Control

FAQ

Q: What is the overall ranking of this CPU and GPU combo in Control?

A: This combo ranks 3176 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control, placing it in the lower half of all tested systems.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration, and how does it affect 4K performance?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. At 3840x2160, average FPS ranges from 25 at Ultra to 46 at Low, showing the memory and bandwidth are insufficient for smooth 4K gameplay at higher settings.

Q: What are the CPU's core and clock specifications?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K features 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. It has 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core.

Q: How does the combo perform at 1080p across different quality presets?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS is 91 on Low, 64 on Medium, 57 on High, and 50 on Ultra. The spread between Low and Ultra is 41 FPS, indicating the GPU becomes the limiting factor as settings increase.

Q: What is the GPU's benchmark percentile and how close are its nearest rivals?

A: The GPU sits in the 41st percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon 540, scores 0.7% lower, while the Intel Arc A310 trails by 2.3%, showing the 1660 Ti is marginally ahead of a cluster of entry-level cards.

Q: Does the CPU's benchmark score place it above or below the i7-14700KF?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265K has an average benchmark score of 70879, which is 1% higher than the Intel Core i7-14700KF's 70163. It also outperforms the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F by 1.3%.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti lands at rank 3176 out of 3720 tested configurations in Control. This places the pairing in the 15th percentile of all tested combos — a position that reflects a severe imbalance between the two components.

The CPU is a top-tier processor, sitting in the 94th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 70879. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6511P at 0.2% lower, the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 at 0.7% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F at 1.3% lower. The CPU's multi-core strength is evident from a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35850 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 23085.

The GPU, however, is in the 41st percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 7723. Its nearest rivals are all within 2.3% — the AMD Radeon 540 at 0.7% higher, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 1.9% higher, and the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 2.2% higher. This places the 1660 Ti in a cluster of low-end cards, despite its 1536 shading units and 48 ROPs.

The result is a system where the CPU is vastly overqualified for the GPU's capabilities. In Control, the combo ranks low primarily because the GPU cannot translate the CPU's computational strength into frame rate. The data shows this is a GPU-bound scenario at every resolution and setting tested — the CPU's 20 cores and 5.50 GHz boost clock are never the bottleneck. The ranking reflects what happens when a high-end processor is paired with a mid-range GPU from a previous generation.

GPU Role

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is built on the Turing architecture at a 12 nm process node, containing 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. It operates with a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, with memory running at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The 6 GB GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus delivers 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

In Control, the GPU's role is decisive. The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: every resolution and setting combination is limited by the GPU's throughput. At 1920x1080, the GPU manages 91 FPS on Low, which drops to 50 FPS on Ultra. At 2560x1440, the range narrows to 69 FPS on Low and 38 FPS on Ultra. At 3840x2160, the GPU struggles significantly — 46 FPS on Low and just 25 FPS on Ultra.

The GPU's 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 169.9 GTexel/s texture rate are insufficient for Control's demands at higher resolutions. The game's action-adventure genre requires consistent frame pacing, and the data shows the 1660 Ti can only deliver smooth 60+ FPS at 1080p Low. The 48 ROPs and 84.96 GPixel/s pixel rate are particularly limiting at 4K, where the GPU's fill rate becomes the primary constraint.

The GPU's DirectX 12 support (12_1) is present, but its Passmark DirectX 12 score of just 51 indicates weak DX12 performance. The Passmark G3D score of 12871 confirms the card's mid-range positioning; it trails the nearest rivals by less than 2.3%, meaning the 1660 Ti is functionally equivalent to entry-level cards from other vendors in raw compute.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, with some rows including minimum and maximum FPS values.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 46 FPS average
• Medium: 33 FPS average, 28 FPS minimum, 38 FPS maximum
• High: 29 FPS average
• Ultra: 25 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 69 FPS average
• Medium: 49 FPS average, 41 FPS minimum, 56 FPS maximum
• High: 43 FPS average
• Ultra: 38 FPS average

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 91 FPS average
• Medium: 64 FPS average, 55 FPS minimum, 74 FPS maximum
• High: 57 FPS average
• Ultra: 50 FPS average

The pattern is consistent: each jump from Low to Medium costs roughly 25-30% of the frame rate. From Medium to High, the drop is smaller at around 12-15%, and from High to Ultra, another 12-15% is lost. The minimum FPS values at Medium settings show the GPU can dip below 60 FPS even at 1080p — 55 FPS minimum — which would cause noticeable stutter in a game like Control that relies on responsive gameplay.

At 4K, the GPU is clearly out of its depth. The 33 FPS average at Medium with a 28 FPS minimum means even the lowest preset delivers sub-60 FPS. The 46 FPS at Low is the only playable option at 4K, and even that is marginal.

At 1440p, the GPU offers a more viable experience. Low at 69 FPS is smooth, and Medium at 49 FPS is acceptable for a slower-paced action-adventure title. High at 43 FPS and Ultra at 38 FPS are borderline.

At 1080p, the GPU shows its best. Low at 91 FPS is excellent, Medium at 64 FPS is solid, High at 57 FPS is near the 60 FPS target, and Ultra at 50 FPS is playable but not ideal.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to a clear recommendation hierarchy based on resolution.

For 1080p displays: The Medium preset at 64 FPS average offers the best balance. The 55 FPS minimum ensures the game stays within a comfortable range for action sequences. High at 57 FPS is tempting, but the average is below the 60 FPS target, and the lack of min/max data for High means the dips could be more severe. Ultra at 50 FPS is not recommended — the visual upgrade from High to Ultra is typically minor, but the 7 FPS loss is significant. Low at 91 FPS is only for competitive play, which Control is not.

For 1440p displays: The Low preset at 69 FPS is the only option that consistently stays above 60 FPS. Medium at 49 FPS with a 41 FPS minimum means the game will frequently drop below the 60 FPS threshold, which is noticeable in a game with physics-based combat. High at 43 FPS and Ultra at 38 FPS are playable on a console-like 30 FPS target, but on a PC, they fall short of expectations.

For 4K displays: The GPU cannot deliver a smooth experience at any setting. Low at 46 FPS is the only option above 30 FPS, and even that is below the standard 60 FPS target. Medium at 33 FPS is playable at a console level, but the 28 FPS minimum means there will be visible stutter during intense scenes. High at 29 FPS and Ultra at 25 FPS are not recommended — they are below the 30 FPS playability threshold.

The data suggests that 1080p Medium is the sweet spot for this combo. It provides a 64 FPS average with a 55 FPS minimum, which is adequate for an action-adventure game that requires responsive controls. Users with 1440p displays should accept Low settings to maintain frame rate. 4K is not a viable option for this GPU in Control.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.90 GHz, a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, and a 125 W TDP. The CPU supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

In Control, the CPU's role is minimal because the GPU is the bottleneck at every measured point. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35850 and single-core score of 2020 indicate it has more than enough computational headroom. The Passmark multi-thread score of 58594 and single-thread score of 4928 further confirm this.

The 20 cores and 20 threads are far more than Control requires. The game's engine is not heavily multithreaded, and the measured FPS data shows no scenario where the CPU limits performance. Even at 1080p Low, where the GPU achieves 91 FPS, the CPU is not the constraint — the 5.50 GHz boost clock on a single core is sufficient for the game's main thread.

The CPU's 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core provide ample memory hierarchy for game data. The 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die indicate a complex design that is overkill for this GPU pairing.

The CPU's benchmark results place it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, with an average score of 70879. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6511P, scores 0.2% lower, while the Intel Core i7-14700KF is 1% lower. This places the 265K among the fastest desktop processors available.

In this specific combo, the CPU contributes no measurable performance differentiation in Control. The FPS differences between settings are entirely attributable to GPU load. Users who upgrade the GPU in the future will see substantial FPS gains, as the CPU has significant headroom. The data shows the 265K can support far more powerful GPUs without becoming a bottleneck, making it a future-proof choice for this game and similar titles.