Control

Control presents a demanding mix of physics-based combat and destructible environments, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti produces a predictable but revealing performance curve. The data shows a configuration that is firmly GPU-limited at higher resolutions, with the processor’s substantial headroom only becoming apparent at 1080p. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across the four preset levels and three resolutions, interpreting what the numbers indicate about the role of each component and where the optimal experience lies.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a graphics card operating at its limits. At 1080p High settings, the combo averages 57 FPS. Moving to 1440p High drops that to 43 FPS, a 24.6% reduction. The jump to 2160p High is even more punishing, with the average falling to 29 FPS, a 33% drop from the 1440p figure and a 49% drop from 1080p. This scaling pattern is far steeper than what would be expected if the CPU were the limiting factor, confirming that the GTX 1660 Ti's rendering throughput is the primary constraint once the pixel count rises.

The resolution scaling is consistent across all settings presets, not just High. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 91 at 1080p to 69 at 1440p (a 24.2% drop) and then to 46 at 2160p (a 33.3% drop from 1440p). The uniformity of these percentage drops—roughly 24% for the 1080p-to-1440p transition and 33% for the 1440p-to-2160p transition—indicates that the workload is scaling predictably with pixel count. This is a strong indicator that the GPU's fillrate and memory bandwidth are the bottlenecks, rather than any inefficiency in the CPU or game engine.

Interestingly, the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (91 FPS) and Ultra (50 FPS) is 41 FPS. At 2160p, the difference between Low (46 FPS) and Ultra (25 FPS) shrinks to 21 FPS. This compression of the settings range at higher resolutions further proves that the GPU is saturated; when the pixel workload is massive, the cost of additional graphical effects becomes relatively less impactful on the final FPS number because the base rendering cost already exceeds the GPU's capacity. The data clearly shows that this combo is a 1080p-oriented setup, with playable 1440p results only at Low settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its benchmark pedigree is strong, scoring 42,216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5,960 in single-core, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. In the context of Control, these specifications are far beyond what the game requires. The measured FPS deltas between resolutions are nearly identical regardless of settings, which would not be the case if the CPU were struggling to feed the GPU with draw calls or physics calculations.

Control is known for its physics-heavy combat and destructible environments, which can stress CPU performance. However, the data suggests the Ultra 7 265 handles this with ease. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 91 FPS, which is likely near the upper limit of what the GTX 1660 Ti can produce in this title. If the CPU were a bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller FPS difference between Low and High settings at 1080p, as the CPU would be the limiting factor in both cases. Instead, we see a 34 FPS drop from Low to Ultra (91 to 50 FPS), indicating that the GPU is still the dominant constraint even at the lowest resolution.

The processor's 30 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (102.4 GB/s bandwidth) provide ample data throughput for the game's streaming needs. The fact that the min FPS values for Medium settings are relatively close to the average (55 min vs 64 avg at 1080p) suggests there are no severe CPU-related stutters or frame-time spikes. The Ultra 7 265 is effectively a silent partner in this combo, providing a stable platform that never interferes with the GPU's output. The data indicates that pairing this CPU with a faster graphics card would unlock significantly higher frame rates, as the processor has substantial headroom to spare.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing-architecture card with 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. It features 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. Its boost clock is rated at 1770 MHz, and its FP32 performance is 5.437 TFLOPS. In the global GPU percentile rankings, it sits at the 41st percentile, indicating a mid-range to lower-mid-range standing. The measured FPS in Control reflects this positioning; it is capable of smooth 1080p gameplay on lower presets but struggles to maintain 60 FPS at higher settings or resolutions.

The GPU's 6 GB VRAM is a significant factor at higher resolutions and settings. At 2160p Ultra, the combo averages just 25 FPS, which is barely playable and indicates the card is overwhelmed both in terms of raw compute and memory capacity. Even at 1440p High, the 43 FPS average suggests the card is running out of headroom. The memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s is sufficient for 1080p, but at 2160p, the pixel throughput demands exceed what this card can deliver, explaining the steep FPS drop. The data shows that the GTX 1660 Ti is the definitive bottleneck in this pairing, a conclusion reinforced by the consistent 41st percentile performance ranking.

The GPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores are the AMD Radeon 540 (0.7% slower), AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (1.9% slower), and AMD Radeon R7 250 (2.2% slower). This places the GTX 1660 Ti at the very bottom of the modern GPU hierarchy, just above entry-level workstation and legacy cards. In Control, this translates to a card that can deliver a 1080p Medium experience at 64 FPS, which is playable, but dropping to High reduces the average to 57 FPS, and Ultra to 50 FPS. The card's 12 nm process node and 120 W TDP are dated, but its performance profile is consistent with its specifications.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal balance of visual quality and frame rate for this combo is found at 1080p Medium. This preset delivers an average of 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 FPS and a maximum of 74 FPS. The minimum FPS of 55 is above the critical 50 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, ensuring a consistent experience without major drops. The 64 FPS average is also above the 60 FPS target, making it the only preset at any resolution that achieves both a playable minimum and a high average.

At 1080p High, the average drops to 57 FPS, which is still playable but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes. The lack of reported min/max data for High settings makes it difficult to assess frame-time consistency, but the 7 FPS average drop from Medium suggests that the GPU is working harder. 1080p Ultra at 50 FPS is borderline; it is technically playable but likely suffers from occasional dips below 45 FPS in intense combat. For users prioritizing frame rate, 1080p Low at 91 FPS is the best choice, but it sacrifices significant visual fidelity.

At 1440p, the only viable option is Low settings, which yields 69 FPS. Medium at 1440p provides 49 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target and may feel less responsive. High and Ultra at 1440p (43 and 38 FPS respectively) are not recommended for a smooth experience. At 2160p, all presets are below playable thresholds, with Low at 46 FPS being the only one that approaches playability, but the visual quality at that resolution with Low settings is poor. The data strongly suggests that users should target 1080p Medium for the best overall experience, with the option to drop to Low for competitive frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific configuration of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ranks 2,471st out of 2,888 tested combos in Control. This puts it in the bottom 14.4% of all tested hardware combinations, which is a poor showing. The low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU's performance ceiling, as the CPU is in the top 7% of all processors. The data indicates that this pairing is severely unbalanced for this game, with the GPU failing to leverage the CPU's capability.

The combo rank is a holistic metric that considers the entire system's performance. Given that the CPU ranks in the 93rd percentile and the GPU in the 41st percentile, the combined rank of 2,471 out of 2,888 is lower than either component's individual percentile. This suggests that the GPU is dragging the system down significantly. In games where the GPU is less demanding, this combo would likely rank higher, but Control's high graphical demands expose the GTX 1660 Ti's limitations. The data implies that replacing the GPU with a more powerful model would yield a dramatic improvement in both measured FPS and combo rank, while keeping the same CPU.

For context, the CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P (0.3% slower) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (0.3% faster), showing that the processor is well-regarded. The GPU's nearest rivals are all significantly less powerful, including the AMD Radeon 540 (0.7% slower). This disparity in component quality is the root cause of the low combo rank; the system is held back by its weakest link.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact measured FPS values across all tested configurations. The data shows a clear monotonic decrease in average FPS as both resolution and settings increase.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Minimum FPS | Maximum FPS |

|------------|----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|

| 3840x2160 | Low | 46 | N/A | N/A |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 33 | 28 | 38 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 29 | N/A | N/A |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 25 | N/A | N/A |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 69 | N/A | N/A |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 49 | 41 | 56 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 43 | N/A | N/A |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 38 | N/A | N/A |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 91 | N/A | N/A |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 64 | 55 | 74 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 57 | N/A | N/A |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 50 | N/A | N/A |

At each resolution, the FPS penalty for each settings tier is roughly consistent. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 27 FPS, from Medium to High costs 7 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 7 FPS. At 1440p, the deltas are 20, 6, and 5 FPS respectively. At 2160p, the deltas are 13, 4, and 4 FPS. The diminishing returns of higher settings are clear; the biggest performance hit comes from the Low-to-Medium transition, while Ultra provides a smaller marginal cost over High.

The only presets with reported min/max FPS are Medium at all three resolutions. This data shows that 1080p Medium has a 19 FPS spread (55 to 74), 1440p Medium has a 15 FPS spread (41 to 56), and 2160p Medium has a 10 FPS spread (28 to 38). The tighter frame-time variance at higher resolutions is a sign that the GPU is consistently saturated, whereas at 1080p, the GPU has more headroom, leading to larger fluctuations as the workload varies.

FAQ

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

A: 1080p is the only resolution where the combo achieves consistently playable frame rates. At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 64, while at 2560x1440, the highest average FPS is 69 but only with Low settings, indicating diminishing returns at higher resolutions.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 bottlenecking the GTX 1660 Ti in Control?

A: No. The data shows that FPS scales consistently with resolution and settings, which is a characteristic of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU's high benchmark scores (93rd percentile) and the FPS drops at higher resolutions indicate that the GTX 1660 Ti is the limiting component.

Q: Can this system achieve 60 FPS at 1080p?

A: Yes, but only on Medium settings, which yields an average of 64 FPS. On High settings, the average drops to 57 FPS, and on Ultra, it falls to 50 FPS, both below the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Control?

A: This specific CPU and GPU combination ranks 2,471st out of 2,888 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 15% of all systems tested for this game.

Q: What is the minimum FPS at 1080p Medium settings?

A: The measured minimum FPS at 1920x1080 Medium is 55, with a maximum of 74. This indicates a stable frame rate that should not drop below playable levels in most scenes.

Q: Is the GTX 1660 Ti's VRAM sufficient for higher resolutions?

A: The 6 GB VRAM appears to be a limiting factor at 2160p, where the average FPS drops to 29 at High settings. At 1440p, the card manages 43 FPS at High, showing that VRAM is not the sole constraint, but the overall performance at 4K is poor.