Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is a mobile combination aimed squarely at high-refresh 1440p gaming. While the CPU is a 2025 mobile part and the GPU is the flagship of the 40-series, their combined performance in Control tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies and what settings deliver the best experience. The data shows a system that can comfortably handle the game’s demanding physics and particle effects, but only if you make the right resolution and preset choices.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for this combo in Control reveals a pronounced and predictable drop as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario at 4K. At 1080p, the system posts an average of 194 FPS on Low settings. Moving to 1440p at the same Low preset, the average falls to 147 FPS, a reduction of 47 frames. That is a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p. Scaling further to 4K at Low settings, the average plummets to 99 FPS, which is another 48-frame reduction from 1440p and a 49% drop from the 1080p figure. This steep decline at higher resolutions strongly indicates that the RTX 4090 is the primary limiting factor when pixel count becomes the dominant workload.

The pattern holds across all settings presets. With High settings, the average goes from 122 FPS at 1080p, to 93 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 62 FPS at 4K. The delta between 1080p and 1440p is 29 FPS, while the delta between 1440p and 4K is 31 FPS. This near-linear scaling suggests that the GPU’s rendering pipeline is being saturated uniformly as resolution increases. The CPU, with its 20 cores and 20 threads, is not showing signs of holding back the frame rate at these lower resolutions; if it were, the 1080p to 1440p drop would be less severe relative to the 1440p to 4K drop, as the CPU would start to cap performance earlier.

At Medium settings, the same trend is visible. The average is 138 FPS at 1080p, 104 FPS at 1440p, and 70 FPS at 4K. The 34-frame gap from 1080p to 1440p and the 34-frame gap from 1440p to 4K reinforce that the GPU is the scaling bottleneck. For Ultra settings, the numbers are lower overall but the proportional drop is similar: 106 FPS at 1080p, 80 FPS at 1440p, and 54 FPS at 4K. The 26-frame difference between 1080p and 1440p, and the 26-frame difference between 1440p and 4K, confirms that even at the highest preset, the GPU’s fill rate and shading capacity are what limit the frame rate as resolution climbs.

What this scaling data suggests practically is that 1080p is not where this combo shines. The 194 FPS at Low and 122 FPS at High are far beyond what a 60Hz or even 144Hz display needs, and the CPU appears to have ample headroom. The real shift happens at 1440p, where the card still delivers over 90 FPS on High and over 80 FPS on Ultra, making it a sweet spot for high refresh rates. At 4K, the system falls below the 60 FPS threshold on Ultra (54 FPS) and only barely clears it on High (62 FPS). This indicates that 4K gaming is possible but requires a settings compromise, and the limiting component is unequivocally the GPU.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this specific pairing of Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX and RTX 4090 holds a combo rank of 612 out of 2,888 combos in Control. This places it in the 79th percentile of all tested systems for this game, meaning it outperforms roughly 79% of the other CPU-GPU pairings in the database. That is a strong result, but it is not at the very top, which is expected given that the CPU is a mobile part and the game is from 2019.

The rank of 612 out of 2,888 is notable because it shows that this mobile CPU is not dragging the flagship GPU down to a significant degree. If the CPU were a major bottleneck, the rank would likely be lower. However, the fact that there are still 611 combos ahead of it suggests that desktop CPUs with higher sustained clocks and potentially more cache can extract slightly higher frame rates in Control, particularly at 1080p where CPU overhead matters more. The data for this combo shows 1080p Low at 194 FPS, which is very high, but a desktop flagship could push that number even higher.

Compared to the GPU’s own standing, the RTX 4090 holds a percentile of 88 among all GPUs, which is higher than the combo’s percentile in this game. This delta implies that the CPU is slightly limiting the GPU’s potential in Control, even if the overall result remains excellent. Conversely, the CPU itself has a percentile of 93 among all CPUs, which is higher than the GPU’s 88. That seems contradictory at first, but it reflects that the CPU’s benchmark percentile is based on synthetic workloads like Cinebench and Passmark, which are not always directly correlated to gaming performance. In this specific game, the combo rank of 612 out of 2,888 is the most accurate measure, and it indicates a top-quartile system.

The nearest rivals to the GPU in terms of average benchmark score are the Intel Arc Pro A60, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48, and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, with delta percentages of 0%, 0.3%, and -2.5% respectively. These are workstation or professional cards, and their scores are not indicative of gaming performance. The RTX 4090’s average benchmark score of 60,347 puts it in a different class for Control than those rivals, but the comparison is included for completeness. The practical takeaway from the combo rank is that this system will handle Control with ease at most resolutions, and the only place it falls short of the absolute top tier is at extreme frame rates where desktop CPUs with higher clock speeds might edge it out.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its cache configuration includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 30 MB of L3 cache. This is a mobile CPU, but with 20 threads and a high boost clock, it is more than capable of feeding a GPU like the RTX 4090 in a game like Control.

In Control, the game’s engine is known for heavy use of physics simulations and destructible environments, which can be CPU-intensive. The 20 threads of the 265HX are likely well-utilized in these scenarios, preventing frame drops during intense action sequences. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the system achieves 194 FPS. If the CPU were weak, this number would be much lower, as the CPU would struggle to issue draw calls fast enough. The fact that the GPU can reach such high frame rates at 1080p suggests the CPU has sufficient single-thread performance (boost clock of 5.30 GHz) and multi-thread capacity to keep up.

However, the CPU’s role becomes less critical as resolution increases. At 4K Ultra, the average drops to 54 FPS, which is a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU’s load decreases relative to the GPU’s, and the 265HX has no trouble maintaining that frame rate. The benchmark scores for the CPU support its capability: Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 40,642 and single-core score of 5,737. These are strong numbers for a mobile chip, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rival in terms of average benchmark score is the Intel Core i7-13790F, with a delta of 0.1%, meaning the 265HX is essentially tied with that desktop chip in synthetic benchmarks.

The CPU’s memory support is DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. This is sufficient for gaming, and the PCIe Gen 5 support with 20 lanes ensures the RTX 4090 has a high-bandwidth connection, though the GPU itself uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU) are irrelevant for gaming with a discrete GPU but add to the CPU’s versatility. The 55W TDP is typical for a mobile HX-series chip, and while it is not a desktop part, its performance in Control is clearly not a hindrance. The data shows that the CPU is capable of delivering over 190 FPS at 1080p, which is far beyond what most displays can show, and it scales appropriately as the GPU becomes the bottleneck at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this combo provides a complete picture across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers an average of 194 FPS on Low, 138 FPS on Medium, 122 FPS on High, and 106 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset also has recorded min and max values of 117 and 158 FPS respectively, indicating a consistent frame pacing with no severe dips. The jump from Low to Medium is 56 FPS, which is a significant cost for the visual improvements, while the jump from Medium to High is 16 FPS, and from High to Ultra is another 16 FPS. This suggests that Low is the outlier, and the game becomes more GPU-bound with each step up.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 147 FPS on Low, 104 FPS on Medium, 93 FPS on High, and 80 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset here shows min and max of 89 and 120 FPS. The delta from Low to Medium is 43 FPS, from Medium to High is 11 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 13 FPS. This pattern shows that the Low preset is disproportionately faster than Medium, while the differences between Medium, High, and Ultra are more modest. At 1440p, even Ultra at 80 FPS is well above the 60 FPS target, making this resolution the best balance for high refresh rates.

At 3840x2160, the averages drop to 99 FPS on Low, 70 FPS on Medium, 62 FPS on High, and 54 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset has min and max of 60 and 81 FPS. The Low preset at 4K is still playable above 90 FPS, but High dips to just above 60 FPS, and Ultra falls below the 60 FPS threshold. This is the only resolution where the system cannot maintain a solid 60 FPS at Ultra settings. The progression from Low to Medium at 4K is a 29 FPS drop, from Medium to High is an 8 FPS drop, and from High to Ultra is another 8 FPS drop. The GPU is clearly the limiting factor here, as the CPU’s role is diminished at this pixel count.

Looking at the overall data, the most notable observation is that the 1080p Low result of 194 FPS is the highest average in the entire set, indicating that the CPU and GPU together can push extremely high frame rates when the GPU is not overburdened. The 1440p High result of 93 FPS is a strong target for a 144Hz monitor, and the 4K High result of 62 FPS is just enough for a 60Hz display. The min and max values for Medium presets at all three resolutions show that frame times are stable, with the 1080p Medium showing a 41 FPS range (117-158), 1440p Medium showing a 31 FPS range (89-120), and 4K Medium showing a 21 FPS range (60-81). This tighter range at higher resolutions is typical of GPU-bound scenarios, where the GPU’s consistent workload leads to more predictable frame times.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Control at 60 FPS on Ultra settings at 4K?*

A: No. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 54, which is below the 60 FPS target. To achieve 60 FPS at 4K, you would need to drop to High settings, where the average is 62 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for high refresh rate gaming with this combo?

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 is the sweet spot. At High settings, the average is 93 FPS, and at Ultra, it is 80 FPS. Both are well above 60 FPS and suitable for 144Hz displays. At 1080p, frame rates are higher (122 FPS at High, 106 FPS at Ultra), but the visual clarity is lower.

*Q: How does the CPU’s core count affect performance in Control?*

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. In Control, this provides ample multi-threading for physics and AI, as evidenced by the 194 FPS at 1080p Low. The CPU’s 5.30 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-thread performance, which is critical for the game’s engine.

Q: Is the GPU the bottleneck at 4K resolution?

A: Yes. The FPS drop from 1440p to 4K is substantial across all settings. For example, at High settings, the average drops from 93 FPS at 1440p to 62 FPS at 4K, a 33% reduction. This is a classic sign of GPU limitation, as the CPU has enough headroom to push higher frame rates at lower resolutions.

Q: What is the combo’s rank compared to other tested systems?

A: This combo ranks 612 out of 2,888 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the top 21% of all systems. This indicates it outperforms the majority of CPU-GPU pairings in the database for this game.

Q: Are there any settings where the frame rate is unstable?

A: The data includes min and max FPS only for Medium settings. At 1080p Medium, the range is 117 to 158 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 89 to 120 FPS; and at 4K Medium, it is 60 to 81 FPS. These ranges are relatively tight, indicating stable performance without severe dips.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target display and resolution. For 1080p, the High preset at 122 FPS is more than sufficient for any 120Hz or 144Hz monitor, and it offers better visuals than Low without a massive performance hit. The Ultra preset at 106 FPS is also viable if you prefer maximum fidelity, as it remains above 100 FPS. There is little reason to use Medium at 1080p (138 FPS) unless you are chasing extremely high refresh rates beyond 144Hz, as the difference between Medium and High is only 16 FPS.

At 1440p, the High preset delivers 93 FPS, which is the best balance for a 144Hz display, as it stays above the 90 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The Ultra preset at 80 FPS is acceptable if you want the highest visual quality and have a 120Hz monitor, but the 13 FPS drop from High to Ultra is noticeable. The Medium preset at 104 FPS is also a strong choice if you prefer higher frame rates over visual detail, but High is recommended as the sweet spot. Low at 147 FPS is overkill for most displays and sacrifices too much visual quality.

At 4K, the situation is more constrained. The High preset at 62 FPS is the only option that reliably hits 60 FPS, making it the recommended setting for a 60Hz 4K display. The Ultra preset at 54 FPS is playable but will show occasional frame pacing issues on a 60Hz display, and it is not recommended unless you have a variable refresh rate monitor. The Medium preset at 70 FPS offers a slight headroom over High, but the visual difference between Medium and High is worth the 8 FPS cost. The Low preset at 99 FPS is the only way to get a high refresh rate experience at 4K, but it significantly reduces the game’s visual fidelity.

For a 60Hz display at any resolution, the High preset is the safest recommendation. It delivers 122 FPS at 1080p, 93 FPS at 1440p, and 62 FPS at 4K, all of which are above the 60 FPS target. For a 144Hz display, the 1440p High preset (93 FPS) is the best choice, as it provides a high enough frame rate to benefit from the refresh rate while maintaining good visuals. For a 240Hz display, you would need to use 1080p Low (194 FPS) or Medium (138 FPS) to fully exploit the refresh rate, but the visual compromise is significant. In all cases, the data suggests avoiding Ultra at 4K, as the 54 FPS average does not meet the standard for smooth gameplay. The overall takeaway is that this combo excels at 1440p, and the High preset offers the most consistent experience across all resolutions.