Control

# Control, Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + Intel Arc B390

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the Intel Arc B390 integrated graphics produces a decidedly low-end gaming experience in Control, with the combo ranking 2551st out of 2888 tested combinations. The data clearly shows a GPU-bound scenario where the Arc B390's modest 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 24 ROPs severely limit frame rates across all resolutions, while the capable 20-core, 20-thread processor sits largely underutilized. Even at the most favorable settings, this configuration struggles to maintain playable smoothness, and the measured FPS values confirm that this is not a viable setup for demanding action-adventure titles at modern display resolutions.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this CPU-GPU combo in Control?

A: This combination ranks 2551st out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 12% of all tested systems. The ranking reflects the severe GPU bottleneck introduced by the integrated Arc B390 graphics solution.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 sits at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, with its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 placing it just 1.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% above the GeForce 800M, 2.5% above the GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% above the GT 710. These are all entry-level or legacy mobile/desktop parts.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is overwhelmingly the limiting factor. The Core Ultra 7 265 ranks in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 64640, while the Arc B390 ranks in the 9th percentile. The 65 FPS maximum achieved at 1080p Low settings represents the ceiling of what the integrated GPU can deliver, not what the CPU can support.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1080p with different settings?

A: At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS ranges from 65 FPS on Low settings, down to 46 FPS on Medium, 41 FPS on High, and 36 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 53 FPS, indicating noticeable frame time variance.

Q: How does performance scale when moving from 1080p to 1440p and 4K?

A: Performance drops significantly at each higher resolution. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 65 at 1080p to 50 at 1440p and 33 at 4K. At High settings, the progression is 41 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K, showing roughly a 50% reduction from 1080p to 4K across most presets.

Q: What is the processor's launch MSRP?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has a launch MSRP of $394. This processor features 20 cores and 20 threads with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz, built on TSMC's 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, sharing the 3 nm process node with the CPU. Its role in Control is decisively limiting, as the GPU's specifications reveal a part designed for basic display output rather than gaming performance. With 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and just 24 raster output units, the B390 produces a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s. These figures translate to 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which the measured results show is insufficient for maintaining smooth gameplay in Control at any resolution above low settings.

The GPU operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 2500 MHz, with a TDP of just 80 W. Memory is system-shared, meaning the GPU relies on the same DDR5 memory pool as the CPU, with bandwidth described as system-dependent. This shared memory arrangement likely contributes to the inconsistent frame times observed in the Medium preset data, where minimum FPS values lag notably behind averages. The GPU's 12 RT cores are present but provide negligible benefit given the overall low compute throughput.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark score of 1482 places the B390 at the 9th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all NVIDIA parts from a significantly older era. The GT 520MX scores 1463 (1.3% slower), the GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% slower), the GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% slower), and the GT 710 scores 1443 (2.7% slower). This positioning confirms that the B390 delivers performance comparable to decade-old entry-level discrete GPUs, which explains why Control, a game with demanding real-time effects and physics, runs poorly even at low settings.

The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not the issue. Rather, the raw rasterization throughput and memory bandwidth constraints are the primary bottlenecks. In Control specifically, the game's particle effects and destructible environments place heavy demands on fill rate and shader performance, both of which are weak points for this integrated solution.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent and predictable pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, with the GPU being the clear bottleneck at every step. Starting with the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 65 at 1080p to 50 at 1440p (a 23% reduction) and then to 33 at 4K (a 49% reduction from 1080p). This scaling behavior is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario, where the number of pixels rendered directly correlates with frame time.

At High settings, the scaling is similar but with lower absolute values: 41 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p (24% lower), and 21 FPS at 4K (49% lower). The Medium preset shows 46 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p (24% lower), and 24 FPS at 4K (48% lower). Ultra settings produce 36 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p (25% lower), and 18 FPS at 4K (50% lower). The consistent ~25% drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~50% drop from 1080p to 4K across all presets indicates that the scaling is almost purely pixel-count driven, with no signs of CPU limitation emerging at lower resolutions.

The fact that the CPU ranks in the 93rd percentile among all processors while the GPU ranks in the 9th percentile further confirms this analysis. If the Core Ultra 7 265 were the bottleneck, we would expect to see diminishing FPS differences as resolution increases, since higher resolutions shift more work to the GPU. Instead, the FPS scales almost linearly with pixel count, which is the textbook signature of a fully GPU-bound workload. The processor's ample 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s dual-channel memory bandwidth are more than sufficient for Control's demands, but they cannot compensate for the GPU's limited fill rate and shader throughput.

The Medium preset provides the only complete FPS range data, showing minimums and maximums: 40-53 FPS at 1080p, 30-40 FPS at 1440p, and 20-27 FPS at 4K. These ranges reveal that frame pacing becomes more erratic at higher resolutions, with the gap between minimum and maximum FPS widening proportionally. This instability is typical of integrated graphics under heavy memory pressure, as the shared system memory bandwidth becomes a secondary constraint alongside the GPU's compute limits.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2551st out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 11.7% of all systems tested for this game. This low ranking is entirely attributable to the GPU, as the processor itself performs admirably in general benchmarks. The Core Ultra 7 265 sits in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 64640, and its nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database are all server-class parts: the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823, 0.3% faster), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438, 0.3% slower), the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202, 0.7% slower), and the AMD EPYC 9124 (65104, 0.7% faster). This places the processor in elite company, yet the gaming result is dragged down by the integrated GPU.

The disparity between the CPU's 93rd percentile ranking and the GPU's 9th percentile ranking creates an extreme bottleneck scenario. In Control, the game's engine relies heavily on GPU-side rendering for its signature visual effects, and the Arc B390 simply cannot deliver the necessary throughput. The combo's ranking of 2551 suggests that virtually any system with a discrete GPU from the last decade would outperform this configuration, regardless of CPU. The data indicates that the Core Ultra 7 265's 20 cores and 20 threads provide no measurable benefit in this context, as the game's frame rates are determined almost entirely by the GPU's rendering capabilities.

From a system balance perspective, this pairing is severely mismatched. The processor's 42216 Cinebench R23 multi-core score and 5960 single-core score demonstrate exceptional compute capability, while the GPU's 1482 Steel Nomad score represents a fraction of what even mid-range discrete GPUs achieve. The 2888 total tested combos span a wide range of hardware configurations, and landing at position 2551 means this setup falls behind combinations featuring much older CPUs paired with modest discrete GPUs. For Control specifically, the data suggests that users would need to drastically reduce resolution and settings to achieve playable frame rates, and even then, the experience would be marginal.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the Low preset at 1080p is the only configuration that approaches acceptable playability, delivering an average of 65 FPS. This is the clear recommendation for any user attempting to play Control with this hardware combination. The Low preset at 1440p produces 50 FPS on average, which may be tolerable for less demanding play, but the 4K Low result of 33 FPS falls below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

The Medium preset at 1080p offers 46 FPS average with a minimum of 40 FPS, which represents the best balance of visual quality and performance if users are willing to accept occasional frame drops. However, the High and Ultra presets at any resolution deliver average FPS values in the 18-41 range, with 4K Ultra reaching just 18 FPS, effectively unplayable for an action-adventure game requiring responsive controls.

The data shows that the jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs approximately 29% of the average FPS (from 65 to 46), while the jump from Medium to High costs an additional 11% (from 46 to 41). The Ultra preset at 1080p delivers 36 FPS, which is 45% lower than Low. Given these diminishing returns and the game's fast-paced combat, the Low preset at 1080p is the only setting combination that provides a consistently smooth experience. Users prioritizing visual fidelity over frame rate might consider Medium at 1440p (35 FPS average), but the minimum of 30 FPS indicates potential stuttering during intense scenes.

For 4K displays, none of the presets achieve playable frame rates, the best result is 33 FPS at Low settings, which still falls short of smooth gameplay standards. The practical recommendation is to run at 1080p Low for the best experience, with the understanding that this represents the hardware's realistic ceiling. The measured FPS ranges for Medium settings (40-53 at 1080p) suggest that even this preset introduces noticeable frame time variance that could detract from gameplay.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS dataset for Control with this hardware combination reveals a consistent pattern of performance degradation across all settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 65 FPS, representing the best performance of any configuration tested. The Medium preset at 1080p delivers 46 FPS average with a minimum of 40 FPS and maximum of 53 FPS, showing a 19 FPS spread that indicates variable frame pacing. High settings at 1080p produce 41 FPS average, while Ultra settings drop to 36 FPS average, a 45% reduction from the Low preset's performance.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset yields 50 FPS average, which is 23% lower than the 1080p result. Medium at 1440p achieves 35 FPS average with a range of 30-40 FPS, representing the narrowest absolute FPS spread in the dataset. High settings at 1440p produce 31 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 27 FPS average. The progression from Low to Ultra at 1440p spans 23 FPS, showing a similar relative degradation to the 1080p results.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes marginal across all presets. Low settings deliver 33 FPS average, which is 49% lower than the 1080p Low result. Medium at 4K achieves 24 FPS average with a range of 20-27 FPS, indicating that even the minimum frame rate falls below playable thresholds. High settings at 4K produce 21 FPS average, and Ultra settings bottom out at 18 FPS average, the lowest measured result in the entire dataset.

The Medium preset is the only configuration with complete minimum and maximum data across all three resolutions, providing insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p, the 40-53 FPS range represents a 32% variance from minimum to maximum. At 1440p, the 30-40 FPS range shows a 33% variance. At 4K, the 20-27 FPS range demonstrates a 35% variance. This consistent ~33% variance across resolutions suggests that the source of frame time instability is resolution-independent, likely stemming from the GPU's memory access patterns when using system-shared memory.

Comparing the resolution scaling at each preset: Low settings show a 23% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 49% drop from 1080p to 4K. Medium settings show a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 48% drop from 1080p to 4K. High settings show a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 49% drop from 1080p to 4K. Ultra settings show a 25% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 50% drop from 1080p to 4K. The near-identical scaling percentages across presets confirm that the GPU is the sole limiting factor, with no preset-specific bottlenecks emerging.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265's processor benchmarks show substantial headroom: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216, a single-core score of 5960, and a PassMark multi-thread score of 49682. These figures indicate the CPU could support far higher frame rates if paired with a more capable GPU. The processor's 93rd percentile ranking versus the GPU's 9th percentile ranking creates a 84-percentile-point gap, which is among the most extreme CPU-GPU imbalances possible in a modern system. For Control, this means the game's performance is entirely dictated by the integrated graphics solution, and no CPU-side optimization or setting change can overcome this fundamental hardware limitation.