Control

The AMD Radeon 880M integrated GPU paired with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX produces a playable but constrained experience in Control, with performance firmly anchored by the graphics solution rather than the processor. At 1080p, the combo delivers a maximum average of 55 FPS on Low settings, which drops to 30 FPS at Ultra, indicating that while the game is playable at lower presets, it cannot sustain high frame rates at higher visual fidelity. The data shows a clear pattern: resolution scaling has a dramatic impact on performance, with average frame rates nearly halving when moving from 1080p to 1440p and again when stepping up to 4K, confirming that the Radeon 880M's limited shading power and memory bandwidth are the primary bottlenecks in this title.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance curve as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 55 FPS, but this falls to 42 FPS at 1440p and further to 28 FPS at 4K. This represents a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 33% drop from 1440p to 4K, showing that the integrated GPU's fill rate and pixel processing capabilities degrade quickly with higher pixel counts. The trend is consistent across all settings: at High, the frame rate goes from 35 FPS at 1080p to 26 FPS at 1440p and 18 FPS at 4K, a 26% and 31% reduction respectively.

The scaling pattern indicates that the limiting component is unequivocally the GPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the processor's workload would not increase proportionally with pixel count. Instead, the consistent frame rate drops at each resolution step demonstrate that the Radeon 880M's 768 shading units and 16 ROPs are saturated by the rendering demands of Control. The gap between Low and Ultra settings also widens at higher resolutions: at 1080p, Ultra (30 FPS) is 45% slower than Low (55 FPS), but at 4K, Ultra (15 FPS) is 46% slower than Low (28 FPS), showing that the GPU's limitations are equally impactful across all quality presets.

The 4K results are particularly telling, with even Low settings producing only 28 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. This suggests that the 880M's memory system, which is shared with the system and has bandwidth described as "System Dependent," cannot keep up with the data throughput required at 4K in a game with Control's complex physics and particle effects. The 1080p Medium result, with an average of 39 FPS and a minimum of 33 FPS, provides the most stable experience, indicating that this resolution and preset combination is the practical ceiling for this hardware in this game.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this hardware in Control?*

A: Based on the measured data, 1080p with Medium settings provides the most balanced experience, delivering an average of 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS. This is the only preset where the minimum frame rate stays above 30 FPS, suggesting it is the most consistent option.

*Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Control?*

A: No. The data shows that even at Low settings, 4K produces only 28 FPS, which is below playable thresholds. At Ultra, the frame rate falls to 15 FPS, making 4K impractical for this game on this hardware.

Q: How does the Radeon 880M compare to its nearest GPU rivals in terms of raw performance?

A: The Radeon 880M has an average benchmark score of 8436, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. It is virtually tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, which scores 8427 (0.1% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330, which scores 8458 (0.3% higher). This indicates it performs at the level of older dedicated mobile GPUs.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX a strong performer relative to other CPUs?

A: Yes. The CPU sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 63173. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-13790F, scores 63080, which is only 0.1% lower, showing that the 265HX is competitive with high-end desktop processors from previous generations.

*Q: Does the CPU or GPU have a larger impact on Control's performance?*

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The CPU is a high-end mobile processor with 20 cores and 20 threads, but the GPU's 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 43rd percentile ranking limit frame rates. The resolution scaling data confirms that performance drops significantly with higher pixel counts, a hallmark of GPU limitation.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, Low settings produce 55 FPS, while Ultra settings produce 30 FPS. This is a 45% reduction, indicating that the visual quality settings have a substantial impact on performance, but even the lowest settings cannot push frame rates above 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX and AMD Radeon 880M ranks 2817 out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 3% of all configurations. This ranking is primarily driven by the GPU's limitations, as the Radeon 880M's 43rd percentile performance among all GPUs is a poor match for a game with demanding rendering requirements. While the CPU is a strong performer, ranking in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, it cannot compensate for the GPU's inability to maintain high frame rates.

The combo's low ranking is consistent with the measured FPS data, which shows that the maximum achievable frame rate at any resolution and settings combination is 55 FPS at 1080p Low. This is significantly below the performance of dedicated gaming GPUs, and the ranking reflects that. The fact that the CPU is performing at a high level relative to other processors, yet the combo still ranks in the bottom 3%, underscores that the GPU is the sole limiting factor in this pairing.

For context, the CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-13790F and AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G, have average scores within 0.2% of the 265HX, but none of these processors are paired with integrated graphics that could compete with even entry-level dedicated GPUs. The combo ranking in Control is a direct result of the integrated GPU's performance ceiling, and users seeking higher frame rates would need to consider a configuration with a discrete graphics card.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings achieve an average of 55 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this hardware in Control. Medium settings produce 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS, providing a playable experience with some headroom. High settings drop to 35 FPS, while Ultra settings yield 30 FPS. The 5 FPS difference between High and Ultra is smaller than the 16 FPS gap between Low and Medium, suggesting diminishing returns at higher quality presets.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance declines noticeably. Low settings produce 42 FPS, which is a 24% reduction from 1080p. Medium settings average 30 FPS with a minimum of 25 FPS and a maximum of 34 FPS, which is at the edge of playability. High settings drop to 26 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 23 FPS. The minimum frame rate at Medium, 25 FPS, indicates that stuttering may occur during intense scenes, making 1440p a marginal experience for this game.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings achieve 28 FPS, Medium averages 20 FPS with a minimum of 17 FPS and a maximum of 23 FPS, High drops to 18 FPS, and Ultra falls to 15 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 13 FPS, which is proportionally similar to the differences seen at lower resolutions, but the absolute numbers are too low for any preset to be considered viable. The 4K data confirms that this combo is not suited for high-resolution gaming in Control.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, with 12 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 400 MHz and can boost up to 2900 MHz, delivering a peak FP32 performance of 4.454 TFLOPS. These specifications place it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8436.

In Control, the GPU's role is dominant. The game's rendering demands, which include complex physics-based destruction and particle effects, heavily tax the 880M's limited shading resources. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck at all resolutions, as evidenced by the consistent frame rate drops when increasing pixel count. The 16 ROPs are particularly limiting for fill-rate-intensive scenes, and the shared memory system, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," constrains data throughput. The GPU's nearest rivals, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX and MX330, have similar average scores (8427 and 8458 respectively), and both are older dedicated mobile GPUs, confirming that the 880M's performance is comparable to entry-level discrete solutions from a decade ago.

The 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is insufficient for Control at high settings and resolutions. The GPU's Vulkan score of 40006 in Geekbench suggests some capability, but the game's DirectX 12 rendering path, supported via the "12 Ultimate (12_2)" API, does not translate into playable frame rates. The 880M's 12 ray tracing cores are present, but enabling ray tracing would further degrade performance, and the data does not include any RT-specific measurements, indicating that the default rendering pipeline is already taxing the GPU heavily.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is a high-end mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture. It has 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The CPU includes 30 MB of shared L3 cache and supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. It is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC and has a TDP of 55 W, making it a powerful processor for mobile workloads.

In Control, the CPU's role is supportive but not limiting. The processor's 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 63173, indicates that it has ample processing power for the game's logic and physics calculations. The nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i7-13790F (63080) and AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G (63331), have nearly identical average scores, showing that the 265HX is competitively positioned. Its single-thread performance, as measured by Cinebench R23 at 5737, is strong and ensures that the game's main thread is not a bottleneck.

The CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads provide substantial multi-threaded capability, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 40642, but Control does not scale perfectly across all cores. The measured FPS data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor, as frame rates drop significantly with resolution increases, which would not occur if the processor were saturated. The CPU's 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is shared with the GPU, and while this is sufficient for the processor's needs, the GPU's shared memory access can create contention, potentially impacting performance in memory-intensive scenes. However, the data indicates that the GPU's raw compute limits are the primary constraint, and the CPU has more than enough headroom to support the frame rates achieved.