Control

Control pairs a 20-core Intel Core Ultra 7 265 with a 4 GB NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050, and the benchmark data shows a combination that is decisively constrained by the graphics card. Across all tested resolutions, the frame rates scale predictably with preset quality, but the GPU’s limited memory and modest compute capacity keep this rig firmly in 1080p territory for smooth play. At 1440p and 4K, the data indicates a slide into sub-60 FPS territory that only worsens with higher settings, making the choice of preset and resolution critical for playability.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows reveal a clear hierarchy: at 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 83 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this combo. This makes Low the only setting that comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS threshold with substantial headroom, ideal for fast-paced action sequences. While Medium at 1080p drops to 59 FPS average—still playable but with less margin—High and Ultra fall to 53 FPS and 46 FPS respectively, indicating a noticeable performance penalty for each step up in visual fidelity.

For 2560x1440, the data shows a similar pattern but with lower overall headroom. The Low preset averages 63 FPS, which is the only 1440p setting that remains above 60 FPS. Medium drops to 45 FPS, High to 40 FPS, and Ultra to 35 FPS. Given that the minimum FPS is only recorded for Medium (38 FPS), even that setting risks noticeable stutter during intense scenes. At 3840x2160, all presets fall well below 60 FPS: Low averages 43 FPS, Medium 30 FPS, High 27 FPS, and Ultra 23 FPS. The 4K data confirms that this combo is not suited for that resolution, with even the lowest settings struggling to maintain a playable frame rate.

The best experience per the measured rows is unequivocally at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This yields an 83 FPS average, which is 40% higher than the next best 1080p option (Medium at 59 FPS) and 55% higher than High at 53 FPS. However, if visual quality is a priority, the Medium preset at 1080p (59 FPS average, 50 FPS minimum) offers a reasonable compromise, staying just within the playable range. For users with 1440p monitors, the Low preset (63 FPS average) is the only viable choice for fluid gameplay, though it sacrifices most graphical enhancements. The data strongly suggests avoiding Ultra at any resolution, as it yields the lowest frame rates across the board—23 FPS at 4K, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 46 FPS at 1080p—making it a poor trade-off for the visual uplift.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific configuration holds a combo rank of 2522 out of 2888 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the bottom 13% of all tested systems. This low standing is a direct consequence of the RTX 3050 4 GB’s performance ceiling; the CPU is not the limiting factor here. The data indicates that this combo is outclassed by the vast majority of other pairings tested, meaning that gamers with even mid-range graphics cards will likely achieve significantly higher frame rates in this title.

The ranking is particularly instructive when considering the CPU’s potential. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 sits in the 93rd percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64640. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P (average score 64823, delta -0.3%), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (average score 64438, delta 0.3%), and the AMD EPYC 7343 (average score 64202, delta 0.7%). These deltas are negligible, indicating that the Ultra 7 265 is a top-tier processor in synthetic workloads. Yet, in this gaming combo, the overall rank suffers because the GPU cannot translate that CPU strength into frame rate. The benchmark results suggest that pairing this CPU with a more powerful GPU would yield a dramatically better position, as the processor has ample headroom to drive higher FPS figures.

The rank also highlights the imbalance of the pairing. With a 50th percentile GPU and a 93rd percentile CPU, the system is heavily skewed toward compute capability rather than gaming throughput. The data implies that users would see a far better return on investment by upgrading the graphics card, as the Ultra 7 265 is unlikely to be the bottleneck in any gaming scenario. In summary, this combo ranks poorly not because of any CPU deficiency, but because the 4 GB RTX 3050 is simply outmatched by the demands of Control at higher settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB plays the decisive role in this combo’s gaming performance, and its specifications explain the measured FPS limitations. The GPU features a GA107 chip on the Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process with 8,700 million transistors. Its memory configuration is the primary constraint: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a modest amount of VRAM for a 2019 title like Control, which can consume significant memory at higher resolutions and texture settings. The 4 GB capacity is likely a major reason why the Ultra preset performs so poorly, as it may exceed the available memory, leading to texture swapping and framerate drops.

Clock speeds are relatively modest for the series, with a base clock of 1545 MHz and a boost clock of 1740 MHz. The memory runs at 1500 MHz, translating to 12 Gbps effective throughput. The GPU has 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, along with 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The FP32 performance is rated at 7.127 TFLOPS, which is low by modern standards but was considered entry-level at launch. The pixel rate is 55.68 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s, both of which limit the GPU’s ability to fill high-resolution frames.

In the measured data, the GPU’s limitations are evident in the scaling between resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 83 FPS, but this drops to 63 FPS at 1440p Low and 43 FPS at 4K Low—a reduction of 24% and 48% respectively from the 1080p baseline. This non-linear scaling suggests that memory bandwidth and capacity become increasingly strained at higher resolutions. The gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution is also telling: at 1080p, the difference is 37 FPS (83 vs 46), while at 4K it narrows to 20 FPS (43 vs 23). This compression at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is already saturated, so lowering settings yields diminishing returns. The RTX 3050’s 90 W TDP and dual-slot design are adequate for its power needs, but they do not compensate for the raw performance deficit. In essence, this GPU defines the experience: capable for 1080p gaming at lower presets, but insufficient for higher resolutions or demanding settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the benchmark data shows a full range of options. The Low preset delivers an average of 83 FPS, which is the best result for this combo. Medium averages 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 FPS and a maximum of 68 FPS. High averages 53 FPS, and Ultra averages 46 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra represents a 45% reduction in average frame rate, confirming that each preset tier has a significant cost. The minimum FPS data for Medium (50 FPS) indicates that even at 1080p, there are moments of dip, though they remain within a playable range.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. Low averages 63 FPS, still above 60, but Medium falls to 45 FPS with a minimum of 38 FPS and a maximum of 51 FPS. High averages 40 FPS, and Ultra averages 35 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 28 FPS, or 44%, which is similar to the 1080p percentage drop. However, the absolute values are lower, making the higher presets less viable. The Medium minimum of 38 FPS suggests potential stutter in demanding scenes, which would detract from the experience.

At 3840x2160, the results are universally poor. Low averages 43 FPS, Medium averages 30 FPS with a minimum of 26 FPS and a maximum of 35 FPS, High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The 4K Medium data shows a minimum of 26 FPS, which is likely to feel choppy and unresponsive. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is just 20 FPS, indicating that the GPU is the bottleneck regardless of settings. Compared to 1080p, the 4K Low result (43 FPS) is only 52% of the 1080p Low result (83 FPS), highlighting the severe penalty for pushing this GPU to 4K. Across all resolutions, the data consistently shows that higher settings and higher resolutions reduce frame rates in a predictable manner, but the absolute numbers confirm that 1080p is the only viable option for a smooth experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and setting for this combo in Control?

A: The best experience is at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which achieves an average of 83 FPS. This is the only setting/resolution combination that delivers frame rates well above 60 FPS, providing the smoothest gameplay.

Q: Can this combo handle 1440p gaming?

A: Yes, but only with the Low preset, which averages 63 FPS. All other 1440p settings (Medium, High, Ultra) fall below 45 FPS, with Ultra dropping to 35 FPS, making them less suitable for responsive play.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: No. Even at the Low preset, the average FPS is 43, and Ultra drops to 23 FPS. The data shows that 4K is beyond the capabilities of this GPU, as all settings produce sub-60 FPS results.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to Low in terms of performance?

A: At 1080p, Ultra averages 46 FPS, which is 37 FPS lower than Low’s 83 FPS. At 1440p, Ultra averages 35 FPS versus Low’s 63 FPS, and at 4K, Ultra averages 23 FPS versus Low’s 43 FPS. The performance cost is significant at every resolution.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the Medium preset?

A: The minimum FPS for Medium is 50 FPS at 1920x1080, 38 FPS at 2560x1440, and 26 FPS at 3840x2160. These figures indicate that 1080p Medium is the only Medium setting with a minimum above 60 FPS.

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

A: This combo ranks 2522 out of 2888 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the bottom 13% of the database. The rank is primarily due to the GPU’s limitations, as the CPU is in the 93rd percentile of all processors.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a high-end processor that provides substantial compute power, but in this gaming combo, its role is largely secondary to the GPU. The CPU features 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This is a 3 nm Arrow Lake-S architecture design from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration delivers strong multi-threaded and single-threaded performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench scores: 42216 in R23 multicore and 5960 in R23 singlecore.

The CPU’s benchmark results place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64640. Its nearest rivals are all server-class processors (AMD EPYC 4464P, EPYC 7343, EPYC 9124) or a direct variant (Core Ultra 7 265F), with deltas of less than 1%. This indicates that the Ultra 7 265 is not the limiting factor in the Control benchmarks. The Passmark multi-thread score of 49682 and single-thread score of 4689 further demonstrate its capability. For a game like Control, which can be CPU-intensive in physics and AI calculations, this processor has ample headroom.

However, the measured FPS data shows that the CPU’s power does not translate into high frame rates because the RTX 3050 4 GB cannot keep up. The fact that the combo ranks 2522 out of 2888, despite the CPU’s top-tier status, is a clear indication that the graphics card is the bottleneck. The data suggests that at 1080p Low, the CPU could likely push far beyond 83 FPS if paired with a stronger GPU. The 5.30 GHz boost clock and 20 cores are overkill for this title’s demands, meaning there is no CPU-related stutter or frame pacing issues. In summary, the Ultra 7 265 is a powerful foundation, but its performance is wasted in this pairing; the benchmark results would improve dramatically with a more capable graphics card, as the CPU has significant untapped potential for higher frame rates.