Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX paired with the AMD Radeon 890M presents a fascinating case study in integrated graphics performance within a demanding action-adventure title. The data for Control reveals a configuration that is heavily constrained by its graphics solution, yet the processor’s capabilities ensure a baseline of performance that scales predictably with resolution and quality settings. This analysis breaks down the measured frames per second, contextualizes the hardware’s standing, and explores the dynamic between the CPU and GPU.

FAQ

Q: What is the average frame rate at 1920x1080 with Low settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings is 58 frames per second. This is the highest average frame rate recorded across all tested configurations for this combo, indicating that it is the most viable path to a smooth experience.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX compare to its nearest rivals in overall CPU benchmark scores?

A: The CPU’s average benchmark score is 63173. It is virtually tied with the Intel Core i7-13790F, which has a score of 63080 and a deltaPct of 0.1. It sits between the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G, which is 0.2% faster, and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185, which is 0.5% slower.

Q: What is the combo’s standing among all tested system configurations for this game?

A: The data indicates that this specific combination of CPU and GPU ranks 2728 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the lower percentile of systems, suggesting that most other configurations deliver higher performance.

Q: What is the GPU’s percentile ranking compared to all other graphics cards?

A: The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor with a percentile ranking of 45 among all GPUs. This means it performs better than roughly 45% of all GPUs in the benchmark database, but it is outclassed by the majority of discrete solutions.

Q: What is the average FPS difference between 1080p and 4K at Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 41. When the resolution is increased to 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the average FPS drops to 21. This represents a significant performance hit of nearly half the frame rate.

Q: Does the CPU have a high core count, and what is its boost clock speed?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX features 20 cores and 20 threads. Its base clock speed is 2.60 GHz, and it can boost up to 5.30 GHz, making it a very powerful mobile processor from a computational standpoint.

Settings Recommendations

The benchmark data for Control shows a clear performance hierarchy across the four tested settings presets. The primary goal for any configuration is to maintain a playable frame rate, and the data suggests that the "Ultra" preset is largely aspirational for this hardware. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset yields an average of 32 FPS, which falls below the target for smooth, responsive gameplay. The High preset at 1080p improves this to 37 FPS, but the most significant jump occurs when moving to the Medium preset, which achieves an average of 41 FPS.

However, the most compelling case for the best experience comes from the Low preset. At 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average frame rate of 58 FPS, a substantial 17 FPS improvement over Medium. This is the only configuration tested that approaches the 60 FPS threshold, which is typically considered the standard for fluid action in a game like Control. While visual fidelity is reduced, the gain in smoothness is substantial.

Therefore, the data strongly indicates that the Low preset at 1920x1080 offers the best overall experience. It provides the highest measured average frame rate, ensuring the game remains responsive and playable. For users who prioritize visual quality over maximum smoothness, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 is a viable alternative, offering a 41 FPS average that remains playable, though with a greater risk of noticeable frame pacing issues. The High and Ultra presets are not recommended at any resolution, as their average frame rates dip below 37 FPS even at 1080p, and become unplayable at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The performance data for this combination is sobering. The combo rank of 2728 out of 2888 tested systems places it in the bottom 5-6% of all configurations tested in Control. This is a clear indicator that, for this specific game, the hardware is not well-suited for high-fidelity or high-resolution gaming. The ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's limitations, as the CPU is a high-end mobile part.

This low ranking becomes more understandable when examining the individual components' standings. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is a powerful processor, with a percentile rank of 93 among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 63173. It sits alongside other high-performance parts like the Intel Core i7-13790F and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G, with negligible performance deltas of 0.1% and -0.2%, respectively. This places it firmly in the top tier of mobile processors.

In stark contrast, the AMD Radeon 890M holds a percentile rank of just 45 among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 9210 places it in direct competition with older discrete graphics cards like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, which has a deltaPct of -0.7. This juxtaposition highlights the fundamental imbalance in this pairing for a game like Control: a top-tier CPU is being held back by a mid-range integrated GPU. The data suggests that while the CPU is capable of feeding frames far faster, the GPU is the definitive bottleneck, capping the system's overall performance and resulting in its low rank.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data offers a detailed look at the system's scaling across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are usable but not spectacular. The Low preset achieves an average of 58 FPS, which is the peak performance for this combo. Moving up to Medium yields 41 FPS, with a minimum of 35 and a maximum of 47 FPS. The High preset drops to 37 FPS, and the Ultra preset bottoms out at 32 FPS. This shows a steady and expected performance degradation as graphical fidelity increases.

At 2560x1440, the performance takes a significant hit. The Low preset averages 44 FPS, which is a 24% reduction from 1080p. The Medium preset averages 31 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. The High preset falls to 28 FPS, and the Ultra preset is only able to manage 24 FPS. These figures suggest that 1440p is a significant challenge for the integrated GPU, with even the Low preset failing to maintain a consistent 60 FPS.

Finally, at 3840x2160 (4K), the performance becomes largely unplayable. The Low preset is the only one to break the 30 FPS barrier, with an average of 30 FPS. The Medium preset falls to 21 FPS, with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 24. The High preset manages only 19 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to a slideshow-like 16 FPS. The data clearly shows that this combo is not designed for 4K gaming in Control, as even the lowest settings cannot provide a consistently smooth experience.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is the definitive limiting factor in this configuration. As an integrated graphics processor with a 15 W TDP, its performance ceiling is fundamentally different from that of discrete GPUs. The GPU's architecture is RDNA 3.5, built on a 4 nm process, and it features 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its boost clock is listed at 2900 MHz, and it has a FP32 performance of 5.939 TFLOPS.

These specifications, while respectable for an iGPU, are insufficient for the demands of Control at higher settings. The GPU's benchmark scores reflect this, with a Passmark G3D score of 8076 and a percentile rank of 45. Its performance is directly comparable to older discrete cards like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, which reflects its capability but also highlights its age relative to modern dedicated hardware. The system's VRAM is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the main system memory, which is "System Dependent" in bandwidth. This shared memory architecture further limits performance, especially at higher resolutions where memory bandwidth demands increase. The data indicates that the GPU is consistently the bottleneck, as frame rates drop sharply with any increase in graphical load, regardless of the CPU's capability.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is an exceptionally capable processor that is underutilized in this gaming scenario. With 20 cores and 20 threads, a boost clock of up to 5.30 GHz, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache, it is built for heavy multi-threaded workloads. Its benchmark scores are impressive, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 40642 and a single-core score of 5737. It ranks in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics, and draw calls, and it does so with ease. The data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck. For instance, at 1080p Low, the frame rate is 58 FPS, but when the resolution is increased to 4K Low, it drops to 30 FPS. If the CPU were the limiting factor, this kind of resolution change would have a minimal impact on frame rate. The fact that the FPS nearly halves indicates that the GPU is struggling to render at higher resolutions, while the CPU is waiting for the GPU to finish its work. The CPU's high Passmark single-thread score of 4500 ensures that it can process the game's main thread efficiently, but this power is wasted when the GPU cannot keep up.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K provides definitive proof of a GPU-bound system. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 58 at 1080p to 44 at 1440p (a 24% decrease) and then to 30 at 4K (a 48% decrease from 1440p). This near-linear scaling with pixel count is a classic sign that the GPU is the primary constraint. The CPU is capable of delivering a high frame rate, but the GPU's rendering throughput is insufficient to maintain it as the pixel workload increases.

The trend is even more pronounced at Medium settings. The average FPS is 41 at 1080p, drops to 31 at 1440p, and then plummets to 21 at 4K. The performance hit from 1080p to 4K is a 49% reduction. This pattern strongly suggests that the game is heavily reliant on the GPU for the additional graphical effects and higher resolution. The CPU's performance is consistent, but it is the GPU's fill rate and shader processing power that dictate the final frame rate.

This scaling behavior has important implications. A user with a 1080p monitor can achieve a playable experience on Low settings. However, attempting to game at 1440p or 4K will result in a significant and noticeable decline in smoothness, regardless of the settings preset. The data implies that to improve performance at higher resolutions, the system would require a more powerful discrete GPU. The CPU is not the limiting factor; it is the integrated graphics solution that prevents this combo from achieving higher frame rates as resolution increases.