Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title that stresses both the CPU and GPU, and the pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT produces a wide spread of performance across resolutions and presets. The measured data reveals a system that is clearly GPU-bound at higher resolutions, but which also demonstrates enough headroom at 1080p to suggest the CPU is doing its part to keep frame rates high. The following analysis breaks down the measured FPS, the combo's standing among tested configurations, and the specific role the GPU plays in delivering these results.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep, which is typical for a game with heavy visual effects. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 189.7 at 1920x1080 to 101 at 3840x2160, a reduction of 88.7 frames per second. This indicates that the rendering load at 4K is massive, and the RX 9070 XT is the primary bottleneck at that resolution. The scaling is more moderate at High settings, where the average drops from 124.2 at 1080p to 59.6 at 4K. The gap between these two resolutions narrows as settings increase, which suggests that the GPU is already saturated by the workload at 1440p and 4K, making the additional pixel count less impactful relative to the overall render cost.

The data also shows that the gap between Medium and Ultra presets widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Medium (139.8) and Ultra (106.1) is 33.7 FPS. At 4K, that same comparison shows Medium at 71.4 and Ultra at 55.4, a difference of 16 FPS. This compression of the frame rate range at higher resolutions is a classic sign of a GPU-limited scenario. The CPU has enough headroom to push more frames, but the GPU cannot keep up with the increased pixel and shading demands. The fact that the 265K has a 30 MB shared L3 cache and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz helps ensure that it is not the limiting factor in this equation, as the benchmark results consistently show the GPU struggling to maintain high frame rates at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

Among the 1,636 tested combos in this game, this specific pairing of the Core Ultra 7 265K and the Radeon RX 9070 XT holds the 397th position. This places it in the top quarter of all tested configurations, which is a strong result for a modern high-end desktop setup. The rank reflects a balance where the CPU's strong multi-threaded performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 50,009, and the GPU's high compute throughput, come together to produce solid frame rates. However, the rank also indicates that there are many other combos that can push higher average FPS, likely due to more powerful GPUs being paired with similar or better processors.

The CPU itself sits in the 97th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79,102. Its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF and the Intel Core i9-14900KF, are essentially neck-and-neck, with deltaPct values of -0.2 and -0.2, respectively. This means the 265K is performing exactly as expected for its class, with no significant deviation from its direct competitors. The GPU, on the other hand, ranks in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 39,647. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 575, is only 0.1% behind, which shows that the RX 9070 XT is a capable but not class-leading card in this specific benchmark suite. The combo rank of 397 is thus a product of a top-tier CPU paired with a mid-to-high-tier GPU, resulting in a configuration that excels in CPU-light scenarios but is ultimately held back by the GPU at higher resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a Navi 48 chip, and its specifications directly influence the measured frame rates. The GPU has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s. This memory configuration is sufficient for Control at 4K, as the game's textures and effects can consume a significant amount of VRAM. The boost clock of 2970 MHz and game clock of 2400 MHz show a wide range of operating frequencies, which allows the card to scale its performance based on the thermal and power headroom available. The card's FP32 performance of 48.66 TFLOPS is a strong indicator of its raw compute capability, which is necessary for the game's physics and particle effects.

The benchmark data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor in most scenarios. At 1080p Low, the average FPS of 189.7 is high, but it is not the maximum possible, suggesting the CPU is still feeding the GPU enough data to keep it busy. As resolution increases, the GPU's workload becomes more intense, and the average FPS drops accordingly. The card's 128 ROPs and 256 TMUs are tasked with pixel and texture processing, and at 4K Ultra, the average of 55.4 FPS indicates that the card is fully saturated. The data also shows that the GPU's compute performance, as measured by Passmark's G3D score of 26,795, places it in the 82nd percentile, which is respectable but not exceptional. This is reflected in the game's results, where the card can handle High settings at 1440p with a 92.6 average, but struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 4K Ultra without lowering settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed picture of performance across four settings presets and three resolutions. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 189.7 FPS, which is the highest recorded value in the entire dataset. The Medium preset follows at 139.8, High at 124.2, and Ultra at 106.1. This shows a clear step-down in performance as visual fidelity increases, with the gap between Low and Ultra being 83.6 FPS. At 2560x1440, the averages are 145.4 for Low, 106 for Medium, 92.6 for High, and 78.7 for Ultra. The relative differences between presets remain consistent, but the absolute values are lower, indicating that the pixel count is beginning to tax the GPU.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 101 for Low, 71.4 for Medium, 59.6 for High, and 55.4 for Ultra. The most notable observation here is that the difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 4.2 FPS, which suggests that the Ultra preset is pushing the GPU to its absolute limit, and the extra visual features are not being fully rendered due to the bottleneck. The data also shows that the jump from Medium to High at 4K results in a drop of 11.8 FPS, which is a significant cost for the visual improvements. The spread of results across all resolutions and settings indicates that this combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can achieve high frame rates even on the Ultra preset, while at 4K, it requires a compromise on settings to maintain smooth gameplay.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1920x1080, the Ultra preset at 106.1 FPS is the best choice for users with high-refresh-rate monitors, as it provides a smooth experience without the need to compromise on visual quality. The High preset at 124.2 FPS offers a slightly higher frame rate with a minimal visual impact, but the Ultra preset is still well within the playable range. For those seeking maximum competitive performance, the Low preset at 189.7 FPS is an option, but the visual downgrade is substantial.

At 2560x1440, the High preset at 92.6 FPS is the sweet spot, offering a balance between visual fidelity and performance. The Ultra preset at 78.7 FPS is still playable, but the drop below the 90 FPS threshold may be noticeable to some users. The Medium preset at 106 FPS is a viable alternative for those who want a higher frame rate buffer, but it sacrifices some of the game's atmospheric effects. For 3840x2160, the data suggests that the High preset at 59.6 FPS is the highest setting that maintains a playable frame rate, though it is just below the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 71.4 FPS is a better choice for 4K, as it provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS while still delivering a visually rich experience. The Ultra preset at 55.4 FPS is not recommended for 4K, as the frame rate dips below the standard playable threshold, and the visual improvement over High is minimal.