Control

# Control with Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 delivers playable 1080p performance in Control at Low settings, but the combination is fundamentally GPU-limited across all resolutions and settings tested. The measured data shows a 56 FPS average at 1920x1080 Low, which drops to 31 FPS at Ultra, while the 4K Ultra result of 16 FPS confirms that this pairing is best suited for 1080p gaming with compromises. The CPU sits in the 93rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks in only the 40th percentile, making the GTX 1650 the clear bottleneck in this configuration.

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 processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on Arrow Lake architecture using TSMC's 3 nm process. With a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, this CPU delivers substantial compute headroom that far exceeds what Control demands. The processor's benchmark results reinforce this: it scores 42,216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5,960 in single-core, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P (0.3% slower), Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (0.3% faster), and AMD EPYC 7343 (0.7% faster), showing that this CPU sits in a highly competitive performance band.

Control is an action-adventure game that relies heavily on physics simulation and destructible environments, which can stress CPU performance in complex scenes. However, the data here shows that the Core Ultra 7 265 is not the limiting factor. At 1920x1080 Low, the system produces 56 FPS, but at 3840x2160 Low, it drops to 29 FPS — a 48% reduction that tracks almost entirely with the GPU's rendering load rather than CPU capability. The 20 cores and 20 threads provide ample parallel processing for the game's AI, physics, and streaming systems, while the 30 MB of shared L3 cache helps maintain consistent frame pacing. The CPU's 65 W TDP and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth on DDR5 further ensure that data feeding the GPU is never starved.

The benchmark data indicates that even at the lowest settings and resolution, the system never approaches CPU-bound territory. At 1080p Low, the 56 FPS average is modest, suggesting the GPU is already saturated. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect to see similar FPS numbers across different resolutions at the same settings, but the scaling from 1080p to 1440p to 4K shows consistent drops that match GPU workload increases. The Core Ultra 7 265's Passmark multithread score of 49,682 and single-thread score of 4,689 place it far above what Control needs for smooth gameplay — the game was released in 2019, and modern CPUs with fewer cores handle it easily. The processor's 93rd percentile ranking versus 40th for the GPU tells the entire story: this is a lopsided pairing.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combination in Control?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the only resolution where playable frame rates are achieved. At 1080p, the average FPS ranges from 31 at Ultra to 56 at Low, while 1440p peaks at 43 FPS on Low, and 4K never exceeds 29 FPS even on the lowest settings.

Q: How much of a performance difference is there between Low and Ultra settings?

A: At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra costs 25 FPS (56 to 31), a 45% drop. At 1440p, the drop is 20 FPS (43 to 23), and at 4K, the drop is 13 FPS (29 to 16). The percentage gap widens at higher resolutions, indicating GPU memory and bandwidth constraints become more pronounced.

Q: Is the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM sufficient for Control?

A: The measured results suggest it is barely adequate at 1080p but becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the system produces only 16 FPS average, and at 4K Medium, it manages 20 FPS with minimums of 17 FPS. The 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth struggle to feed the game's textures at 1440p and above.

Q: How does this CPU compare to its nearest rivals in overall benchmark performance?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 scores 64,640 average benchmark points, sitting within 0.7% of the AMD EPYC 9124 (65,104) and within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 4464P (64,823). It is 0.3% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64,438) and 0.7% faster than the AMD EPYC 7343 (64,202).

Q: Can this system maintain 60 FPS in Control at any settings?

A: No. The highest measured average is 56 FPS at 1080p Low, which is below the 60 FPS target. All other settings and resolutions produce lower averages, with 1080p High reaching 36 FPS and 1080p Medium at 40 FPS.

Q: What does the combo rank tell us about this pairing?

A: This CPU-GPU combination ranks 2,789 out of 2,888 total combos tested in Control, placing it in the bottom 4% of all pairings. This reflects the GPU's 40th percentile standing rather than the CPU's 93rd percentile, confirming the graphics card is the dominant constraint.

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

The resolution scaling pattern in the measured data provides clear evidence of GPU-limited performance. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at Low settings drops the average FPS from 56 to 43, a 23% reduction. Going further to 3840x2160 Low drops to 29 FPS, a 33% reduction from 1440p and 48% from 1080p. This near-linear scaling with pixel count is the signature of a GPU bottleneck — if the CPU were limiting, we would see flat FPS across resolutions.

At Medium settings, the pattern continues: 1080p averages 40 FPS (with minimums of 34 and maximums of 46), 1440p drops to 30 FPS (26 min, 35 max), and 4K falls to 20 FPS (17 min, 24 max). The percentage drops from 1080p to 4K are 50% on Medium, 48% on Low, 50% on High (36 to 18 FPS), and 48% on Ultra (31 to 16 FPS). This consistency across all quality presets — roughly a 50% performance penalty when quadrupling the pixel count — is exactly what would be expected when the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting resources.

The Core Ultra 7 265 can clearly handle the game's CPU workloads at any resolution. The processor's Cinebench R20 multicore score of 6,268 and Passmark physics score of 2,923 indicate strong computational throughput that won't become a constraint in a 2019 title. The question is whether the GTX 1650's 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate and 93.24 GTexel/s texture rate can keep up with the increasing pixel demands. The data says no: at 4K Ultra, the system produces 16 FPS, which is unplayable, and even at 4K Low, 29 FPS is borderline. The 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth becomes increasingly insufficient as resolution climbs, forcing the GPU to manage larger texture sets and frame buffers with limited headroom.

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

At 1920x1080, the system's best performance comes at Low settings with a 56 FPS average. Medium settings drop to 40 FPS, with measured minimums of 34 and maximums of 46, showing some frame pacing instability. High settings average 36 FPS, while Ultra produces 31 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 25 FPS, representing a 45% performance loss for the higher visual quality. None of these settings achieve a locked 60 FPS, but Low is closest to that target.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages shift downward across the board. Low settings deliver 43 FPS, Medium drops to 30 FPS (26 min, 35 max), High falls to 27 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 23 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a 23% drop on Low, 25% on Medium, 25% on High, and 26% on Ultra. The 1440p Medium result of 30 FPS is marginal for gameplay, with minimums dipping to 26 FPS, which would be noticeable in fast-paced action sequences.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings manage 29 FPS average, Medium produces 20 FPS (17 min, 24 max), High drops to 18 FPS, and Ultra delivers only 16 FPS. The 4K results show a compression of frame rates across settings — the difference between Low and Ultra is just 13 FPS, compared to 25 FPS at 1080p. This compression indicates that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily constrained that visual quality settings have diminishing returns; the bottleneck is raw pixel throughput and memory bandwidth rather than shader complexity. The minimum FPS values at 4K Medium (17 FPS) and the maximum of 24 FPS show significant frame-time variance, which would result in stuttering gameplay even if the average were acceptable.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU built on TSMC's 12 nm process, featuring 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. Its base clock runs at 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, while the 4 GB of GDDR5 memory operates at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, yielding 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The card's 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate define its fundamental rendering capabilities, and in Control, these specs produce the measured frame rates.

The GTX 1650 ranks in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% slower), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% slower), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% slower), while the Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster. This positioning places the GTX 1650 at the lower end of modern gaming GPUs, and Control's results reflect that. The 4 GB VRAM is the most critical limitation — at 1080p Ultra, the game still manages 31 FPS, but the 128-bit memory bus becomes a severe constraint at higher resolutions where texture data exceeds the available bandwidth.

The GPU's 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate a low-power design, but this doesn't translate to sustained high performance in Control. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (56) represents the practical ceiling for this card, and the game's visual effects — including particle systems and physics-driven destruction — push the GTX 1650 to its limits. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 and Passmark G3D score of 7,880 confirm that this GPU is entry-level by modern standards. The data shows that Control's demands at Medium settings or higher exceed what the GTX 1650 can comfortably deliver, with frame rates dropping below 40 FPS even at 1080p when visual quality is increased beyond Low.

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

The measured data points to 1920x1080 Low as the only viable configuration for reasonably smooth gameplay, with a 56 FPS average. This represents the best balance of performance and playability available in the dataset. All other settings and resolutions fall below 50 FPS, with most hovering in the 20-40 FPS range, which is suboptimal for an action-adventure game requiring precise timing and responsiveness.

At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 40 FPS with minimums of 34 FPS, which could be acceptable for players who prioritize visual fidelity over smoothness, but the 16 FPS average loss from Low is significant. 1080p High (36 FPS) and Ultra (31 FPS) offer diminishing returns — the visual improvements from Medium to Ultra are less impactful than the 9 FPS average cost. For players who insist on higher quality, 1080p Medium is the recommended compromise, as it maintains playable frame rates while offering improved textures and effects over Low.

The 1440p and 4K results are not recommended for actual gameplay. The best 1440p result is 43 FPS on Low, which is playable but not smooth, and every other 1440p setting falls below 30 FPS. At 4K, even Low settings produce only 29 FPS, and Ultra produces 16 FPS — both are effectively unplayable for a game that requires active combat and environmental awareness. The data suggests that this combination is strictly a 1080p gaming setup for Control, and users seeking higher resolutions would need a more powerful GPU. The combo's rank of 2,789 out of 2,888 combinations reinforces that this pairing is near the bottom of tested configurations, and the settings recommendations should reflect that reality: Low at 1080p for playability, Medium at 1080p for those willing to accept frame rate dips, and nothing above 1080p for serious play.