Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT delivers a strong 1080p experience in Control, but the data reveals a clear GPU bottleneck as resolution climbs. At 1080p Ultra, the combo produces 96 FPS, while the 1440p Ultra setting drops to 72 FPS and 4K Ultra falls to 49 FPS, indicating that the graphics card is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions. The benchmark results show that this pairing is best suited for high-refresh-rate 1080p or smooth 1440p gameplay, with 4K requiring settings adjustments to remain playable.

Resolution Scaling

The performance scaling across resolutions tells a straightforward story about where the bottleneck lies. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 174 FPS, which drops to 132 FPS at 1440p Low and 89 FPS at 4K Low. This represents a 24% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K at the lowest settings. These percentages indicate that even at Low settings, where the CPU has more headroom, the GPU is still the dominant constraint.

Moving to Ultra settings reveals a similar pattern but with lower absolute numbers. The 1080p Ultra score of 96 FPS drops to 72 FPS at 1440p Ultra (a 25% decrease) and 49 FPS at 4K Ultra (a 49% decrease from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings presets strongly suggests that the RX 7800 XT is the limiting component, as the Intel Core Ultra 7 265’s 20-core configuration is not showing signs of CPU saturation even at the highest frame rates.

The data shows that the gap between 1440p and 4K is particularly steep. At Medium settings, 1440p produces 94 FPS while 4K produces only 63 FPS, a 33% drop. At High settings, the drop is 33% as well, from 83 FPS to 56 FPS. This steepening curve at higher resolutions is classic GPU-bound behavior, where the pixel throughput demands of 4K (3840x2160) overwhelm the RDNA 3.0 architecture’s capabilities relative to 1440p (2560x1440). The Core Ultra 7 265’s boost clock of 5.30 GHz and 30 MB of L3 cache appear sufficient to feed the GPU at all tested resolutions.

For gamers targeting 4K, the measured results indicate that only the Low preset (89 FPS) reaches above 60 FPS, while Medium (63 FPS) barely crosses that threshold and High (56 FPS) and Ultra (49 FPS) fall short. This makes 4K a marginal proposition for this combo unless visual fidelity is sacrificed. At 1440p, all presets except Ultra (72 FPS) exceed 80 FPS, making this the sweet spot for balancing image quality and smoothness.

How This Combo Ranks

In the comprehensive database of tested CPU-GPU combinations, this pairing ranks 899th out of 2888 combos for Control, placing it in the 69th percentile of all tested configurations. This rank reflects a system that is above average but not elite, consistent with the mid-to-high-end positioning of the RX 7800 XT and the Core Ultra 7 265. The rank of 899 out of 2888 means that roughly 31% of tested combos perform better, which aligns with the GPU’s 51st percentile ranking among all GPUs.

The CPU itself performs admirably in synthetic benchmarks, sitting in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 64640. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823, -0.3%), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438, +0.3%), the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202, +0.7%), and the AMD EPYC 9124 (65104, -0.7%). These tight delta percentages, all within 1% of each other, indicate that the Core Ultra 7 265 is squarely in a performance cluster where small differences are negligible for gaming.

The GPU’s average benchmark score of 11627 places it in the 51st percentile, with nearest rivals being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11680, -0.5%), AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11528, +0.9%), NVIDIA Tesla K20c (11479, +1.3%), and AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11842, -1.8%). These rivals are all older or lower-tier cards, which suggests that the RX 7800 XT, despite its 51st percentile standing, is positioned competitively against legacy hardware but is not a top-tier performer in the current database.

The combo rank of 899 out of 2888 indicates that the pairing is well-balanced for Control specifically. While the CPU is capable of much higher frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios, the GPU caps the performance at the levels seen in the measured FPS data. This is not a criticism but rather a reflection of the game’s GPU-intensive nature, particularly at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution and refresh rate. At 1080p, the Ultra preset delivers 96 FPS, which is ideal for 1440p or 165Hz monitors. The High preset at 110 FPS offers a marginal increase but with reduced visual quality, making Ultra the better choice for most users. The Medium preset at 124 FPS is unnecessary unless chasing very high refresh rates, and the Low preset at 174 FPS is only relevant for competitive play where frame rate trumps visuals.

At 1440p, the recommendation is more nuanced. The High preset produces 83 FPS, which is smooth for most displays, but the Ultra preset at 72 FPS is still playable on a 60Hz monitor. The Medium preset at 94 FPS provides the best balance of visual fidelity and performance for 1440p, as it stays above 90 FPS while offering better graphics than Low. The Low preset at 132 FPS is overkill for 1440p unless the user has a very high refresh rate panel and prioritizes frame rate over image quality.

For 4K, the data suggests that the Medium preset at 63 FPS is the only viable option for a console-like experience, as it maintains an average above 60 FPS. The High preset at 56 FPS is close but may exhibit noticeable stuttering on VRR displays, while the Ultra preset at 49 FPS is only suitable for slower-paced gameplay or when using upscaling technologies. The Low preset at 89 FPS is technically the best performer but sacrifices most of the visual enhancements that make Control visually impressive.

The measured minimum FPS values provide additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 105 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 80 FPS, still smooth. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 54 FPS, which means there will be occasional dips below 60 FPS. These minimums suggest that the Medium preset is the safest choice across all resolutions for consistent frame pacing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS data reveals a consistent performance hierarchy across all resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 174 FPS average, followed by Medium at 124 FPS, High at 110 FPS, and Ultra at 96 FPS. The Medium preset records a minimum of 105 FPS and a maximum of 142 FPS, indicating a tight frame time distribution. The 78 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p shows that the GPU has substantial headroom at this resolution, with the CPU able to push frame rates well above 100 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the scaling becomes more pronounced. Low delivers 132 FPS, Medium 94 FPS (minimum 80, maximum 108), High 83 FPS, and Ultra 72 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 60 FPS, which is a smaller absolute difference than at 1080p but a similar percentage drop. The Medium preset’s minimum of 80 FPS ensures that even the most demanding scenes stay comfortably above 60 FPS, making this the most consistent choice for 1440p gaming.

The 3840x2160 results show the GPU struggling to maintain high frame rates. Low produces 89 FPS, Medium 63 FPS (minimum 54, maximum 73), High 56 FPS, and Ultra 49 FPS. The Medium preset’s maximum of 73 FPS and minimum of 54 FPS indicate significant variability, with the average sitting just above the 60 FPS threshold. The Ultra preset at 49 FPS is the only configuration that drops below 50 FPS on average, confirming that 4K Ultra is beyond the comfortable range for this GPU.

The data also shows that the difference between High and Ultra presets is relatively small at all resolutions. At 1080p, the difference is 14 FPS (110 vs 96); at 1440p, it is 11 FPS (83 vs 72); at 4K, it is 7 FPS (56 vs 49). This suggests that the Ultra preset offers diminishing returns over High, and users seeking maximum performance should consider dropping from Ultra to High rather than making more drastic reductions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT plays a central role in determining the performance envelope of this combo. With 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, the GPU provides 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for the textures and effects in Control at all tested resolutions. The memory clock runs at 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective), and the GPU’s boost clock is 2430 MHz with a game clock of 2124 MHz. These clock speeds are moderate for the RDNA 3.0 architecture, which uses a 5 nm process from TSMC.

The GPU’s 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units deliver a pixel rate of 233.3 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 583.2 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance of 37.32 TFLOPS is competitive for the mid-high-end segment. However, the benchmark data shows that the GPU’s 51st percentile ranking among all GPUs is modest, and its nearest rivals include older cards like the GTX 1660 and Radeon Pro 5500M, which indicates that the RX 7800 XT is not a top-tier performer in the current database.

The 16 GB VRAM capacity is noteworthy, as it exceeds the requirements of Control even at 4K Ultra, where the measured FPS is 49. This suggests that memory capacity is not the bottleneck; rather, the GPU’s compute and rasterization throughput is the limiting factor. The 60 ray tracing cores are present, but the game’s performance at 4K Ultra indicates that enabling ray tracing would likely push frame rates even lower, although the data does not include ray tracing-specific measurements.

The GPU’s power draw of 263 W and suggested PSU of 600 W are consistent with its performance class. The dual-slot design and 2x 8-pin power connectors are standard for this tier. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides ample bandwidth for the GPU, and the 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs support modern displays. The combination of these specifications with the measured FPS data shows that the RX 7800 XT is well-matched to the Core Ultra 7 265 for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but struggles at 4K with high settings.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo in Control?*

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 is the sweet spot. At Medium settings, the combo achieves 94 FPS with a minimum of 80 FPS, while at 4K Medium it drops to 63 FPS with a minimum of 54 FPS. The 1440p experience offers a better balance of visual quality and smoothness.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers 96 FPS average, while High delivers 110 FPS. The 14 FPS difference is modest, but Ultra provides higher visual fidelity. For most users, Ultra is the better choice unless chasing maximum frame rates.

*Q: Is this combo capable of 4K gaming in Control?*

A: Yes, but with limitations. At 4K Low, the average FPS is 89, and at Medium it is 63. However, High (56 FPS) and Ultra (49 FPS) fall below 60 FPS, so 4K gaming requires using Medium or Low settings for a consistently smooth experience.

Q: What are the minimum FPS values for the Medium preset?

A: The measured minimums are 105 FPS at 1920x1080, 80 FPS at 2560x1440, and 54 FPS at 3840x2160. These values indicate that the Medium preset maintains acceptable frame pacing at 1080p and 1440p, but may dip below 60 FPS at 4K.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 899th out of 2888 tested combos for Control, placing it in the 69th percentile. This is a solid mid-to-high-end result, consistent with the GPU’s 51st percentile ranking and the CPU’s 93rd percentile ranking.

Q: Which settings preset provides the highest frame rate?

A: The Low preset provides the highest frame rates at all resolutions: 174 FPS at 1080p, 132 FPS at 1440p, and 89 FPS at 4K. However, this preset sacrifices significant visual quality, so Medium or High are recommended for most users.