Control

The pairing of Intel’s Core Ultra 7 265K with NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER creates a stark imbalance in Control. The data shows a processor with top-tier synthetic scores paired with a graphics card that sits near the 55th percentile of all GPUs. This dynamic dictates everything about how the game performs, from resolution scaling to final playability. The benchmark results indicate a system where the GPU is the primary bottleneck at nearly every setting, though the CPU’s headroom ensures that frame pacing remains stable even when the renderer is overwhelmed.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a dramatic collapse as resolution increases, confirming that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the limiting component. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 93.4 FPS, which is a highly playable figure. Moving to 1440p at the same Low preset drops the average to 68.5 FPS, a reduction of approximately 27%. The jump to 4K Low yields 48.1 FPS, which is another 30% decline from the 1440p result. This linear degradation pattern is classic GPU-bound behavior; the CPU is not the constraint here, as it can feed frames far faster than the GPU can render them at higher resolutions.

The scaling curve becomes even more telling when examining the High preset. The system manages 57.4 FPS at 1080p, which is smooth, but that number falls to 45 FPS at 1440p and then plummets to 26.5 FPS at 4K. The 4K High result is below the threshold for comfortable play, showing that the combination of high pixel count and increased shading complexity overwhelms the GPU’s 6 GB frame buffer and 192-bit memory bus. Notably, the delta between 1080p and 1440p at High (57.4 to 45) is a 21.6% drop, while the drop from 1440p to 4K (45 to 26.5) is a massive 41.1% decline. This non-linear scaling suggests that the card hits a memory bandwidth or capacity wall at 4K, as the 336.0 GB/s bandwidth is insufficient for the larger textures required at that resolution.

At Ultra settings, the pattern repeats but with lower absolute numbers. The system posts 52.8 FPS at 1080p, 37.1 FPS at 1440p, and 28.1 FPS at 4K. Interestingly, the gap between 4K High (26.5) and 4K Ultra (28.1) is minimal, only 1.6 FPS. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so saturated that the extra visual features enabled by the Ultra preset have little additional impact; the card is already at its absolute rendering limit, and the bottleneck shifts entirely to the pixel fill rate and texture throughput.

GPU Role

The GTX 1660 SUPER’s specifications explain why it struggles at higher resolutions. The card features a boost clock of 1785 MHz and a base clock of 1530 MHz, but these clocks are only part of the story. The 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is the critical figure for Control, a game known for its dense environments and physics-heavy destruction. At 1080p, this bandwidth is sufficient to maintain playable frame rates across all presets, from the 93.4 FPS Low result to the 52.8 FPS Ultra result. However, the data shows that the memory subsystem becomes a bottleneck as resolution climbs.

The GPU’s compute capabilities are also relevant. With 1408 shading units and a FP32 throughput of 5.027 TFLOPS, the card is competent for 1080p gaming but lacks the raw horsepower for 4K. The 4K Low result of 48.1 FPS versus the 1080p Low result of 93.4 FPS demonstrates that even with minimal graphical features, the pixel count alone cuts performance nearly in half. The texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s are insufficient for 4K Ultra, where the card manages only 28.1 FPS.

The CPU’s role in this pairing is to provide a stable foundation. The Core Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads, but Control does not heavily utilize such wide parallelism. The processor’s single-thread performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7060, ensures that the game’s main thread is never starved. This is why the FPS drops are so predictable with resolution changes; the GPU is the sole variable. The 125 W TDP of the GPU is modest, but it is the memory configuration that ultimately limits the experience in this title.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal balance between visual fidelity and playability is the Medium preset at 1080p. The data shows 67.5 FPS at this setting, which is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth action. This is a 10.1 FPS improvement over High (57.4) and a 14.7 FPS improvement over Ultra (52.8). The jump from Low to Medium costs 25.9 FPS (from 93.4 to 67.5), but the visual upgrade in Control is substantial, particularly for the game’s signature particle effects and lighting.

For users with 1440p displays, the Low preset is the only viable option for high refresh rates, delivering 68.5 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p drops to 49.4 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a game that requires quick reactions during combat sequences. The High preset at 1440p (45 FPS) is borderline, and Ultra (37.1 FPS) should be avoided unless the user prioritizes screenshots over gameplay.

At 4K, the data is unambiguous: this combo is not suited for the resolution. Even the Low preset (48.1 FPS) dips below 50 FPS, and the Medium preset (31.6 FPS) is a slideshow. The Ultra preset (28.1 FPS) and High preset (26.5 FPS) are statistically identical, which makes the High preset the marginally better choice if a user insists on 4K, as it offers the same performance with slightly better visuals. However, the benchmark results strongly suggest that 1080p Medium is the sweet spot for this configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1428th out of 1636 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the bottom 13% of all system pairings. This is a poor showing, but it is entirely attributable to the GPU. The Core Ultra 7 265K alone ranks in the 97th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79102. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF (deltaPct -0.2), Intel Core i9-14900KF (deltaPct -0.2), and Intel Core i9-14900K (deltaPct -0.9), all of which are within 1% of its performance. The processor is clearly not the issue.

In contrast, the GTX 1660 SUPER ranks in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14286. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (deltaPct -0.2), Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (deltaPct -0.2), and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (deltaPct -0.7). These are all integrated or entry-level discrete solutions, underscoring how far this card is from modern mid-range hardware. The rank of 1428 reflects that the GPU’s capabilities are mismatched with the CPU’s potential, creating a system that is severely bottlenecked in Control.

The data shows that this combo’s rank is not a measure of the CPU’s capability, but rather a consequence of pairing a top-tier processor with a legacy GPU. In a game like Control, which is graphically demanding, the frame rate is determined almost entirely by the graphics card. The CPU’s high percentile ranking does not translate into better FPS because the GPU cannot keep pace.

FAQ

*Q: Is this CPU-GPU combo capable of running Control at 4K?*

A: The data shows it is not recommended. At 4K, the average FPS ranges from 26.5 (High) to 48.1 (Low). The Ultra setting produces 28.1 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: The benchmark results indicate that 1080p is the only resolution where the combo achieves consistently playable frame rates. At 1080p, all presets exceed 52 FPS, with Low hitting 93.4 FPS and Medium hitting 67.5 FPS.

Q: Why does the FPS drop so sharply between 1440p and 4K?

A: The drop is due to the GTX 1660 SUPER’s 6 GB memory capacity and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. At 4K, the larger textures exceed the memory bus’s effective throughput, causing a disproportionate performance loss. For example, High settings drop from 45 FPS at 1440p to 26.5 FPS at 4K.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 265K bottleneck the GTX 1660 SUPER?

A: No. The CPU ranks in the 97th percentile of all processors, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 50009. The bottleneck is entirely on the GPU side, as evidenced by the large FPS variations across resolutions while the CPU remains idle.

Q: How does this combo compare to other tested systems?

A: It ranks 1428th out of 1636 combos in Control. The CPU’s nearest rivals (Core Ultra 7 265KF and Core i9-14900KF) are within 0.2% of its performance, but the GPU’s low percentile ranking drags the overall combo rank down.

Q: What settings should a user choose for a 1440p monitor?

A: The Low preset is the only option that delivers over 60 FPS, at 68.5 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 49.4 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced action. High and Ultra are not recommended at 1440p.