Control

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a severely imbalanced configuration for Control, landing at rank 2854 out of 2888 tested combos. The data indicates that the GTX 1050 Ti is the overwhelming bottleneck, reducing the game to a slideshow at higher resolutions and settings. This pairing is only viable for low-fidelity 1080p play, and even then, it does not achieve a consistently smooth experience.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a stark and predictable decline as resolution increases, confirming that the GPU is the limiting component. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces an average of 46 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that average to 34 FPS, a 26% reduction. Pushing to 4K Low further collapses performance to 23 FPS, which is exactly half of the 1080p Low result. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU that is completely saturated; the CPU has ample headroom, but the graphics card cannot keep up with the pixel count.

The drop from High to Ultra settings at each resolution illustrates the same point. At 1080p, High settings yield 29 FPS, while Ultra yields 25 FPS. This 4 FPS difference is minor, but the frame rate is already below the playable threshold. At 4K, the difference between High (15 FPS) and Ultra (13 FPS) is just 2 FPS, showing that the GPU is so overwhelmed that the additional graphical features of the Ultra preset have diminishing returns on performance. The game's rendering load is simply too much for the GTX 1050 Ti's 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power.

The data suggests that the CPU, with its 24 cores and 24 threads, is never the constraint. The benchmark scores for the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44253, place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6520P, has a near-identical average score. This is a top-tier processor that is being held back by a GPU that falls in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. The lack of a minimum FPS value for most settings, except for the Medium preset, suggests the performance is often so low that the frame time variance is less relevant than the absolute low average.

The 4K results are the clearest indicator of the bottleneck. The average FPS of 15 on High and 23 on Low are unplayable. Even the most demanding CPU-bound scene would not cause such a catastrophic drop from 1080p. The benchmark results indicate that this configuration is not suitable for 1440p or 4K gaming in Control, as the GPU's memory bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s and 4 GB of VRAM are insufficient for the game's detailed environments at those resolutions.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the primary and decisive factor in this combo's performance. Its specifications, including a base clock of 1291 MHz and a boost clock of 1392 MHz, are far too modest for a demanding 2019 title like Control. The GPU's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus is a critical weakness. At 4K resolution, the game's texture data and framebuffer requirements likely exceed this capacity, which would explain the catastrophic drop to 13-23 FPS. The memory bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s is also a significant constraint, limiting the speed at which textures and geometry can be fed to the render pipeline.

The GPU's benchmark scores corroborate its position as the bottleneck. Its Passmark G3D score is 6340, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is a mere 305. These scores place it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon R5 M330, which is a low-end mobile part. The GTX 1050 Ti's DirectX 12 Passmark score of 26 is particularly low, indicating weak performance in modern APIs that Control can utilize. The GPU's FP32 performance of 2.138 TFLOPS is simply not enough to handle the game's physics-based combat and destructible environments.

The VRAM capacity is the most likely culprit for the severe scaling issues. While the GPU's compute capabilities are weak, the jump from 46 FPS at 1080p Low to 23 FPS at 4K Low suggests that memory pressure is compounding the problem. At 1080p, the 4 GB buffer is sufficient, but as resolution increases, the card is forced to swap data in and out of the limited memory, causing stutters and massive frame rate drops. This is a classic example of a GPU with insufficient memory for modern gaming at higher resolutions. The data shows that any attempt to play beyond 1080p is futile, and even at 1080p, the user must rely on the Low preset to get an average above 30 FPS.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution to play Control with this CPU and GPU combo?*

A: The only resolution that yields a potentially playable average frame rate is 1920x1080. At this resolution, the Low preset achieves an average of 46 FPS, while the Medium preset drops to 32 FPS. All results at 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 are below 34 FPS and are not recommended.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare to its closest rival in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti's average benchmark score is 4193. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 M330, has an average score of 4170, which is a 0.6% difference. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is 1% slower, while the AMD Radeon Vega 3 is 1.8% faster.

*Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus the reason for the low frame rates in Control?*

A: No. Benchmark results indicate the CPU is not the limiting factor. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44253. The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, which is in the 25th percentile of GPUs, as the bottleneck.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset yields an average frame rate of 46 FPS. The Ultra preset yields an average of 25 FPS. This represents a 21 FPS or roughly 46% reduction in performance for the higher visual fidelity.

Q: Does the 4 GB VRAM of the GTX 1050 Ti affect 4K performance?

A: Yes, the data strongly suggests so. At 3840x2160, the frame rates are critically low, ranging from 13 FPS on Ultra to 23 FPS on Low. The combination of low compute power and limited 4 GB VRAM makes 4K resolution unplayable, with the memory capacity likely causing severe performance degradation.

*Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations for Control?*

A: This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti ranks 2854 out of 2888 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 1.2% of all tested configurations for this game.

How This Combo Ranks

The data for this combo is unequivocal: it is one of the worst performing configurations in the database for Control. With a rank of 2854 out of 2888 tested combos, this pairing sits in the bottom 1.2% of all systems. This ranking is a direct consequence of the massive performance disparity between the CPU and GPU. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a high-end processor, evidenced by its 96th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 93785, which is nearly identical to its closest rival, the Intel Xeon 6520P.

In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a low-end, end-of-life component. Its average benchmark score of 4193 places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. This GPU is not merely a generation behind; it is a fundamentally different class of hardware. The benchmark results show that the CPU is capable of far more, but it is held back by the GPU's inability to render frames fast enough. The combo's rank is a clear indicator that this pairing is a poor match for a graphics-intensive game like Control.

The nearest rivals for the CPU, such as the AMD EPYC 4564P and AMD EPYC 9175F, are server-class processors with similar average scores, yet they would likely be paired with much more capable graphics cards in real-world systems. This combination is a bottleneck scenario, and the low rank reflects that the measured FPS is representative of the GPU's limits, not the system's overall potential. The ranking should serve as a warning that the CPU's power is entirely wasted in this configuration for gaming.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, the only viable settings for this combo are at 1920x1080 resolution. The Low preset, with an average of 46 FPS, is the only option that approaches a playable frame rate. While 46 FPS is not ideal for a fast-paced action game, it is the best this hardware can deliver. The Medium preset at 1080p drops the average to 32 FPS, which is borderline, and the minimum FPS is recorded at 27, indicating noticeable stuttering during intense scenes.

The High and Ultra presets at 1080p, with averages of 29 FPS and 25 FPS respectively, are not recommended for a satisfactory experience. The game's action sequences will likely cause frame rates to dip below 30 FPS, leading to a sluggish and unresponsive feel. All settings at 1440p and 4K are effectively unplayable, with the best result being 34 FPS at 1440p Low, which still suffers from the same issues as 1080p Medium.

Therefore, the clear recommendation is to use the Low preset at 1920x1080. This is the only configuration that provides an average frame rate above 40 FPS. Users seeking a more stable experience might consider the Medium preset, but they must be prepared for the frame rate to hover around 30 FPS. Any attempt to increase resolution or graphical fidelity will result in a significant drop in performance, making the game unplayable. The data suggests this is the ceiling for this specific hardware pairing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following data represents the measured average frame rates for the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti combination in Control. The "min" and "max" fields are only available for the Medium preset.

1920x1080

• Low: Average 46 FPS.
• Medium: Average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 37 FPS.
• High: Average 29 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 25 FPS.

2560x1440

• Low: Average 34 FPS.
• Medium: Average 24 FPS, with a minimum of 21 FPS and a maximum of 28 FPS.
• High: Average 22 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 19 FPS.

3840x2160

• Low: Average 23 FPS.
• Medium: Average 17 FPS, with a minimum of 14 FPS and a maximum of 19 FPS.
• High: Average 15 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 13 FPS.

The data shows a consistent pattern: every increment in resolution or settings has a significant negative impact on performance. The difference between 1080p Low and 1080p Ultra is 21 FPS. The difference between 1080p Low and 4K Low is 23 FPS. The performance ceiling for this combo is clearly at 1080p with the lowest settings. The measured FPS values confirm that this is a configuration for 1080p gaming only, and even then, it is best suited for less demanding titles. For Control, the experience will be compromised and require significant settings reductions to maintain even a basic level of playability.