Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER produces a combination that lands near the lower end of the tested spectrum for Control. With a combo rank of 2471 out of 2888 tested configurations, this pairing sits in the 14th percentile of all combos, indicating that while it can run the game, it does so with significant compromises in visual fidelity and frame rate, particularly at higher resolutions. The data shows a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics card, a conclusion supported by the performance deltas across the measured settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2471 out of 2888 places it firmly in the lower quartile of tested systems for Control. This is not a surprising outcome given the hardware pairing. The GPU, a GTX 1660 SUPER, holds a 53rd percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the CPU sits in the 93rd percentile. This massive disparity in component class suggests that the graphics card is the primary bottleneck in almost every scenario.

Benchmark results confirm this imbalance. The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD EPYC 4464P (0.3% slower), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (0.3% faster), and the AMD EPYC 9124 (0.7% slower). These are all high-end server or desktop processors with substantial multi-threaded capabilities. In contrast, the GPU's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (0.4% faster) and the AMD Radeon RX 580 (0.4% faster), which are mid-range or older-generation parts.

This pairing results in a system that is capable of producing playable frame rates only at 1080p with lower settings. The overall combo rank is dragged down by the GPU's inability to keep pace with the CPU's potential. A system with a significantly weaker CPU but a stronger GPU would likely rank higher in this specific game, as Control is graphically demanding. The data indicates that the 2471st rank is a direct consequence of this hardware mismatch, where the processor's headroom is left largely unused at the resolutions and settings where the GPU is the limiting factor.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Control at 4K resolution?*

A: The measured data indicates that 4K gaming is only marginally possible. At 4K with Low settings, the average frame rate is 46 FPS. However, selecting Medium settings drops the average to 33 FPS, and High and Ultra presets yield averages of 29 FPS and 25 FPS, respectively. These results suggest that 4K is not a viable experience for this hardware beyond the lowest settings.

Q: What is the best resolution for this system?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the GTX 1660 SUPER can consistently deliver frame rates above 60 FPS. At 1080p, the Low preset achieves an average of 91 FPS, while the High preset reaches 57 FPS. At 1440p, even the Low preset only manages an average of 69 FPS, indicating a significant drop-off in performance.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its direct rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640. It is 0.3% slower than the AMD EPYC 4464P and 0.7% slower than the AMD EPYC 9124. Conversely, it is 0.3% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F and 0.7% faster than the AMD EPYC 7343. These are all very close scores, indicating that the CPU is not a differentiator in this comparison.

Q: Is the GTX 1660 SUPER comparable to other mid-range GPUs?

A: Based on its average benchmark score of 12986, the GTX 1660 SUPER is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (0.4% faster) and the AMD Radeon RX 580 (0.4% faster). It is 0.7% slower than the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 and 0.9% faster than the AMD Radeon 740M. These deltas are minimal, placing all these cards in a similar performance tier.

Q: What is the limiting factor for performance in this game?

A: The data strongly suggests the GPU is the limiting component. While the CPU has a 20-core configuration and a high 93rd percentile ranking, the GTX 1660 SUPER's performance drops dramatically as resolution and settings increase. For example, moving from 1080p Low to 4K Low reduces the average FPS by roughly half, a pattern that indicates the rendering pipeline is saturated by the graphics processor.

Q: Does the game's performance scale well with settings changes?

A: Yes, the measured data shows that Control is highly sensitive to settings changes. At 1080p, the difference between Low (91 FPS) and Ultra (50 FPS) is 41 FPS. At 1440p, the gap between Low (69 FPS) and Ultra (38 FPS) is 31 FPS. This scaling is consistent with a GPU-bound title where visual effects have a direct impact on frame rate.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate data reveals a steep performance curve as resolution increases, which is a classic indicator of a GPU-limited scenario. At 1080p, the system operates in a playable range for most presets. The Low preset achieves an average of 91 FPS, which is excellent, while even the demanding Ultra preset manages a 50 FPS average. This suggests that the GTX 1660 SUPER has sufficient bandwidth and processing power to handle the pixel count of 1920x1080.

Moving to 2560x1440 results in a noticeable performance hit across all settings. The Low preset drops from 91 FPS to 69 FPS, a 24% reduction. The High preset falls from 57 FPS to 43 FPS, a 25% decrease. This scaling is proportional to the increase in pixel count, which is approximately 1.78 times more pixels for 1440p compared to 1080p. The system is starting to feel the strain, but the frame rates are still within a range that could be considered playable for some users.

The jump to 3840x2160 is where the system's limitations become stark. The Low preset, which was smooth at 1080p, drops to a 46 FPS average. The High preset struggles to maintain a 29 FPS average, and the Ultra preset falls to 25 FPS. The difference between 1440p Low and 4K Low is 23 FPS, a 33% reduction. This dramatic drop indicates that the GPU's memory bandwidth and fill rate are no longer sufficient to manage the 4K pixel workload, leading to a severely compromised experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following data represents the exact measured average frame rates for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER combination in Control. The data set includes minimum and maximum frame rates only for the Medium preset at each resolution.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: 46 FPS average
• Medium: 33 FPS average, with a minimum of 28 FPS and a maximum of 38 FPS
• High: 29 FPS average
• Ultra: 25 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: 69 FPS average
• Medium: 49 FPS average, with a minimum of 41 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS
• High: 43 FPS average
• Ultra: 38 FPS average

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: 91 FPS average
• Medium: 64 FPS average, with a minimum of 55 FPS and a maximum of 74 FPS
• High: 57 FPS average
• Ultra: 50 FPS average

The Medium preset data provides insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p, the range between the minimum and maximum is 19 FPS, which is the largest of the three resolutions. At 1440p, this range narrows to 15 FPS, and at 4K, it shrinks further to 10 FPS. This suggests that while the average frame rate is lower at higher resolutions, the frame pacing may be more consistent, perhaps due to the GPU being more uniformly saturated.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal experience for this combo is found at 1920x1080 with the High preset. This configuration produces an average frame rate of 57 FPS, which is close to the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. It offers a significant visual improvement over the Low preset, which runs at 91 FPS but lacks many graphical features. The Medium preset at 1080p, with a 64 FPS average, is also a valid option for those prioritizing frame rate over visual quality.

For users with a 1440p monitor, the data suggests that the Low preset is the only viable choice for maintaining a playable frame rate. The 69 FPS average is respectable, but the visual quality will be noticeably reduced. The High preset at 1440p drops to 43 FPS, which may be acceptable for slower-paced sections of the game but will likely feel less responsive during combat sequences.

At 4K, the data does not support a recommended settings preset. Even the Low preset's 46 FPS average is below the 60 FPS threshold, and the visual sacrifices required to achieve this frame rate would be substantial. The Medium, High, and Ultra presets at 4K all fall below 35 FPS, making them unsuitable for a smooth experience. The best experience at this resolution would require a GPU with more graphical horsepower.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, along with 30 MB of shared L3 cache. With a 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, this processor is clearly not the bottleneck in this system for Control. Its average benchmark score of 64640 places it within 1% of its nearest rivals, the AMD EPYC 4464P, Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, AMD EPYC 7343, and AMD EPYC 9124.

In the context of Control, the game's engine is not heavily reliant on multi-threaded CPU performance. The measured FPS data shows that performance scales almost entirely with GPU-bound factors like resolution and graphical settings. The CPU's 20 cores provide ample headroom for the game's physics and logic, but this headroom is not utilized because the GTX 1660 SUPER is the limiting factor. The high single-thread performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5960, is more relevant for game logic, but it does not translate into higher frame rates when the GPU is saturated.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and dual-channel DDR5 support are sufficient for feeding the GPU data. However, the performance deltas between different settings and resolutions are far too large to be attributed to CPU limitations. The data strongly indicates that the processor is performing its role without issue, and any attempt to improve frame rates by upgrading the CPU would yield no tangible benefit in this specific game and configuration.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the clear performance bottleneck in this pairing. With 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, it offers a memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. Its base and boost clocks are 1530 MHz and 1785 MHz, respectively. The GPU holds a 53rd percentile ranking, placing it in the middle of the pack. Its average benchmark score of 12986 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile and RX 580, with deltas of just 0.4%.

The measured FPS data shows that the GPU's performance is directly tied to the rendering workload. The 6 GB VRAM capacity is a critical factor, especially at higher resolutions and settings. While the data does not include VRAM usage, the significant frame rate drops at 4K suggest that the GPU is struggling with both memory capacity and memory bandwidth. The 25 FPS average at 4K Ultra indicates that the card is completely overwhelmed.

The GPU's FP32 performance of 5.027 TFLOPS and texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s are modest figures that align with its mid-range classification. The data shows that the GTX 1660 SUPER is capable of delivering a smooth 60+ FPS experience only at 1080p with Low settings. For a more visually rich experience at 1080p High, the frame rate drops to 57 FPS, which is still borderline playable. The GPU's role is definitive: it limits the system to 1080p gaming, and even then, users must make significant trade-offs between visual fidelity and frame rate.