Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and AMD Radeon RX 580 pairing in Control presents a stark case of CPU overprovision and GPU bottleneck. The processor, a 20-core Arrow Lake-S part with a 3.90 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost clock, sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Xeon 6511P (-0.2%) and the Core i7-14700KF (+1%), confirm it is operating at the top of the desktop hierarchy. Conversely, the RX 580, a Polaris 20 part from 2017 with a 1257 MHz base and 1340 MHz boost clock, sits in just the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. The benchmark results indicate a massive disparity in capability, which manifests as consistently low frame rates across all tested settings. The data shows that the GPU is the definitive limiting factor, as the CPU’s immense headroom is left largely untapped by the modest graphical workload the RX 580 can handle.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Core Ultra 7 265K is a formidable compute resource. With 20 cores and 20 threads, it provides a substantial parallel processing foundation. Its memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and support for DDR5 ensure that data can be fed to the cores efficiently. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates its strength, scoring 35,850 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 23,085 in Geekbench multi-core. Its single-thread performance is equally robust, as evidenced by a 2,713 Geekbench single-core score and a 4928 Passmark single-thread score. This combination of high multi-threaded throughput and strong per-core performance is typically ideal for modern game engines that require both physics simulation and complex game logic.

However, the measured FPS in Control does not reflect this CPU’s potential. At 1080p with Low settings, the average frame rate reaches 63 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire dataset. This indicates that even at its best, the system is only capable of delivering a playable, but not high-refresh-rate, experience. The bottleneck is clearly not the CPU. For context, the 265K performs nearly identically to the Intel Xeon 6511P, which has an average score of 71,051 versus the 265K’s 70,879, a negligible 0.2% difference. The CPU is so far ahead of the GPU’s capabilities that its role is essentially to ensure the GPU never has to wait for draw calls or physics calculations. The data suggests that the 265K could easily support a much more powerful graphics card, as its performance headroom is vast. The processor’s 125W TDP and 3nm process node also indicate it can sustain high clocks without the thermal constraints that might throttle a lesser chip, ensuring consistent frame pacing even when the GPU is struggling.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is the clear performance anchor in this configuration. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, which is adequate for 1080p but becomes strained at higher resolutions. The GPU’s 2304 shading units and 32 ROPs are a legacy of the GCN 4.0 architecture, and its 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 compute puts it in the mid-range tier of its era. In the Passmark G3D benchmark, it scores 8,813, placing it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (-0.4%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (-0.1%), which are themselves older or lower-power parts.

The GPU’s limitations are immediately apparent when examining the Control results. At 1080p High settings, the average FPS drops to 40. The RX 580’s lack of dedicated ray tracing cores and its older GCN architecture struggle with the game’s rendering features. The memory clock of 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) is not sufficient to keep up with the texture and geometry data demands at higher settings. The data shows a clear pattern: as the settings increase from Low to Ultra, the average FPS falls from 63 to 35 at 1080p, from 48 to 26 at 1440p, and from 32 to 18 at 4K. This consistent degradation across all resolutions confirms that the GPU’s compute and memory subsystems are saturated. The RX 580 is simply not designed for the graphical complexity of Control at high presets, and the benchmark results indicate that it is holding back the entire system.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling data is a textbook illustration of a GPU-bound scenario. The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is severe but predictable, and it directly correlates with the increase in pixel count. At Medium settings, the average FPS falls from 45 at 1080p to 34 at 1440p, a 24% reduction, and then to 23 at 4K, a further 32% reduction. This non-linear decline is typical when the GPU’s fillrate and memory bandwidth are exhausted. The 4K resolution demands 4 times the pixels of 1080p, and the RX 580’s 42.88 GPixel/s pixel rate is insufficient to handle that load while maintaining playable frame rates.

The most telling data point is the High preset scaling. At 1080p, the system manages 40 FPS. At 1440p, it drops to 30 FPS, and at 4K, it collapses to 20 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is working at its absolute limit even at 1080p High, and any additional resolution increase pushes it further into the sub-30 FPS territory. The Low preset shows a similar pattern, with 63 FPS at 1080p, 48 FPS at 1440p, and 32 FPS at 4K. While these numbers are higher, they still demonstrate a significant performance penalty. The data proves that the CPU is not the limiting factor; if it were, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions since the CPU’s workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the FPS drops sharply, confirming that the RX 580’s rendering pipeline is the sole constraint. The 4K results, with an average of 18 FPS on Ultra, are effectively unplayable, highlighting the GPU’s complete inability to handle high-fidelity rendering at modern resolutions.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best-case FPS scenario for this CPU and GPU combination in Control?*

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 63 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration that approaches a smooth 60 FPS experience.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K compare to its closest rival in terms of overall performance?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265K has an average benchmark score of 70,879, which is 0.2% lower than the Intel Xeon 6511P’s score of 71,051. It is also 1% faster than the Intel Core i7-14700KF, which scores 70,163.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 580 a high-performing GPU relative to other graphics cards?

A: No. The RX 580 ranks in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 12,928. It performs within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, which scores 12,986.

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

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the average FPS is 45. At 3840x2160 Medium, the average FPS drops to 23. This represents a 48.9% reduction in frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit the frame rate in this game?

A: The data clearly shows the GPU is the limiting component. The FPS drops consistently as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU’s performance is significantly higher than what the GPU can utilize.

Q: Can the system achieve 60 FPS at 1440p?

A: No. The highest average FPS at 2560x1440 is 48, achieved on Low settings. All other settings at 1440p fall below 34 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system’s performance across a matrix of resolutions and quality presets. The following is the exact breakdown from the benchmark results.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 63 FPS average
• Medium: 45 FPS average, with a minimum of 38 FPS and a maximum of 51 FPS
• High: 40 FPS average
• Ultra: 35 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 48 FPS average
• Medium: 34 FPS average, with a minimum of 29 FPS and a maximum of 39 FPS
• High: 30 FPS average
• Ultra: 26 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 32 FPS average
• Medium: 23 FPS average, with a minimum of 19 FPS and a maximum of 26 FPS
• High: 20 FPS average
• Ultra: 18 FPS average

The data reveals a clear hierarchy. At 1080p, the system is capable of playable frame rates on Low and Medium presets. The jump to 1440p immediately pushes the average below 50 FPS, even on Low. At 4K, the system is only able to produce results in the low 20s and high teens, indicating a completely unplayable experience. The Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values, suggesting that it is the most stable configuration, albeit still not a high-performance one. The frame rate deltas between settings at each resolution are consistent, showing that the GPU’s performance scales linearly with the quality preset. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 28 FPS, at 1440p it is 22 FPS, and at 4K it is 14 FPS. This diminishing delta at higher resolutions further emphasizes that the GPU is running out of raw processing power, not just memory bandwidth.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this hardware configuration depend heavily on the target resolution and the user's tolerance for frame rate dips.

For 1080p gaming, the Medium preset is the most balanced choice. It delivers an average of 45 FPS with a minimum of 38 FPS, which is a reasonable playable experience that avoids the worst frame rate stutters. The Low preset offers a higher average of 63 FPS, but it does so by sacrificing visual fidelity. The High preset at 40 FPS is playable, but the jump to Ultra at 35 FPS starts to feel sluggish. Therefore, Medium is the recommended preset for 1080p, as it provides a playable frame rate without the harsh visual compromises of Low.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more challenging. The Low preset, with an average of 48 FPS, is the only option that approaches a console-like 60 FPS, but it is still below that threshold. The Medium preset drops to 34 FPS, which is borderline playable but will feel choppy in fast-paced action sequences. The High and Ultra presets, at 30 FPS and 26 FPS respectively, are not recommended for a smooth experience. For 1440p, the data suggests that Low is the only viable preset for consistent performance, as all other options fall into the sub-35 FPS range.

For 4K gaming, the data is unequivocal: no preset provides a playable experience. The highest average FPS is 32 on Low, which dips to 23 on Medium and 18 on Ultra. These frame rates are far below the minimum threshold for a playable game, resulting in a slideshow-like experience. The benchmark results indicate that 4K is not a realistic target for this combination. Users should stick to 1080p or 1440p with Low or Medium settings to achieve the best possible experience. The data strongly suggests that the RX 580’s performance ceiling is at 1080p Medium, where the system can maintain an average FPS above 40, making it the only resolution and preset combination that balances visual quality and playability.