Control

# Control with Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus + AMD Radeon RX 570

The pairing of Intel's Core Ultra 7 270K Plus with AMD's Radeon RX 570 creates an extreme asymmetry in Control: a 24-thread Arrow Lake Refresh CPU that ranks in the 96th percentile among all processors, paired with a Polaris 20 GPU from 2017 that sits in the 74th percentile. Benchmark results confirm the GPU becomes the decisive bottleneck at every resolution, with the CPU's capabilities largely untapped in this title. The measured FPS data shows a system that can deliver a playable experience only at 1080p with reduced settings, while 4K remains firmly out of reach.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings presets, revealing a purely GPU-limited scenario. At Low settings, average FPS falls from 57 at 1920x1080 to 43 at 2560x1440, then to 29 at 3840x2160. That represents a 24.6% decline from 1080p to 1440p, followed by a 32.6% further drop to 4K. The scaling pattern indicates the RX 570's 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 5.095 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are simply overwhelmed as pixel count rises.

At Medium settings, the progression is 40 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K—a 25% reduction per step up in resolution. High settings show 36 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K, with similar percentage drops. Ultra settings deliver 31 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and just 16 FPS at 4K. The consistency of these percentage declines across presets confirms that resolution scaling is independent of quality settings—the GPU's rendering pipeline is saturated in all cases.

The data suggests that the limiting component is unequivocally the graphics card. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, with its 5.50 GHz boost clock and 36 MB of shared L3 cache, has ample headroom to feed the RX 570 at any resolution. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44253 and single-core score of 2439 place it far above what Control requires. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect to see diminishing FPS differences as resolution increases—but the opposite occurs, with frame rates scaling almost linearly with pixel count. This is the classic signature of a GPU-bound workload.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K?

A: No. Even at Low settings, the average FPS at 3840x2160 is just 29, and Ultra settings drop to 16 FPS. The RX 570's 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus cannot sustain playable frame rates at this resolution. For 4K gaming, the data indicates a fundamentally more powerful GPU would be required.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system approaches playable frame rates. At Low settings it averages 57 FPS, and even Ultra settings reach 31 FPS. At 2560x1440, the best case is 43 FPS on Low, which may be acceptable for some players but is marginal. The 1080p results are the only ones where the system consistently stays above 30 FPS across multiple presets.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785, placing it essentially tied with the Intel Xeon 6520P at 93786 (0% delta). It trails the AMD EPYC 4564P by 1.5%, the AMD EPYC 9175F by 1.9%, and the AMD EPYC 4565P by 2.1%. Its 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it is a top-tier processor, though these rivals are all enterprise-class chips.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 570's average benchmark score of 28766 places it near the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28874, 0.4% faster), the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (28580, 0.7% slower), the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996, 0.8% slower), and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 (28421, 1.2% slower). Its 74th percentile ranking puts it in the mid-range tier of GPUs, consistent with its age and specifications.

Q: Is the CPU holding back the GPU in Control?

A: No. The benchmark data shows the GPU is the bottleneck at every resolution and settings combination. The CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with its high single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2439), far exceed what Control requires. The FPS scaling pattern—consistent percentage drops as resolution increases—is characteristic of GPU limitation, not CPU limitation.

Q: What is the combo's rank among tested systems?

A: This combination ranks 2768 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 4.2% of all tested configurations, reflecting the GPU's age and limited performance in this title. The CPU is clearly not the limiting factor; the RX 570 drags the overall ranking down significantly.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame data places this pairing at 2768 out of 2888 tested combinations, putting it in the bottom tier of all tested systems for Control. This is a remarkably low ranking for a CPU that sits in the 96th percentile among all processors. The explanation is straightforward: the RX 570's 74th percentile GPU standing, combined with its 4 GB VRAM and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, severely restricts performance in a game like Control that has demanding rendering requirements.

This ranking means that the vast majority of tested combos—over 95%—deliver higher frame rates in Control. The system outperforms only 120 of the 2888 tested configurations. For context, the CPU alone would rank near the top of any processor-only comparison, but the GPU pulls the combined result down to near the bottom. The delta between CPU percentile (96) and GPU percentile (74) illustrates this imbalance, though even that gap understates the issue because the GPU's percentile is inflated by its strong showing in compute benchmarks that don't translate to gaming performance.

The practical implication is that this combo is poorly matched for Control. Players would need to drop to 1080p and Low settings to achieve 57 FPS average, which is the only configuration that approaches smooth gameplay. The data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield dramatic improvements, while upgrading the CPU would yield almost none in this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 57 FPS, which is the only measured configuration that exceeds 60 FPS. Medium settings average 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS and maximum of 46 FPS, providing a playable experience with some visual improvements. High settings drop to 36 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 31 FPS. The 1080p results show a clear gradient: each step up in quality costs roughly 5-9 FPS, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium (17 FPS).

At 2560x1440, performance becomes marginal. Low settings average 43 FPS, which is still playable for many users. Medium settings average 30 FPS with a minimum of 26 FPS and maximum of 35 FPS, putting it right at the edge of acceptable playability. High settings drop to 27 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 24 FPS. The 1440p results show a smaller absolute difference between presets (ranging from 24 to 43 FPS) compared to 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming more constrained by resolution than by quality settings.

At 3840x2160, the system is effectively unplayable. Low settings average 29 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. Medium settings average 21 FPS with a minimum of 17 FPS and maximum of 24 FPS. High settings drop to 18 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 16 FPS. The 4K results show that even the lowest quality settings cannot produce a playable experience, and the differences between presets narrow to just 5 FPS (from 16 to 21 FPS for Ultra through Medium, with Low at 29 FPS).

The Medium settings rows are the only ones with complete min/max data. At 1080p Medium, the range is 34-46 FPS, a 12 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 26-35 FPS, a 9 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 17-24 FPS, a 7 FPS spread. This tightening of frame time variance at higher resolutions further confirms the GPU is the limiting factor, as it has less headroom to absorb frame-to-frame complexity spikes.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 570 is a Polaris 20 chip built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. Its base clock of 1168 MHz and boost clock of 1244 MHz are modest by modern standards, and its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory operates at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units, delivering a pixel rate of 39.81 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 159.2 GTexel/s.

In Control's measured results, the GPU's 4 GB VRAM capacity appears to be a significant constraint, particularly at higher resolutions. The game's texture requirements at 4K likely exceed the available memory, causing the sharp FPS drops observed. The 5.095 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is also insufficient for the game's rendering workload at high pixel counts. The GPU's 74th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 28766, places it near the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28874, 0.4% faster) and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996, 0.8% slower), indicating it performs at a similar level to these other mid-range options.

The GPU's clocks and memory configuration directly explain the resolution scaling observed. At 1080p, the 224.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient to feed the rendering pipeline, resulting in 57 FPS at Low settings. At 1440p, the 78% increase in pixel count (from 2.07 million to 3.69 million pixels) outstrips the GPU's ability to maintain throughput, dropping FPS by roughly 25%. At 4K, the 8.29 million pixels overwhelm the memory subsystem entirely, and even Low settings can only muster 29 FPS. The GPU's 32 ROPs are also a limiting factor for fill-rate-heavy scenes, though the data does not isolate this specific bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for settings selection. At 1080p, Low settings deliver 57 FPS average, which is the only configuration that approaches the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings at 40 FPS provide a reasonable compromise, offering improved visual quality while maintaining playability. The 34 FPS minimum at Medium settings suggests occasional dips but nothing catastrophic. High settings at 36 FPS are borderline, and Ultra at 31 FPS is playable but with noticeable compromises in smoothness.

For players with 1440p monitors, Low settings at 43 FPS is the only configuration that maintains acceptable performance. Medium settings at 30 FPS average, with a 26 FPS minimum, will be playable for some but may cause frustration in action-heavy sequences. High and Ultra settings at 27 and 24 FPS respectively are not recommended for regular play. The data indicates that 1440p users should accept Low settings or consider a GPU upgrade.

At 4K, no settings preset delivers playable performance. The best result is 29 FPS at Low settings, which is below the standard for smooth gameplay. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 21 FPS. The recommendation is to avoid 4K with this GPU entirely; even the lowest quality settings cannot produce a satisfactory experience.

The overall best experience per the measured rows is 1080p with Low settings, delivering 57 FPS average. This provides the smoothest gameplay while still offering the game's core visual identity. Players who prioritize visual quality over frame rate can use Medium settings at 1080p for 40 FPS, which remains playable and includes the min/max data showing a 34-46 FPS range. The gap between Low and Medium FPS (17 FPS) is significant, suggesting that the step from Low to Medium carries a substantial performance cost that may not be justified by the visual improvement, depending on individual preference.