Control

# Control — Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus + AMD Radeon RX 580

This combination pairs a 24-core Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus desktop processor with an AMD Radeon RX 580 graphics card, producing a dataset that clearly illustrates a GPU-bound scenario in Control. The measured frame rates across resolutions and settings show a consistent pattern: the RX 580 becomes the limiting factor as pixel count rises, while the CPU's substantial headroom remains largely untapped. The following analysis breaks down the measured results, contextualizes them against rival components, and provides practical guidance based strictly on the available data.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling behavior in Control is pronounced and follows an expected trajectory for this hardware pairing. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 63 FPS average, which is the highest measured result in the entire dataset. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low settings drops the average to 48 FPS, a 23.8% reduction from the 1080p figure. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average falls further to 32 FPS, representing a 49.2% decline from the 1080p Low result. These percentage drops are not linear, indicating that the GPU's compute and memory bandwidth are being progressively saturated as resolution increases.

The scaling pattern becomes even more telling when examining the High preset across resolutions. At 1080p High, the average is 40 FPS; at 1440p High, it drops to 30 FPS (a 25% reduction); and at 4K High, it reaches 20 FPS (a 50% reduction from 1080p). The consistency of these reductions — roughly 25% per step down in resolution — suggests that the RX 580's pixel throughput and fillrate are the dominant constraints. The GPU's pixel rate of 42.88 GPixel/s and texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s are modest by modern standards, and the data reflects that in the steep scaling curve.

The fact that 4K Ultra produces only 18 FPS average, while 1080p Ultra yields 35 FPS, reinforces this interpretation. The gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution is also revealing: at 1080p, the spread is 28 FPS (63 vs 35); at 1440p, it narrows to 22 FPS (48 vs 26); and at 4K, it compresses to 14 FPS (32 vs 18). This compression at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is so heavily loaded that even reducing settings cannot fully compensate for the pixel-count penalty. The data strongly suggests that the limiting component shifts decisively toward the graphics card as resolution increases, with CPU performance playing a minimal role in these measured results.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 580 brings 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock of 1257 MHz and boost clock of 1340 MHz are paired with 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The card's FP32 compute is rated at 6.175 TFLOPS, which places it in the lower-midrange tier historically. In the benchmark database, the RX 580 holds a percentile rank of 53 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 12928. Its nearest rivals in aggregate score are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (deltaPct -0.1), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (deltaPct -0.4), AMD Radeon 740M (deltaPct 0.5), and AMD FirePro W5100 (deltaPct 0.6). These deltas are all within one percentage point, indicating that the RX 580 sits in a tightly clustered performance band.

In the context of Control specifically, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for the measured settings — the game does not appear to exceed this allocation at any resolution in the dataset. However, the memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s becomes a limiting factor at 4K, where the average FPS across all settings ranges from 18 to 32. The 4K Medium result shows a minimum of 19 FPS and maximum of 26 FPS, suggesting frame time inconsistency that aligns with bandwidth saturation. The GPU's GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process with 5,700 million transistors, lacks modern features like dedicated ray tracing cores, but Control's measured rows do not indicate that ray tracing is enabled in any tested configuration.

Comparing the GPU's role to its nearest rivals, the RX 580's aggregate score of 12928 is essentially tied with the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile at 12940, yet the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is a laptop part with different power characteristics. The GTX 1660 SUPER at 12986 is marginally ahead, but the deltas are negligible in synthetic terms. In Control's measured frames, the RX 580's performance at 1080p Low (63 FPS) and 1080p Medium (45 FPS) shows that the card can deliver playable results at lower settings, but the Ultra preset at 1080p drops to 35 FPS, which indicates that the GPU's 32 ROPs and 6.175 TFLOPS are insufficient for higher fidelity at that resolution.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and acceptable frame rate threshold. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 63 FPS average, which is the only measured configuration exceeding 60 FPS. Medium at 1080p produces 45 FPS with a minimum of 38 FPS and maximum of 51 FPS, offering a balanced experience with improved visual quality while staying above 30 FPS. High at 1080p yields 40 FPS, and Ultra drops to 35 FPS — both playable but with diminishing returns relative to the frame rate cost.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset achieves 48 FPS, which is the most viable option for smoother gameplay at this resolution. Medium at 1440p drops to 34 FPS (minimum 29, maximum 39), which is borderline but acceptable for slower-paced action-adventure titles. High at 1440p produces 30 FPS, and Ultra falls to 26 FPS, making these settings suitable only for players who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate consistency. The data indicates that 1440p Low is the sweet spot for maintaining a reasonable frame rate without sacrificing resolution.

At 3840x2160, none of the measured settings reach 60 FPS, or even 40 FPS. Low at 4K yields 32 FPS, Medium yields 23 FPS (minimum 19, maximum 26), High yields 20 FPS, and Ultra yields 18 FPS. These results suggest that 4K is not a practical target for this GPU in Control, regardless of settings. The frame rate at 4K Low is only 32 FPS, which may be tolerable for some players but falls short of smooth gameplay standards. The recommendation from the data is to prioritize 1080p Medium (45 FPS) for a balanced experience, or 1080p Low (63 FPS) for maximum fluidity. At 1440p, Low (48 FPS) is the only setting that approaches a playable threshold without significant compromise.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS measured for this combo in Control?

A: The highest average FPS is 63, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Does the RX 580's 8 GB VRAM cause any issues at 4K in Control?

A: The data shows no evidence of VRAM-related stuttering or crashes at 3840x2160, but the average FPS at 4K ranges from 18 (Ultra) to 32 (Low), indicating that bandwidth and compute limits are the primary constraints rather than capacity.

Q: How does the RX 580 compare to its nearest rival, the GTX 1660 SUPER, in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The RX 580 has an average benchmark score of 12928, while the GTX 1660 SUPER scores 12986, a delta of -0.4%, meaning the two are virtually identical in synthetic performance.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded in any measured configuration?

A: The lowest minimum FPS is 19, recorded at 3840x2160 resolution with Medium settings.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus likely to bottleneck the RX 580 in Control?

A: Given that the CPU's benchmark scores are in the 96th percentile among all CPUs and the FPS drops consistently with resolution increases, the data suggests the GPU is the bottleneck across all measured settings.

Q: At which resolution does the combo achieve its best frame time consistency?

A: The 1920x1080 Medium setting shows a minimum of 38 FPS and maximum of 51 FPS, a spread of 13 FPS, which is the narrowest range among Medium presets across resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database's ranking of tested combinations for Control, this pairing of Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and AMD Radeon RX 580 holds position 2633 out of 2888 total combos. This places it in the bottom 9% of all tested configurations, which is consistent with the GPU's modest performance tier. The combo rank reflects the overall frame rate results across all measured resolutions and settings, and the RX 580's percentile rank of 53 among all GPUs provides context for why this pairing lands so low in the ranking — the CPU is not the limiting factor, but the GPU's absolute performance caps the combo's standing.

The CPU's own ranking is far more favorable: the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 93785. Its nearest rivals in aggregate CPU benchmarks are the Intel Xeon 6520P (deltaPct 0), AMD EPYC 4564P (deltaPct -1.5), AMD EPYC 9175F (deltaPct -1.9), and AMD EPYC 4565P (deltaPct -2.1). These deltas are all negative or zero, meaning the Ultra 7 270K Plus is competitive with or slightly ahead of these server-class parts in synthetic workloads. However, none of that CPU headroom translates into higher frame rates in Control because the RX 580's 6.175 TFLOPS and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth cannot sustain higher throughput.

The combination's rank of 2633 out of 2888 indicates that most other tested combos deliver better frame rates in Control, which is expected given that the RX 580 is an end-of-life product released in 2017 with a successor (Vega) already established. The data makes clear that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming at Low to Medium settings, where it can achieve 45-63 FPS, rather than higher resolutions where performance degrades sharply.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC with 17,800 million transistors. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz with a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, and it features 36 MB of shared L3 cache plus 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The CPU supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, and it includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, though the discrete RX 580 handles all rendering in these measurements. The CPU's TDP is 125 W, and it was released in March 2026 with a launch MSRP of $299.

In synthetic benchmarks, the Ultra 7 270K Plus demonstrates exceptional multi-threaded performance: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 44253, while single-core scores 2439. PassMark multi-thread tests show 68574, and single-thread scores reach 5068. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 93785, places it in the top tier of desktop processors. Its nearest CPU rivals in aggregate score are all enterprise-grade EPYC and Xeon parts, underscoring the Ultra 7's strong absolute performance.

However, in Control, the CPU's role is almost entirely secondary due to the GPU bottleneck. The measured FPS data shows no scenario where the CPU's 24 cores or 5.50 GHz boost clock would be the limiting factor — even at 1080p Low (63 FPS), the frame rate is well below what this CPU could theoretically feed to a more powerful GPU. The game's Action Adventure genre typically relies more on single-thread performance, and the Ultra 7's single-core Cinebench R23 score of 2439 is strong, but the RX 580 simply cannot translate that CPU capability into higher frame rates. The data indicates that any performance upgrade in this combo would need to come from replacing the GPU, not the CPU, as the processor has ample headroom for higher refresh rates or more demanding settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full measured FPS dataset for this combo in Control is as follows, organized by resolution and settings:

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 63 FPS average
• Medium: 45 FPS average (minimum 38, maximum 51)
• High: 40 FPS average
• Ultra: 35 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 48 FPS average
• Medium: 34 FPS average (minimum 29, maximum 39)
• High: 30 FPS average
• Ultra: 26 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 32 FPS average
• Medium: 23 FPS average (minimum 19, maximum 26)
• High: 20 FPS average
• Ultra: 18 FPS average

Across all twelve measured configurations, the average FPS ranges from 18 (4K Ultra) to 63 (1080p Low). The minimum FPS values are only recorded for Medium settings at each resolution, with 38 FPS at 1080p, 29 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. The maximum FPS values follow the same pattern, reaching 51 at 1080p, 39 at 1440p, and 26 at 4K. The consistency of the Medium-preset frame ranges across resolutions — a 13 FPS spread at 1080p, 10 FPS at 1440p, and 7 FPS at 4K — suggests that frame time variance decreases as the GPU becomes more saturated, which is counterintuitive but may reflect the game's engine behavior under load.

The step from Low to Medium at each resolution incurs a noticeable penalty: 18 FPS at 1080p (63 to 45), 14 FPS at 1440p (48 to 34), and 9 FPS at 4K (32 to 23). The step from Medium to High is smaller: 5 FPS at 1080p, 4 FPS at 1440p, and 3 FPS at 4K. The final step from High to Ultra is also 5 FPS at 1080p, 4 FPS at 1440p, and 2 FPS at 4K. This diminishing penalty as settings increase indicates that the GPU's shading units and ROPs are the primary constraint, with each additional quality level costing less absolute performance as resolution increases. The data supports a clear recommendation: for playable frame rates above 50 FPS, only 1080p Low qualifies; for 40-50 FPS, 1080p Medium or High are viable; and for 30-40 FPS, 1080p Ultra, 1440p Low, or 1440p Medium are options. Below 30 FPS, 1440p High, 1440p Ultra, and all 4K settings should be avoided unless frame rate is not a priority.