Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX paired with the AMD Radeon 760M represents a specific, and severely constrained, configuration for playing Control. The benchmark data reveals a system where the integrated GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck, resulting in a gameplay experience that is fundamentally limited across all resolutions and settings. The measured frames per second (FPS) consistently place this combo in the bottom percentile of all tested configurations, indicating that while the CPU is a high-end mobile part, the graphics solution is not equipped for this title's demands.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy for playability, with the Low preset offering the only remotely viable experience. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 40 FPS, which is the highest average frame rate recorded for this combination. This is the only setting that approaches a playable threshold, though it still falls short of the 60 FPS target many players prefer. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p is substantial, as the average FPS drops by 27.5% to 29 FPS, indicating that the graphical load increase significantly taxes the GPU.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, the Medium preset at 1080p provides a minimum FPS of 24 and a maximum of 33, offering a more stable, albeit slower, experience than the High preset's 25 FPS average. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p are largely impractical, with average frame rates of 25 and 22 FPS, respectively. The data suggests that the best experience, defined as the highest average FPS, is unequivocally the Low preset at 1920x1080. At higher resolutions, even the Low preset becomes untenable; at 2560x1440, it drops to 30 FPS, and at 3840x2160, it falls to 21 FPS. Therefore, the recommended settings for any semblance of smooth gameplay are 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This setting prioritizes frame rate, which is the critical factor for this hardware, over all graphical enhancements.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, featuring 512 shading units and a boost clock of 2599 MHz. Its performance in this game, however, is dictated by its role as a system-shared memory part. The GPU's memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent," meaning its performance is contingent on the system's main memory configuration. This architecture places a hard limit on its ability to handle the textures and geometry of a game like Control.

The GPU's benchmark scores corroborate this limitation. Its Passmark G3D score is 5310, and its DirectX 12 score is a mere 25, which is notably low. This is reflected in the measured FPS data, where the GPU struggles even at the lowest settings. The data shows a clear pattern: as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, the average FPS at the Low preset drops from 40 to 21. This is a 47.5% reduction in performance, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiting factor. The GPU's percentile ranking versus all GPUs is 35, placing it in the lower third of all graphics processors. When compared to its nearest rivals, its average benchmark score of 6019 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000), showing it is in a performance class with these older or entry-level discrete cards, yet it operates as an IGP, further limiting its sustained performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is a formidable mobile processor, featuring 20 cores and 20 threads based on the Arrow Lake architecture. Its high boost clock of 5.30 GHz and substantial 30 MB of shared L3 cache provide immense processing power. In standard CPU benchmarks, it performs exceptionally well; its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 40642, and its single-core score is 5737. Its Passmark single-thread score is 4500, and its percentile ranking versus all CPUs is 93, indicating it outperforms the vast majority of processors.

However, in this specific game configuration, the CPU's role is largely to feed the GPU. The data implies that the CPU is not the bottleneck in Control; the GPU is. For example, at 1920x1080, the difference between the Low (40 FPS) and Ultra (22 FPS) presets is 45%, a change that is entirely dependent on the GPU's workload. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see less variance between settings. The CPU's power is evident in its benchmark scores, but this power is untapped because the Radeon 760M cannot utilize it. The CPU is comparable to the Intel Core i7-13790F, with a delta of 0.1%, and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G, with a delta of -0.2%, in average benchmark scores. This indicates that the CPU is a top-tier performer, but its capabilities are wasted in this pairing, as the game's frame rate is dictated by the integrated GPU's throughput, not the CPU's processing speed.

How This Combo Ranks

The combined performance of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX and the AMD Radeon 760M in Control is extremely poor. The combo ranks 2878 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 0.3% of all systems. This rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's limitations, dragging down what is otherwise a high-performing CPU. This is a stark illustration of how a powerful processor cannot compensate for a weak graphics solution in a graphically intensive game.

The data shows that this combination is only suited for the most basic play, and even then, only at the lowest settings and resolution. The rank is a stark indicator that this is not a gaming configuration. It sits at the very bottom of the performance chart, suggesting that almost any other combination of hardware, including those with older or less powerful discrete GPUs, would provide a better experience in Control. The 20-core CPU's exceptional benchmark scores are rendered irrelevant by the GPU's inability to render frames at a competitive rate. This pairing is a textbook example of a severe performance imbalance, where the system's overall capability is defined by its weakest component, which is unequivocally the GPU.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo can achieve in Control?*

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 40, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

*Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck for this configuration in Control?*

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. For example, at 2560x1440, the average FPS at Low settings is 30, while at 1920x1080, it is 40, showing a significant performance drop with resolution increase that is characteristic of a GPU limitation.

Q: How does this combo's performance compare to other tested systems?

A: This combo ranks 2878 out of 2888 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the bottom 0.3% of all systems tested, indicating very poor overall performance.

Q: The CPU has 20 cores; why is the performance still so low?

A: While the CPU is very powerful, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 40642, its performance is irrelevant here because the AMD Radeon 760M integrated GPU cannot render frames fast enough to utilize the CPU's power. The frame rate is capped by the GPU's throughput.

Q: What is the performance difference between 1080p and 4K at the Low preset?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 40. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average FPS drops to 21, representing a 47.5% decrease in performance.

Q: Is the Medium preset at 1080p a better choice than High at the same resolution?

A: The Medium preset at 1080p has an average FPS of 29 with a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 33. The High preset has an average FPS of 25. The Medium preset offers a higher and more consistent frame rate than High, making it a better choice for gameplay fluidity if Low is not desired.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact measured FPS data for Control across all tested resolutions and settings.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

| :--------- | :------- | :------ | :------ | :------ |

| 3840x2160 | High | 13 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 21 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 15 | 12 | 17 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 11 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 19 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 30 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 22 | 18 | 25 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 17 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 25 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 40 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 29 | 24 | 33 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 22 | - | - |

Resolution Scaling

The data shows a clear and dramatic scaling pattern for this hardware configuration. At the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 40 at 1920x1080, to 30 at 2560x1440, and finally to 21 at 3840x2160. This represents a 47.5% reduction in performance when moving from 1080p to 4K. This steep decline is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering resolution directly impacts the workload on the graphics processor.

This scaling is consistent across all settings. For instance, at the Medium preset, the average FPS goes from 29 at 1080p, to 22 at 1440p, and then to 15 at 4K. The pattern is identical: each step up in resolution results in a significant, roughly 25-30% drop in frame rate. This behavior strongly suggests that the limiting component is the AMD Radeon 760M, as its processing power is insufficient to handle the increased pixel count at higher resolutions. The CPU's performance is not affected by resolution in the same way, so the consistent FPS decline across the board points directly to the GPU as the bottleneck. The system is simply not capable of providing a playable experience at 4K, and even at 1440p, the frame rates are low enough to be considered unplayable for a fast-paced action game. The only viable resolution, based on the data, is 1920x1080, and even then, only with the Low preset.