Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT combination delivers a compelling 1440p and 4K experience in Control, with the data showing a clear shift in system bottleneck as resolution climbs. The 20-core, 20-thread Arrow Lake processor provides ample headroom for this 2019 title, while the RDNA 3 graphics card becomes the dominant factor at higher resolutions. The measured frames per second (FPS) reveal a system that can push well beyond 100 FPS at 1080p, yet settles into a more measured pace at 4K, suggesting the GPU is working near its limits in the most demanding scenarios.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture. It operates with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, which are the figures that drive its single-threaded performance. The processor’s L3 cache is 30 MB shared, and it supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. In the synthetic benchmark landscape, this CPU scores 42,216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5,960 in single-core, placing it in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs.

For a game like Control, which was released in 2019, the CPU’s role is primarily to feed the GPU with draw calls and handle physics simulations. The data suggests that at 1080p, where the GPU load is lighter, the processor’s strong single-core performance is sufficient to drive very high frame rates. The 5.30 GHz boost clock is a key factor here, as it allows the CPU to quickly process game logic. However, the measured FPS at 1080p with Low settings reaches 208 FPS, which is a substantial number. This implies that even with a powerful GPU like the RX 7900 XT, the CPU is not the limiting factor at this resolution; the system is well balanced.

The CPU’s performance relative to its rivals shows a tight grouping. The nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 4464P, has an average benchmark score that is 0.3% lower, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is 0.3% higher. This suggests that the 265 is a solid performer, though the game’s engine likely benefits more from the high boost clock than from the sheer core count. The PassMark multi-thread score of 49,682 and single-thread score of 4,689 indicate that the processor handles both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded workloads well, which is relevant for a game that can use multiple cores for background tasks while keeping the main game thread on a fast core.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 31 chip, and it is equipped with 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 800.0 GB/s. The GPU’s base clock is 1387 MHz, with a boost clock of 2394 MHz and a game clock of 2025 MHz. These clock speeds, combined with 5,376 shading units, allow the card to deliver 51.48 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. In the synthetic 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it scores 5,623, and its PassMark G3D score is 29,009, placing it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs.

For Control, the GPU’s role is critical, especially at higher resolutions. The 20 GB VRAM buffer is more than sufficient for the game’s textures, even at 4K, which means the card does not suffer from memory capacity limitations. The data shows that at 4K Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 58, which is a significant drop from the 67 FPS at 4K High. This indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at this resolution, as the rendering load increases with the higher preset. The boost clock of 2394 MHz is the driving force behind the card’s ability to maintain playable frame rates at 4K, but the data shows a clear limit.

The GPU’s performance relative to its nearest rivals is interesting. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT has an average score that is 1.5% higher, while the AMD Radeon 660M is 0.5% lower. This places the RX 7900 XT in a competitive position, though the specific game performance in Control is more dependent on the driver optimizations and the game’s engine than on raw synthetic scores. The card’s PassMark DirectX 12 score of 110 is relatively low compared to its DirectX 11 score of 340, which might suggest that the game’s DX12 implementation is not fully utilizing the card’s capabilities, or that the synthetic test is not representative of real-world gaming.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data across resolutions provides a clear picture of where the bottleneck lies. At 1080p with High settings, the system achieves an average of 131 FPS. Moving to 1440p, the average drops to 99 FPS, and at 4K, it falls to 67 FPS. This represents a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 32% drop from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is not perfectly linear, which is typical for a game that becomes more GPU-bound as the pixel count increases.

Looking at the Low settings, the trend is even more pronounced. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 208, which drops to 157 at 1440p and 106 at 4K. The percentage drops are 25% and 32% respectively, which is similar to the High settings. This consistency suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor in both cases, as the relative performance drop is similar regardless of the preset. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU workload is largely independent of resolution.

The data strongly indicates that the RX 7900 XT is the limiting component in this configuration for Control. At 1080p, the CPU is able to feed the GPU enough data to reach 208 FPS on Low, but the GPU cannot push much higher. At 4K, the GPU’s rendering load becomes the primary constraint, and the FPS drops to a level that is still playable but significantly lower. This is a classic sign of a balanced system where the GPU is the performance ceiling at higher resolutions, while the CPU provides sufficient headroom at lower resolutions to avoid becoming a bottleneck itself.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT ranks 518th out of 2,888 tested combinations in Control. This places it in the top 18% of all tested systems, which is a strong showing for a high-end desktop configuration. The rank is based on the measured FPS data, which includes all resolutions and settings, and it reflects the system’s overall capability in this specific game.

Given that the data is measured, not simulated, the rank provides a reliable indicator of real-world performance. The fact that this combo ranks in the 518th position suggests that there are many other configurations that can outperform it, likely those with more powerful GPUs like the RTX 4090 or newer RDNA 4 cards. However, the RX 7900 XT is still a formidable card, and the rank reflects its position in the broader market. The CPU’s 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs and the GPU’s 55th percentile ranking among all GPUs suggest that the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing, which aligns with the resolution scaling analysis. The combo rank is a holistic measure, and the data shows that for Control, this system is capable of delivering high frame rates at 1440p and solid performance at 4K, making it a versatile choice for gamers with high-refresh-rate monitors.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the system shows its highest performance. With Low settings, the average FPS is 208. Medium settings yield an average of 148 FPS, with a minimum of 125 and a maximum of 170. High settings produce an average of 131 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to an average of 114 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 94 FPS, which is a substantial range that shows the impact of the preset on the GPU load.

At 2560x1440, the FPS figures are lower but still robust. Low settings average 157 FPS. Medium settings average 112 FPS, with a minimum of 95 and a maximum of 128. High settings average 99 FPS, and Ultra settings average 86 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 71 FPS, which is slightly less than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, the system’s performance is more constrained. Low settings average 106 FPS. Medium settings average 75 FPS, with a minimum of 64 and a maximum of 87. High settings average 67 FPS, and Ultra settings average 58 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 48 FPS, which is the smallest absolute difference but the largest relative drop, showing that the GPU is working harder at this resolution.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured data provides a clear basis for settings recommendations. At 1080p, the High and Ultra presets both deliver average FPS above 114, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The Ultra preset at 114 FPS is a solid choice for players with 120Hz monitors, while High at 131 FPS is better for 144Hz displays. The Medium preset at 148 FPS is the highest setting that stays above 144 FPS, making it the optimal choice for 144Hz monitors without sacrificing much visual quality.

At 1440p, the situation changes. The High preset averages 99 FPS, which is ideal for 100Hz monitors. The Medium preset at 112 FPS is better for 120Hz displays, and the Low preset at 157 FPS is the only one that can push past 144 FPS. The Ultra preset at 86 FPS is still playable but may not be ideal for high-refresh-rate gaming. For a balanced experience at 1440p, Medium or High are the recommended presets, as they offer a good compromise between visual fidelity and frame rate.

At 4K, the recommendations shift again. The Low preset at 106 FPS is the only one that exceeds 100 FPS, making it the choice for players with high-refresh-rate 4K monitors. The Medium preset at 75 FPS is a solid choice for standard 60Hz displays, while High at 67 FPS and Ultra at 58 FPS are both playable but may exhibit slight stutters on 60Hz panels. The data suggests that for the best experience at 4K, players should either use Medium settings for a locked 60 FPS experience or Low settings for higher frame rates, sacrificing some visual detail.

FAQ

*Q: What is the maximum average FPS this combo can achieve in Control?*

A: The maximum average FPS is 208, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: At which resolution does the combo fail to maintain 60 FPS on Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 58, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the difference in average FPS between 1080p High and 1440p High?

A: The average FPS at 1080p High is 131, while at 1440p High it is 99, representing a difference of 32 FPS.

*Q: How does the combo rank among all tested systems in Control?*

A: The combo ranks 518th out of 2,888 tested combinations, placing it in the top 18% of all systems.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The minimum FPS recorded is 64, which occurs at 3840x2160 resolution with Medium settings.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K resolution?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K, as the FPS drops significantly compared to 1080p, while the CPU provides sufficient headroom at lower resolutions.