Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title, and this particular pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 produces a predictable bottleneck. The data shows a system where the GPU is the primary constraint across all tested resolutions, but the CPU’s high core count ensures that the frame rate is limited by graphics processing rather than logic threads.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 56 FPS, but this drops to 43 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 29 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 48% reduction in performance from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, a substantial hit that indicates the graphics card is being saturated by the increasing pixel count.

The scaling becomes even more pronounced at higher quality presets. With High settings, the average frame rate falls from 36 FPS at 1080p to 27 FPS at 1440p (a 25% drop) and then to 18 FPS at 4K (a 50% drop from 1080p). The gap between Low and High settings also widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low and High is 20 FPS, but at 4K, that difference shrinks to just 11 FPS. This compression of the settings gap at 4K confirms that the GPU’s pixel throughput, rather than shading complexity, is the limiting factor.

Ultra settings tell the same story. The 31 FPS at 1080p drops to 23 FPS at 1440p and bottoms out at 16 FPS at 4K. The data indicates that the GTX 1650’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus are insufficient for the high-resolution textures and effects that Control’s Ultra preset demands. The minimum frame rates observed at Medium settings (17 FPS at 4K, 26 FPS at 1440p, 34 FPS at 1080p) suggest that frame pacing remains stable, but the overall performance ceiling is low.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database, this combination ranks 3588 out of 3720 tested combos for Control. This places it in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations, a position that reflects the GPU’s age and entry-level positioning rather than any CPU deficiency. The GTX 1650’s individual percentile stands at 40, meaning it outperforms only 40% of all GPUs in the database, while the CPU’s percentile is 96, outperforming 96% of all processors.

The stark contrast between the CPU’s high percentile and the GPU’s middling score explains the overall combo rank. The data shows that this pairing is heavily imbalanced for a game like Control, which is known for its real-time ray tracing and physics effects. The CPU’s performance is essentially wasted in this configuration, as the GPU cannot translate the processor’s capabilities into higher frame rates. The combo rank of 3588 indicates that most other tested systems, even those with weaker CPUs, achieve better results simply by pairing them with more capable graphics cards.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear bottleneck in this system. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory is a significant limitation for Control, a game that benefits from larger frame buffers at higher resolutions. The memory operates at 2001 MHz with an 8 Gbps effective data rate, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s across a 128-bit bus. These specifications are modest by modern standards, and the benchmark results reflect this.

The GPU’s clocks are set at a base of 1485 MHz with a boost of 1665 MHz. The 896 shading units and 32 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is the key metric for traditional rasterization, and it is this figure that limits the frame rates seen in the measured data. At 1080p Low, the GPU manages 56 FPS, but this drops to 31 FPS at Ultra, a 45% reduction that shows how the shading workload scales with quality settings.

The GTX 1650’s 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate a design focused on efficiency rather than performance. The card’s position in the database, with an average benchmark score of 7472, places it near the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447) and Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441). This proximity to integrated graphics solutions underscores its entry-level status. The GPU’s DirectX 12 score of 35 in Passmark further highlights its weakness in modern APIs, which Control utilizes extensively.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates provide a complete picture of what to expect from this combo. At 1920x1080, the system delivers playable frame rates only at Low settings, where it averages 56 FPS. Medium settings reduce this to 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 and a maximum of 46 FPS. High settings average 36 FPS, while Ultra drops to 31 FPS. None of these 1080p results meet the 60 FPS threshold that many players consider ideal for a smooth experience.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates become marginal. Low settings produce 43 FPS, Medium averages 30 FPS (minimum 26, maximum 35), High drops to 27 FPS, and Ultra falls to 23 FPS. At this resolution, only Low settings offer a consistently playable experience, and even that hovers around the 40 FPS mark.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playability. Low settings average 29 FPS, Medium averages 20 FPS (minimum 17, maximum 24), High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 16 FPS. These results indicate that 4K is not a viable option for this combination, even at the lowest quality settings. The data shows a clear progression: each resolution step halves the frame rate at equivalent settings, confirming that the GPU’s memory bandwidth and fill rate are the primary constraints.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a high-end processor that is severely underutilized in this configuration. With 24 cores and 24 threads, it offers substantial parallel processing capability. The base clock of 3.70 GHz can boost to 5.50 GHz, and the 36 MB of shared L3 cache provides ample capacity for game data. The CPU’s benchmark scores are impressive: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44253 and a single-core score of 2439, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs.

In Control, the CPU’s role is to handle game logic, physics calculations, and draw call submissions. The data suggests that even at 1080p Low, where the GPU is less stressed, the frame rate of 56 FPS is not limited by the CPU. The processor’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Xeon 6520P (avgScore 93786) and AMD EPYC 4564P (avgScore 95183), show similar performance levels, indicating that the 270K Plus is not a bottleneck in any scenario.

The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5 is more than sufficient for feeding the GPU. The 3 nm process node from TSMC and 17,800 million transistors provide a power-efficient design that maintains high clocks without thermal throttling. However, in this pairing, the CPU’s capabilities are irrelevant to the final frame rates, as the GPU cannot keep up with the processor’s output. The benchmark results show that the CPU’s performance is essentially capped by the GTX 1650, making this an unbalanced system for Control.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Control with this combo?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 with Low settings is the only configuration that achieves an average frame rate above 50 FPS (56 FPS). At Medium settings, the frame rate drops to 40 FPS, which is still playable but not optimal.

Q: How much faster is the CPU compared to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785, which is essentially identical to the Intel Xeon 6520P (93786, 0% delta) and slightly behind the AMD EPYC 4564P (95183, -1.5% delta). The CPU’s performance is competitive with these server-class processors.

Q: Does the GPU support DirectX 12, which Control requires?

A: Yes, the GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) according to its API specifications. However, its Passmark DirectX 12 score of 35 indicates limited performance in this API, which contributes to the low frame rates observed.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings average 56 FPS, while Ultra settings average 31 FPS. This represents a 45% reduction in performance from Low to Ultra, showing that the GPU’s shading units are heavily taxed by the higher quality presets.

Q: Is the GPU’s 4 GB memory sufficient for 4K gaming?

A: The data indicates that 4 GB is not sufficient. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only achieve 29 FPS, and Ultra drops to 16 FPS. The 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth cannot handle the data throughput required for 4K textures.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all tested systems?

A: This combination ranks 3588 out of 3720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations. This low ranking is primarily due to the GPU, which sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU is in the 96th percentile.