Control

# Control with Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Control's benchmark results reveal a system heavily constrained by its graphics card. With the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 providing ample processing headroom, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti becomes the definitive bottleneck across all tested resolutions. The measured frame rates tell a story of a legacy GPU struggling against a demanding 2019 title, while the modern CPU sits largely underutilized. This combination ranks 2854th out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 1.2% of all configurations — a position that reflects the GPU's age and limited capabilities rather than any deficiency in the processor.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate degradation from 1080p to 4K is stark and consistent across all settings presets. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 46 at 1920x1080 to 34 at 2560x1440, then plummets to 23 at 3840x2160. This represents a 26% reduction moving from 1080p to 1440p, followed by a further 32% drop when jumping to 4K. The scaling pattern suggests that pixel throughput is the limiting factor — each resolution increase demands significantly more from the GTX 1050 Ti's 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

The Medium preset shows a similar trajectory: 32 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are nearly identical to Low, indicating that the GPU is operating at its fill-rate ceiling regardless of graphical complexity. High settings follow the same pattern with 29, 22, and 15 FPS respectively, while Ultra settings yield 25, 19, and 13 FPS. The consistency of these scaling ratios — roughly 0.75x from 1080p to 1440p and 0.55x from 1080p to 4K — points to a purely resolution-bound scenario.

Notably, the delta between Low and Ultra at each resolution remains relatively constant. At 1080p, the spread is 21 FPS (46 vs 25); at 1440p it narrows to 15 FPS (34 vs 19); at 4K it compresses to 10 FPS (23 vs 13). This compression at higher resolutions indicates that pixel shading becomes the dominant cost, overwhelming any savings from reduced graphical features. The GTX 1050 Ti's 32 ROPs and 44.54 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient for 4K output, regardless of how many visual effects are disabled.

The data makes clear that the CPU is never the limiting factor in this pairing. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265, with its 20 cores and 20 threads, provides far more processing capability than Control can utilize at these frame rates. The GPU's 4 GB GDDR5 memory also becomes a concern at higher resolutions, though the consistent frame times (where recorded) suggest that memory capacity is not causing stutters — just overall low throughput.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured results, the optimal settings for this combination depend entirely on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver 46 FPS average, which approaches playable territory for an action-adventure title. Medium settings reduce this to 32 FPS, a 30% performance penalty for modest visual improvements. High and Ultra presets at 1080p yield 29 and 25 FPS respectively, which fall below the threshold for smooth gameplay in a game that requires precise dodging and spatial awareness.

For users willing to accept lower visual fidelity, Low at 1080p is the only preset that consistently stays above 40 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 14 FPS (46 to 32), which is significant for a game where reaction time matters. However, the Medium preset's minimum FPS of 27 at 1080p indicates that even this setting can dip into uncomfortable territory during intense combat sequences.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more challenging. Low settings produce 34 FPS average, which is marginally playable but will feel sluggish during fast-paced encounters. Medium drops to 24 FPS, and High and Ultra fall to 22 and 19 FPS respectively. None of these 1440p results provide a consistently smooth experience. The 4K results are uniformly unplayable, with even Low settings managing only 23 FPS average.

The practical recommendation is straightforward: for any semblance of playable performance, users must operate at 1080p with Low or Medium settings. Low at 1080p offers the best frame rate headroom at 46 FPS, while Medium provides a balance at 32 FPS if visual quality is prioritized. Higher resolutions or presets should be avoided entirely, as the GTX 1050 Ti lacks the raw compute and memory bandwidth to maintain acceptable frame rates. The data suggests that this GPU, which ranks in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, is simply outmatched by Control's requirements at anything above entry-level settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Control with this hardware?

A: The measured data shows 1920x1080 as the only viable resolution. At 1080p, Low settings achieve 46 FPS average, while 1440p tops out at 34 FPS on Low and 4K manages only 23 FPS on Low.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti perform at 4K in Control?

A: 4K results are uniformly poor. The best 4K result is 23 FPS on Low settings, with Medium at 17 FPS, High at 15 FPS, and Ultra at 13 FPS. None of these are playable for an action game.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 bottlenecking the GTX 1050 Ti?

A: No. The CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads provide far more processing power than Control requires at these frame rates. The GPU is the definitive bottleneck, as evidenced by the consistent FPS drops across resolutions regardless of CPU load.

Q: What is the playable settings preset for 1080p?

A: Low settings at 1080p deliver 46 FPS average, which is the only preset/resolution combination that stays above 40 FPS. Medium at 1080p produces 32 FPS average with a 27 FPS minimum.

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

A: This combination ranks 2854th out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 1.2% of all configurations tested for Control.

Q: Does increasing settings from Low to Ultra at 1080p cause a proportional FPS drop?

A: No, the drop is significant but not proportional. Low yields 46 FPS, Medium 32 FPS, High 29 FPS, and Ultra 25 FPS. The largest single drop occurs between Low and Medium (14 FPS), while High to Ultra only costs 4 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings spectrum was measured. Low settings produce the highest average at 46 FPS. Medium settings deliver 32 FPS average with a minimum of 27 FPS and maximum of 37 FPS. High settings achieve 29 FPS average, while Ultra settings manage 25 FPS average. The 21 FPS spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p illustrates the GPU's limited headroom for graphical enhancements.

Moving to 2560x1440, all presets drop noticeably. Low settings average 34 FPS, representing a 26% reduction from the 1080p Low result. Medium settings average 24 FPS with recorded minimum and maximum of 21 and 28 FPS respectively. High settings produce 22 FPS average, and Ultra settings yield 19 FPS average. The 1440p results show that even the lowest settings preset cannot maintain a solid 30 FPS, which is typically considered the minimum for playable action games.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly below playable thresholds. Low settings average 23 FPS, which is a 50% drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium settings average 17 FPS with a minimum of 14 FPS and maximum of 19 FPS. High settings manage only 15 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 13 FPS average. The 4K results confirm that this GPU cannot handle Control at this resolution under any settings configuration.

The Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values across all resolutions, providing insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the 27-37 FPS range indicates reasonable consistency. At 1440p Medium, the 21-28 FPS range shows similar stability. At 4K Medium, the 14-19 FPS range reveals that even at low frame rates, the GPU maintains consistent output without major stutters.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti ranks 2854th out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places the configuration in the bottom 1.2% of all systems tested for this game. The ranking reflects the GPU's severe performance limitations rather than any CPU issue — the Core Ultra 7 265 is a high-end processor that ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GTX 1050 Ti sits in the 25th percentile of all GPUs.

The CPU's benchmark performance is strong across multiple tests. In Cinebench R23, it scores 42,216 in multi-core and 5,960 in single-core. PassMark tests show a multithread score of 49,682 and a single-thread score of 4,689. These results place the CPU well above average, yet they have virtually no impact on Control's frame rates because the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to utilize the available CPU headroom.

Comparatively, the GPU's benchmarks are modest. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 305. PassMark G3D shows 6,340, and Geekbench OpenCL results in 18,129. These scores align with the GPU's 25th percentile ranking and explain why the combo ranks so poorly in Control. The nearest GPU rivals — AMD Radeon R5 M330 (0.6% higher score), NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (1% higher), AMD Radeon Vega 3 (1.8% higher), and NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (1.1% lower) — are all similarly low-end parts, confirming the GTX 1050 Ti's position in the entry-level segment.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with 30 MB of shared L3 cache. These specifications place it firmly in the high-performance desktop segment, and its benchmark results confirm this positioning.

In Control, however, the CPU's role is minimal due to the GPU bottleneck. The game's frame rates are determined entirely by the GTX 1050 Ti's rendering capabilities. At 1080p Low, the 46 FPS average means the CPU has roughly 21.7 milliseconds per frame to process game logic, physics, and draw calls — a task the Core Ultra 7 265 handles with enormous headroom. The CPU's 20 cores are far more than Control can utilize, as most games of this era scale well up to 8-12 threads but show diminishing returns beyond that.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5 support ensures that data transfer between the processor and system memory is not a limiting factor. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 20 CPU lanes provides more than adequate bandwidth for the GTX 1050 Ti's PCIe 3.0 x16 connection. Even the integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU, while not used for gaming in this configuration, demonstrates the CPU's modern feature set.

The disparity between CPU and GPU capabilities is stark. The Core Ultra 7 265 scores 42,216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GTX 1050 Ti's PassMark G3D score of 6,340 puts it in the 25th percentile of GPUs. This 68-percentile gap highlights a fundamental imbalance in this pairing. For Control specifically, the CPU's substantial processing power goes largely unused, as the GPU cannot feed frames fast enough to stress the processor. Upgrading the GPU would yield dramatic improvements in this game, while the CPU would remain largely idle even after such an upgrade.