Control

FAQ

Q: What is the combo rank of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 with the Intel Arc B580 in Control?

A: This combination ranks 2,173rd out of 2,888 tested combos in the database for Control. That places it in the lower-middle portion of the pack, indicating that while it can run the game, many other hardware pairings deliver stronger performance.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B580 compare to its nearest rivals in raw GPU benchmarks?

A: The Arc B580’s average benchmark score of 23,021 places it directly between the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (23,172, 0.7% higher) and the RTX 2080 (22,895, 0.6% lower). The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP scores 23,061, just 0.2% above the B580. The data shows the B580 sits in remarkably close competition with these cards, with deltas under 1%.

Q: What is the CPU's position among all processors in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs tested. Its average benchmark score of 64,640 is nearly identical to the AMD EPYC 4464P (64,823, just 0.3% higher) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64,438, 0.3% lower). It also edges out the AMD EPYC 7343 by 0.7% while trailing the EPYC 9124 by 0.7%.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance at 4K Ultra in Control?

A: At 4K Ultra the combo delivers 32 FPS average. Dropping to 4K Low raises this to 58 FPS, a gain of 26 FPS. This substantial jump from changing only graphics settings indicates the GPU is the primary limiting factor at 4K, as the CPU has headroom that lower settings can exploit.

Q: What is the best measured average FPS for this combo across all tested configurations?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 114 at 1080p Low settings. The next best is 86 FPS at 1440p Low, followed by 81 FPS at 1080p Medium. The data shows a clear progression where lower settings and lower resolutions produce the highest frame rates.

Q: How much VRAM does the Arc B580 have, and does it matter for Control?

A: The Arc B580 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 456.0 GB/s bandwidth. Given that even the 4K Ultra preset still runs (albeit at 32 FPS), the VRAM allocation appears sufficient for this game's demands across all tested settings, as the card never fails to render a preset.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B580 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture, codenamed Battlemage, using TSMC's 5 nm process. Its silicon, the BMG-G21 chip, packs 19,600 million transistors into a 272 mm² die. The GPU runs at a fixed 2670 MHz for both base and boost clocks, which is notable for consistency, there is no clock variance between base and boost states. Memory operates at 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective transfer, delivering 456.0 GB/s across a 192-bit bus.

The card's 12 GB of GDDR6 memory proves adequate for Control's tested presets. At 4K Ultra, the game still renders at 32 FPS, meaning the engine does not exceed the frame buffer even at the highest settings. The memory bandwidth of 456.0 GB/s supports the game's texture streaming and particle effects, which are central to Control's visual identity. The GPU's 80 ROPs and 160 TMUs handle the rasterization workload, while 20 ray tracing cores are present but not directly measured in these FPS results.

The B580's 13.67 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 27.34 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio) suggest a card capable of handling modern effects. Its pixel rate of 213.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 427.2 GTexel/s give it theoretical throughput that, in practice, translates to the measured frame rates. The card's position at the 68th percentile of all GPUs places it above the median, but its nearest rivals, the RTX 3080, RTX 2080, and RX 580 2048SP, all score within 1% of it in average benchmarks. This tight clustering implies that the B580's real-world game performance should be similar to those cards, though Control's specific engine characteristics will dictate final results.

The benchmark data shows the GPU is the dominant factor in this combo's Control performance. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 114 FPS, but at 4K Ultra it falls to 32 FPS, a 3.6x reduction from resolution and settings scaling. The CPU has significant headroom, as evidenced by the fact that lowering graphics settings at the same resolution yields large FPS gains. The 190 W TDP and dual-slot design with a single 8-pin power connector suggest this card is positioned for mainstream systems, and its 450 W suggested PSU requirement aligns with that positioning.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, providing 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Its 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide the data locality needed for game logic and physics calculations.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU shows strong multi-threaded performance with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 and a single-core score of 5,960. The PassMark multi-thread score of 49,682 and single-thread score of 4,689 reinforce this picture. The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking among all processors means it outperforms the vast majority of CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are all EPYC server processors from AMD, which cluster within 0.7% of its average score of 64,640. This suggests the Ultra 7 265 delivers server-class compute in a desktop package.

For Control specifically, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls, handle physics, and manage the game's asynchronous world. The 20 cores and 20 threads provide ample parallel processing capacity, and the 5.30 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-thread performance for the main game thread. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 114 FPS, which indicates the CPU can sustain high frame rates when the GPU is not the bottleneck. However, the measured FPS at 4K Ultra (32 FPS) versus 4K Low (58 FPS) demonstrates that the CPU is not the limiting factor at higher resolutions, the GPU is.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is sufficient for Control's data streaming needs. The 30 MB L3 cache helps keep frequently accessed game data close to the cores. The processor's position among EPYC server chips in benchmark scores suggests it has compute headroom that Control's engine may not fully utilize, given the game's 2019 release date and its focus on GPU-heavy effects like ray-traced reflections and physics-based destruction.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2,173rd out of 2,888 tested combinations, placing it in the 25th percentile of all combos. This ranking is surprisingly low given that both components sit above the median in their respective individual benchmarks, the CPU in the 93rd percentile and the GPU in the 68th. The discrepancy between component-level and combo-level rankings suggests that Control's engine does not scale well with this specific pairing, or that the GPU's 68th percentile positioning drags the overall result down.

The ranking implies that roughly 715 other combinations deliver better performance in Control. Given that the GPU's nearest rivals (RTX 3080, RTX 2080, RX 580 2048SP) all score within 1% of it in average benchmarks, the difference in Control performance likely comes down to driver optimization or engine-specific quirks rather than raw hardware capability. The B580's 13.67 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is competitive, but Control's rendering pipeline may favor NVIDIA or AMD architectures.

The measured FPS data provides context for this ranking. At 1080p Ultra, the combo hits 62 FPS, which is playable but not exceptional. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 47 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 32 FPS. These numbers place the combo in a range where many other GPUs, particularly those with higher memory bandwidth or better driver support for Control's specific effects, would outperform it. The rank of 2,173 suggests that while this combo can run Control, it does so at frame rates that are lower than what the component-level benchmarks would predict.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1080p, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce 114 FPS average, Medium produces 81 FPS (with a minimum of 69 and maximum of 93), High produces 72 FPS, and Ultra produces 62 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 52 FPS, which shows that Control's settings have a significant impact on frame rate at this resolution. The Medium preset's min/max range of 69 to 93 FPS indicates some frame pacing variance, but the average of 81 FPS is solid.

At 1440p, performance drops noticeably. Low settings yield 86 FPS, Medium yields 61 FPS (min 52, max 70), High yields 54 FPS, and Ultra yields 47 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 39 FPS, suggesting that at higher resolution, the GPU becomes more of a bottleneck and settings matter slightly less. The Medium preset's minimum of 52 FPS approaches the threshold where frame pacing issues become noticeable.

At 4K, the combo struggles. Low settings produce 58 FPS, which is playable. Medium produces 41 FPS (min 35, max 48), High produces 37 FPS, and Ultra produces 32 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 35 FPS indicates that even mid-tier settings can cause noticeable stutters. The drop from Low to Ultra is 26 FPS, the smallest absolute spread across all resolutions, confirming that the GPU is heavily constrained at 4K regardless of settings.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: at every resolution, Low settings provide the highest frame rate, and Ultra provides the lowest. The Medium preset always sits between Low and High, which is expected. The measured data includes min/max only for Medium presets, showing that at 1080p Medium the range is 69 to 93 FPS, at 1440p it is 52 to 70 FPS, and at 4K it is 35 to 48 FPS. These ranges tighten as resolution increases, indicating that the GPU's workload becomes more consistent (and more limited) at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the Medium preset at 1080p offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. At 81 FPS average with a minimum of 69 FPS, it provides smooth gameplay while maintaining higher visual fidelity than Low. The 1080p High preset at 72 FPS is also playable, but the Medium preset's 9 FPS advantage, combined with its 69 FPS minimum, makes it the safer choice for maintaining consistent frame rates.

For 1440p, the Low preset at 86 FPS is the only configuration that delivers clearly smooth performance. The Medium preset at 61 FPS is borderline, but its 52 FPS minimum could cause noticeable hitches during intense combat sequences. The High preset at 54 FPS and Ultra at 47 FPS are below the threshold where most players would consider the experience smooth. If visual quality is paramount, Medium at 1440p is the recommendation, but players seeking consistent frame rates should use Low.

At 4K, only the Low preset at 58 FPS is playable. The Medium preset at 41 FPS and High at 37 FPS are marginal, while Ultra at 32 FPS is not recommended for smooth gameplay. The data suggests that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo in Control unless players are willing to accept significant compromises in visual quality. The 4K Low preset provides a playable experience, but the 58 FPS average leaves little headroom for demanding scenes.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset provides the most consistent min/max data, which suggests the engine is more stable at this setting. The measured min/max values for Medium (69 to 93 at 1080p, 52 to 70 at 1440p, 35 to 48 at 4K) show that the frame rate does not fluctuate wildly, which is important for maintaining a responsive feel in a game that relies on precise timing for its combat mechanics. For most players, 1080p Medium represents the sweet spot for this combo.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU-centric nature of this combo's performance in Control. At Low settings, the drop from 1080p (114 FPS) to 1440p (86 FPS) is a 24.6% reduction, and from 1440p to 4K (58 FPS) is a 32.6% reduction. The total drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is 49.1%. At Medium settings, 1080p (81 FPS) to 1440p (61 FPS) is a 24.7% reduction, and 1440p to 4K (41 FPS) is a 32.8% reduction, totaling a 49.4% drop. At High settings, 1080p (72 FPS) to 1440p (54 FPS) is 25%, and 1440p to 4K (37 FPS) is 31.5%, totaling a 48.6% drop. At Ultra, 1080p (62 FPS) to 1440p (47 FPS) is 24.2%, and 1440p to 4K (32 FPS) is 31.9%, totaling a 48.4% drop.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings is striking. At every preset, the 1080p to 1440p reduction is approximately 24-25%, and the 1440p to 4K reduction is approximately 32%. This uniformity indicates that resolution scaling affects the GPU uniformly regardless of settings, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU is not introducing variable bottlenecks at different resolutions.

The larger percentage drop from 1440p to 4K (around 32%) compared to 1080p to 1440p (around 25%) reflects the pixel count increase. 4K has 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p, while 1440p has 1.78 times the pixels of 1080p. The GPU's performance scales roughly with pixel count, confirming that the Arc B580's 456.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 213.6 GPixel/s pixel rate are the limiting factors. The CPU's 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth and 30 MB L3 cache are sufficient to feed the GPU at all resolutions, as evidenced by the consistent scaling pattern.

The data implies that players wanting to play at 4K would need to accept Low settings (58 FPS) as the only smooth option, while 1440p offers a wider range of playable settings. At 1080p, the full range of settings from Low to Ultra is playable, with even Ultra maintaining 62 FPS. This scaling analysis confirms that the combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K reserved for lower settings or players who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate.