Control

Control, the 2019 action-adventure title, presents a demanding workload for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 paired with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265. The benchmark data indicates that this combination is positioned in the lower percentile of tested systems, ranking 2395 out of 2888 combos, which places it firmly in the lower half of the performance spectrum. This pairing yields a playable experience primarily at 1080p, with performance degrading significantly as resolution increases, revealing a system where the GPU is the clear limiting factor.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates show a steep performance penalty as resolution climbs from 1080p to 4K, a pattern that underscores the GeForce GTX 1070's struggle with higher pixel counts. At the High settings preset, the average frame rate drops from 61 FPS at 1920x1080 to 46 FPS at 2560x1440, and finally to a nearly unplayable 31 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 24.6% performance loss from 1080p to 1440p and a further 32.6% loss from 1440p to 4K, demonstrating that the GPU's rendering throughput is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions.

The scaling behavior is consistent across all settings presets, though the absolute frame rates vary. At the Low preset, the system achieves 97 FPS at 1080p, which drops to 73 FPS at 1440p (a 24.7% decrease) and 49 FPS at 4K (a 32.9% decrease from 1440p). This consistent pattern of roughly a 25% drop when moving to 1440p and another 33% drop when moving to 4K indicates a purely GPU-bound scenario, as the CPU is not changing its workload with resolution. The data suggests that 4K resolution is not a viable target for this combo, as even the Low preset only manages an average of 49 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

At the Medium preset, the only preset with recorded minimum and maximum frame times, the scaling is slightly more pronounced. The average frame rate falls from 69 FPS at 1080p to 52 FPS at 1440p and 35 FPS at 4K. The minimum frame rate at 4K Medium is 30 FPS, which indicates that the experience will have noticeable stutters and drops below the average, making the game feel inconsistent. The delta between the average and minimum FPS at 4K Medium is 5 FPS, while at 1440p Medium the delta is 8 FPS, suggesting that the frame time variance is relatively consistent, but the lower overall average at 4K makes these dips more perceptible.

The performance cliff between 1440p and 4K is particularly steep, with the average FPS at High settings falling from 46 to 31. This is a 32.6% reduction, which is a larger relative drop than the 24.6% reduction seen when moving from 1080p to 1440p. This non-linear scaling is typical for a GPU that is nearing its memory bandwidth or fillrate limits, and the 256.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth on the GTX 1070 appears insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering in this title. The data clearly indicates that 1080p is the intended resolution for this hardware, with 1440p being a compromise and 4K being outside the range of acceptable performance.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, based on the Pascal architecture with a GP104 chip, is the primary determinant of performance in Control for this system. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 256.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a critical factor at higher resolutions. The benchmark results show that the GPU is fully saturated, as evidenced by the significant frame rate drops when resolution increases. The GPU's 1920 shading units and 64 ROPs are tasked with rendering the game's complex visual effects, and at 4K, the 27 FPS average at Ultra settings confirms that the card is overwhelmed.

The GPU's clock speeds, with a base of 1506 MHz and a boost of 1683 MHz, are typical for the card, but they are not sufficient to overcome the raw pixel throughput demands of 4K. The data shows that the GTX 1070's performance is below the 47th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals, such as the AMD FirePro W5000 and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, have similar average benchmark scores, with the GTX 1070 trailing the FirePro W5000 by 0.2% and the Quadro M2000M by 0.5%. This contextualizes the card as a mid-range performer that is not suited for high-resolution gaming in demanding titles.

The VRAM capacity of 8 GB appears to be sufficient for this game at 1080p and 1440p, as there are no anomalies in the frame rate data that would suggest texture swapping or memory overflow. However, at 4K, the combination of higher memory pressure and bandwidth limitations likely contributes to the severe performance degradation. The card's memory clock of 2002 MHz, running at 8 Gbps effective, is a fixed specification that cannot be increased to compensate for the higher resolution demands. The data suggests that the GTX 1070's role is to provide a stable 1080p experience, where it can achieve 61 FPS on High settings, but it is not a capable 4K solution.

The GPU's DirectX 12 support is present, but its Passmark DirectX 12 score of 48 is notably lower than its DirectX 11 score of 100, which might indicate that the card's driver overhead or architectural design is less efficient in this API. This could be a contributing factor to the game's performance, as Control likely utilizes DirectX 12 features. The GPU's FP32 performance of 6.463 TFLOPS is a theoretical peak that is not fully realized in real-world gaming, and the measured frame rates are a more accurate representation of its capabilities. The data unequivocally points to the GTX 1070 as the bottleneck, as the CPU is not being challenged at any resolution.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265, with its 20 cores and 20 threads, is a high-end desktop processor that is not the limiting factor in this configuration. Its benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and a single-core score of 5960, place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, indicating substantial processing power. The CPU's boost clock of 5.30 GHz and base clock of 2.40 GHz provide ample single-threaded performance, which is crucial for game logic and physics calculations. The data shows that the CPU is significantly more powerful than the GPU, as evidenced by the fact that frame rates scale almost exclusively with resolution changes, not with CPU-intensive settings.

The processor's nearest rivals, such as the AMD EPYC 4464P and Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, have nearly identical average benchmark scores, with deltas of -0.3% and 0.3% respectively. This indicates that the Core Ultra 7 265 is performing as expected for its class, and its capabilities are far beyond what a GTX 1070 can utilize. The CPU's 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide fast access to frequently used data, which should minimize any potential CPU-side stalls. However, the game's performance is not improving with the CPU's power, as the frame rates are consistently tied to the GPU's resolution scaling.

The 65W TDP of the Core Ultra 7 265 is relatively low for a 20-core processor, indicating high efficiency, but this is irrelevant to the gaming performance in this scenario. The CPU's memory support for DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is more than sufficient for the game's data transfer needs, and it is not a bottleneck. The data strongly suggests that the CPU is idle or underutilized during gameplay, as the GPU is unable to keep up with the rendering demands. The CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game state data, and it is doing so without any apparent performance ceiling.

The Passmark multi-thread score of 49682 and single-thread score of 4689 further confirm the CPU's strength, but these figures do not translate to higher frame rates in this GPU-bound scenario. The CPU's 20 cores are likely not fully utilized by Control, which may be optimized for fewer threads, but even its single-core performance is not the limiting factor. The benchmark results indicate that if the GPU were replaced with a more powerful model, the frame rates would improve, but with the GTX 1070, the CPU's potential is entirely untapped. The data shows a classic case of a high-end CPU being paired with a mid-range GPU, resulting in a system where the GPU dictates the performance envelope.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured frame rates, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user's target resolution and frame rate preference. At 1920x1080, the High preset is the best choice, delivering an average of 61 FPS, which is right at the standard for smooth gameplay. The Ultra preset drops to 53 FPS, which is a 13.1% decrease for arguably marginal visual gains, making it a less attractive option. The Medium preset at 69 FPS offers a higher frame rate but at a lower visual quality, so High is the sweet spot for a balanced experience.

For users willing to prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity at 1080p, the Low preset delivers 97 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors. However, the visual quality reduction is substantial, and the High preset is generally recommended for a more immersive experience. The data shows that the frame rate is sufficient at High, so there is no need to drop to Medium or Low for playability reasons. The Ultra preset is playable, but the 53 FPS average is below the ideal 60 FPS threshold, so it is not recommended for competitive or fast-paced gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly, and the High preset produces an average of 46 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 52 FPS is a better option, providing a more playable experience, though it is still not ideal. The Low preset at 73 FPS is the only way to achieve a smooth 60+ FPS experience at 1440p, but it requires a significant visual compromise. The Ultra preset at 40 FPS is not recommended, as it is too close to the 30 FPS threshold for comfort.

At 3840x2160, none of the settings presets provide a consistently smooth experience. The Low preset at 49 FPS is the only option that approaches playability, but it still has frequent drops below 60 FPS. The High preset at 31 FPS and Medium at 35 FPS are below the acceptable threshold, and the Ultra preset at 27 FPS is unplayable. The data strongly suggests that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo, and users should either stick to 1080p or accept the performance compromises at 1440p. The Medium preset's recorded minimum FPS of 30 at 4K confirms the worst-case scenario, making it a risky choice for consistent gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 ranks 2395 out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the 83rd percentile from the bottom, or roughly the bottom 17% of all systems. This is a low ranking that reflects the GPU's limitations, as the CPU is a top-tier performer. The ranking indicates that this combo is significantly outperformed by many other pairings, and it is not a configuration that would be recommended for this game if higher performance is desired.

The low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GTX 1070, which is an end-of-life product that is not competitive with modern GPUs. The GPU's percentile of 47 places it in the middle of the pack for all GPUs, but in the context of a demanding game like Control, it falls short. The combo's rank is a direct result of the GPU's inability to maintain high frame rates at higher resolutions, and the data shows that the CPU's power is wasted in this pairing. The 2888 total combos tested indicates a wide range of hardware, and this particular system is near the bottom.

The ranking should be interpreted as a warning that this system is not suited for a high-quality Control experience. While the game is playable at 1080p with adjusted settings, the overall performance is below what most users would expect from a modern gaming PC. The delta between the CPU's high percentile and the combo's low rank is stark, highlighting the severe imbalance in the system. The data shows that this combo is a poor match for the game's demands, and users would need to significantly lower their graphical expectations to achieve a playable frame rate. The rank of 2395 out of 2888 is a definitive statement of the system's overall capability.

FAQ

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

A: The benchmark data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution that provides consistently playable frame rates across presets. At 1080p, the High preset achieves 61 FPS, while at 2560x1440, even the Low preset only reaches 73 FPS, and at 3840x2160, all presets fall below 50 FPS.

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with any settings?

A: The data indicates that 4K is not a viable option. The highest average frame rate at 3840x2160 is 49 FPS on the Low preset, which is below the 60 FPS target. The Ultra preset at 4K produces an average of only 27 FPS, making the game effectively unplayable.

Q: How does the GTX 1070 compare to its nearest rivals in terms of performance?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 9780 is slightly lower than its nearest rivals. It trails the AMD FirePro W5000 by 0.2% and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M by 0.5%, while being ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 by 0.6% and the Tesla C2070 by 0.7%, indicating it is a mid-range performer.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 a bottleneck for the GTX 1070?

A: No, the CPU is not a bottleneck. The Core Ultra 7 265 ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, and the frame rates scale almost exclusively with resolution, which is a sign of a GPU-bound workload. The CPU's performance is far beyond what the GTX 1070 can utilize.

Q: What is the recommended settings preset at 1080p for the best experience?

A: The High preset is recommended, as it delivers an average of 61 FPS, hitting the standard for smooth gameplay. The Ultra preset drops to 53 FPS, which is a noticeable decrease, while the Medium preset at 69 FPS does not offer a significant enough frame rate advantage to justify the visual downgrade.

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

A: This combo ranks 2395 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 17% of systems. This low ranking is primarily due to the GTX 1070's limitations, as the CPU is a high-end component that is not being fully utilized.