Control

Control, Remedy’s 2019 action-adventure, presents a demanding environment for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. The benchmark data reveals a combination that is heavily constrained by the graphics card, with the CPU’s substantial processing power largely left untapped at every measured setting. The results indicate a system that can achieve playable frame rates only at the lowest settings and resolutions, while higher presets quickly push the GTX 1650 beyond its capabilities.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a stark and predictable decline as resolution increases, clearly identifying the GPU as the primary performance limiter. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces an average of 56 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 drops this to 43 FPS, a reduction of 23.2%. At 3840x2160, the average falls further to 29 FPS, which is 48.2% lower than the 1080p result. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the number of pixels rendered directly dictates the workload.

The trend continues across all settings presets. At High settings, the frame rate drops from 36 FPS at 1080p to 27 FPS at 1440p (a 25% decrease) and then to 18 FPS at 4K (a 50% decrease from 1080p). The Medium preset shows a similar trajectory: 40 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 20 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset, which is the most demanding, yields 31 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and just 16 FPS at 4K, representing a 48.4% drop from 1080p to 4K.

The consistency of the percentage drops across different presets is a strong indicator that the GPU is the bottleneck. If the CPU were a limiting factor, the scaling between resolutions would be more moderate, as the CPU workload would remain relatively constant. Instead, the frame rate scales almost linearly with the pixel count, confirming that the GTX 1650's rendering throughput is the limiting component. The data suggests that this combo is not viable for 4K gaming in Control, as even the Low preset fails to reach 30 FPS. The 1440p resolution remains marginal, with only the Low preset exceeding 40 FPS, while 1080p offers the only practical path to smoother gameplay.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. Its memory clock is listed as 2001 MHz, with an effective data rate of 8 Gbps. The card operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. These specifications position the GTX 1650 as a modest performer, which is reflected in its 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database.

In Control, the GPU’s limitations are evident. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is likely a significant factor at higher resolutions and settings, where texture data can easily exceed this amount. The benchmark data shows that at 3840x2160, even the Medium preset only manages an average of 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 24. This suggests that the card is not only struggling with pixel throughput but may also be constrained by memory capacity. The GPU's compute capabilities, rated at 2.984 TFLOPS for FP32, are insufficient for the game's demands at high resolutions.

The GTX 1650's performance relative to its nearest rivals in the database is close. Its average benchmark score of 7472 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447) and Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441), with delta percentages of 0.3% and 0.4% respectively. It is also just 1% behind the Intel Arc A310's score of 7550. This indicates that the GTX 1650 is not an outlier in its class, but rather a representative member of a low-to-mid-range performance tier. The measured FPS in Control confirms this, showing a card that can handle the game at low settings but is overwhelmed by higher graphical demands.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves in Control?

A: The best result is 56 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: Is this combination capable of 4K gaming in Control?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average frame rate is 29 FPS on Low settings. The High, Medium, and Ultra presets produce 18, 20, and 16 FPS respectively, all of which are below playable levels.

Q: How much of a performance difference is there between the Low and Ultra presets at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset yields an average of 43 FPS, while the Ultra preset yields an average of 23 FPS. This represents a 46.5% reduction in performance when switching from Low to Ultra.

Q: What is the frame rate range for the Medium preset at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 40, with a minimum of 34 and a maximum of 46.

Q: How does this GPU compare to the Intel Arc A310 in general benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, which is 1% lower than the Intel Arc A310's score of 7550.

Q: What is the lowest average frame rate recorded for this combo?

A: The lowest average is 16 FPS, which occurs at 3840x2160 resolution with the Ultra settings preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the combo's performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. The data was collected for 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160, with settings at Low, Medium, High, and Ultra.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 56 FPS. Medium settings yield an average of 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 and a maximum of 46. High settings result in an average of 36 FPS. The Ultra preset delivers an average of 31 FPS. This shows a clear progression where each step up in quality costs a significant number of frames, but even the most demanding preset at this resolution remains playable.

At 2560x1440, performance takes a noticeable hit. The Low preset averages 43 FPS. The Medium preset averages 30 FPS, with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 35. High settings drop to an average of 27 FPS. The Ultra preset is the lowest at this resolution, averaging 23 FPS. While the Low preset remains playable, the higher presets begin to feel sluggish, with the Ultra preset falling below the 30 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the combo is clearly out of its depth. The Low preset is the only one that approaches playability, with an average of 29 FPS. The Medium preset averages just 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 24. High settings average 18 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages a mere 16 FPS. None of the 4K results reach a smooth playable state, indicating that this resolution is not a viable option for this hardware combination in Control.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the only configuration that provides a consistently smooth experience is 1920x1080 with the Low settings preset, which yields an average of 56 FPS. This is the only measured scenario that approaches a standard 60 FPS target. For players who prefer higher visual fidelity, the Medium preset at 1080p offers a balanced compromise, with an average of 40 FPS and a minimum of 34 FPS, which remains mostly fluid.

The Ultra preset at 1080p is playable, with an average of 31 FPS, but it is on the edge of what most would consider comfortable. At higher resolutions, the options are limited. The Low preset at 2560x1440 produces an average of 43 FPS, which is playable, but the Medium preset at this resolution drops to 30 FPS, making it marginal. All 4K presets are effectively unplayable, as they all fall below 30 FPS. Given the data, the best experience is firmly at 1080p, where the user can either prioritize frame rate with the Low preset or accept a lower, but still acceptable, frame rate for improved visuals with the Medium preset.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. It has a 30 MB shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus. Its benchmark scores are strong; for example, it achieves 35,850 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,020 in single-core. It ranks in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 70,879, placing it just 1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-14700KF.

Despite this substantial processing power, the CPU’s role in Control with this GPU is largely passive. The benchmark data shows that the frame rates are consistently low across all resolutions, which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU is not the limiting factor; it is capable of feeding the GTX 1650 with more data than the GPU can render. This is evident from the fact that increasing resolution, which increases GPU load but not CPU load, causes frame rates to plummet. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would be more consistent across different resolutions.

The data indicates that the Ultra 7 265K is severely underutilized in this configuration. The game is not demanding enough on the CPU side to stress this processor, so its high core count and clock speeds are irrelevant to the final frame rate. The combo's performance is dictated almost entirely by the GTX 1650. Therefore, the CPU's role here is to provide a stable platform without introducing any bottlenecks, which it does effectively, but its potential for gaming performance is left unrealized due to the GPU's limitations.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3,588th out of 3,720 total combos for Control. This places it in the bottom 4th percentile of all tested systems, indicating very low overall performance for this game. The ranking reflects the severe imbalance between the high-end CPU and the entry-level GPU.

The low rank is almost entirely attributable to the GPU. While the CPU is a top-tier processor, the GTX 1650 is an end-of-life product from a previous generation, and its performance is far below what is needed to run a demanding title like Control at high settings. The data supports this conclusion: the combo's scores are poor across the board, with no resolution or setting combination achieving a high frame rate. This pairing is a clear example of a CPU being held back by its GPU, resulting in a system that is not well-suited for modern gaming performance. The rank of 3,588 out of 3,720 serves as a quantitative confirmation that this combination is not a competitive option for Control.