3 cache. In Control, this CPU is never the limiting factor. The evidence is in the FPS scaling: at 1080p Low, the combo reaches 118 FPS, which would require substantial CPU involvement to feed the GPU, yet the Ultra 7 265 handles it without issue. At 4K Ultra, the FPS drops to 33, a workload that would strain even the fastest CPUs if they were the bottleneck, yet the GPU clearly is.

The CPU's benchmark scores reinforce its capability. A Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and single-core score of 5960 place it in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 4464P, scores 64823 (delta -0.3%), showing the Ultra 7 265 is within 0.3% of that server-class chip. The PassMark multi-thread score of 49682 and single-thread score of 4689 further demonstrate balanced performance that exceeds Control's requirements. The CPU's 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (102.4 GB/s bandwidth) provide ample memory throughput for the game's asset streaming.

Control's genre as an action-adventure title typically involves physics-heavy interactions and destructible environments, which can stress CPU physics calculations. However, the measured data shows no such bottleneck. At 1080p Low, where the GPU has the least work, the FPS reaches 118 — nearly double the 60 FPS target — indicating the CPU can comfortably drive frame rates well beyond typical display refresh rates. The 5.30 GHz boost clock ensures high single-thread performance for game logic, while the 20 threads handle background tasks without contention. The CPU's percentile ranking of 93 means it outperforms 93% of all processors in the database, making it a high-end part that pairs logically with a mid-range GPU like the RX 7600.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 7600 ranks 2028 out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the 30th percentile of all pairings (roughly 70% of combos perform better). This ranking reflects the GPU's 57th percentile standing, suggesting that the CPU's high percentile (93rd) is offset by the GPU's mid-range positioning. The combo rank of 2028 indicates that while the CPU is among the top 7% of processors, the GPU drags the overall gaming performance down to a lower tier.

In the context of the RX 7600's rivals, this ranking makes sense. The GPU's nearest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, has a nearly identical average benchmark score (15199 vs 15171, a 0.2% difference), so combos with either card would likely perform similarly in Control. The AMD Radeon 680M, an integrated GPU, scores 15270 (0.7% higher), which is surprising but reflects its specific benchmark workload. The combo's 2028th rank suggests it falls behind many pairings that use higher-tier GPUs, even if those use slower CPUs, because Control is so GPU-bound.

The gap between the CPU's 93rd percentile and the combo's 30th percentile ranking (2028/2888) is stark. This disparity quantifies how much the GPU limits the overall experience. In a game like Control, where the measured FPS at 4K Ultra is 33, even a top-tier CPU cannot compensate for the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus. The combo rank of 2028 indicates that users seeking higher frame rates would benefit more from a GPU upgrade than a CPU upgrade, as the Ultra 7 265 provides ample headroom for any graphics card in the RX 7600's class or above. This pairing represents a CPU that is overqualified for the GPU, yielding a balanced but ultimately GPU-limited gaming experience.