Control

Control is an action-adventure title that stresses both the CPU and GPU depending on resolution and settings. This analysis examines the measured performance of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, using only the provided benchmark data. The combination ranks 3176 out of 3720 tested combos, placing it in the lower half of the database, which reflects the GPU's mid-range standing despite the CPU's high-end capabilities.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves at 1080p?

A: The highest recorded average is 91 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At High settings, the average drops to 57 FPS, while Medium yields 64 FPS and Ultra produces 50 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-core performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 44253 in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6520P, has an average benchmark score of 93786 with a deltaPct of 0, meaning they are statistically tied. The AMD EPYC 4564P is 1.5% slower, and the AMD EPYC 9175F is 1.9% slower.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all tested GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER has a percentile vs. all GPUs of 53, placing it just above the median. Its average benchmark score is 12986, with the nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile at 12940 (0.4% faster).

Q: At 4K resolution, which settings preset yields a playable average FPS?

A: At 3840x2160, only the Low preset achieves an average above 30 FPS, hitting 46 FPS. Medium drops to 33 FPS, High falls to 29 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 25 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU's high core count benefit this game's performance?

A: The CPU has 24 cores and 24 threads, with a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 2439, and multi-core is 44253. The data shows that at 1080p, where the GPU is less likely to be the sole bottleneck, the FPS scales more with settings than with resolution, indicating the CPU is not the limiting factor in this configuration.

Q: What is the FPS drop percentage from 1080p Low to 4K Low?

A: The average FPS drops from 91 at 1920x1080 Low to 46 at 3840x2160 Low, a reduction of approximately 49.5%. This severe drop indicates that the GPU becomes the primary constraint as resolution increases.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture with 1408 shading units and 48 ROPs. Its memory configuration is 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. The base clock is 1530 MHz, with a boost clock of 1785 MHz. These specifications are modest by modern standards, which is reflected in its 53rd percentile ranking among all GPUs.

In Control, the GPU's role is heavily tied to resolution scaling. At 1920x1080, the card delivers playable frame rates across all settings: 91 FPS at Low, 64 FPS at Medium, 57 FPS at High, and 50 FPS at Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is 41 FPS, showing that the GPU has headroom at this resolution. However, as resolution increases to 2560x1440, the average FPS drops significantly: 69 at Low, 49 at Medium, 43 at High, and 38 at Ultra. At 3840x2160, the card struggles, with only the Low preset (46 FPS) exceeding 30 FPS; Medium averages 33 FPS, while High and Ultra fall to 29 and 25 FPS, respectively.

The memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s is a critical factor. The 6 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but the data suggests that at 4K, the combination of fill rate and bandwidth limits performance. The measured FPS at 4K Medium (33 FPS) with a minimum of 28 FPS indicates that the GPU is operating near its limits, likely due to the pixel throughput of 85.68 GPixel/s. The GPU's FP32 performance of 5.027 TFLOPS also contributes to the computational load, but the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions is the memory subsystem and ROP throughput.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience depends on the target resolution and acceptable frame rate. At 1920x1080, the High preset at 57 FPS offers the best balance of visual quality and smoothness, as it is above the 50 FPS threshold for Ultra but with a 7 FPS improvement. For users prioritizing frame rate, Low at 91 FPS is the maximum, but Medium at 64 FPS provides a substantial visual upgrade over Low with only a 27 FPS penalty.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 49 FPS is the recommended choice. It delivers a minimum FPS of 41, which is above the 30 FPS playability threshold, and it is significantly smoother than High (43 FPS) and Ultra (38 FPS). The Low preset at 69 FPS is the highest performing option, but the visual fidelity loss is considerable. For 1440p, Medium is the sweet spot.

At 3840x2160, only the Low preset at 46 FPS is recommended for consistent playability. Medium at 33 FPS is borderline, and its minimum FPS of 28 indicates potential stuttering. High (29 FPS) and Ultra (25 FPS) are not recommended due to the sub-30 FPS averages. For 4K, users should accept the Low preset or consider lowering the resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank in game is 3176 out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the 85th percentile of worst performance. This low ranking is predominantly due to the GPU's capabilities, as the CPU is a high-end part. The CPU's percentile vs. all CPUs is 96, indicating it outperforms 96% of tested processors. In contrast, the GPU's percentile is 53, meaning it is only average.

The disparity between the CPU and GPU performance is stark. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44253 and single-core score of 2439 are exceptional, with the nearest rival being the Intel Xeon 6520P at a 0% delta. However, the GPU's average benchmark score of 12986 is only 0.4% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile. This combination creates a significant bottleneck where the GPU limits overall game performance.

In Control, this bottleneck manifests as a severe FPS drop when moving from 1080p to 4K. The 1080p Low score of 91 FPS is respectable, but the 4K Ultra score of 25 FPS is among the lowest for this game. The rank of 3176 suggests that many other combos, even with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs, achieve better performance. The data indicates that this combo is not balanced for Control at higher resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a Core Ultra Series 2 processor with 24 cores and 24 threads. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz, with a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The CPU has a large L3 cache of 36 MB shared, and its memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The CPU is built on a 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors.

In Control, the CPU's role is primarily to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. The game is an action-adventure title that uses a physics engine, but the benchmark data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this configuration. At 1080p Low, the FPS of 91 is likely CPU-bound in some scenes, but the CPU's single-core performance of 2439 in Cinebench R23 is sufficient for high frame rates.

The CPU's multi-core score of 44253 is relevant for background tasks and streaming, but for this game, the single-thread performance is more critical. The boost clock of 5.50 GHz is among the highest in the database, ensuring that the CPU can handle the game's logic without becoming a bottleneck. However, the data shows that at 4K, the FPS drops to 25-46, which is GPU-bound, not CPU-bound. The CPU's high performance is wasted at higher resolutions, as the GPU cannot keep up.

The CPU's nearest rivals in terms of benchmark scores are all server-class processors (Intel Xeon and AMD EPYC), which highlights its exceptional multi-threaded throughput. Yet, in Control, this throughput has minimal impact on the measured FPS, as the game's performance is dominated by the GPU's rendering capabilities.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 91 at Low to 50 at Ultra. The Medium preset has a minimum FPS of 55 and a maximum of 74, indicating a stable experience. The High preset at 57 FPS is the most balanced for 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS ranges from 69 at Low to 38 at Ultra. The Medium preset averages 49 FPS, with a minimum of 41 and a maximum of 56. The High preset at 43 FPS is playable but with a noticeable dip from 1080p. The Ultra preset at 38 FPS is borderline, but the lack of min/max data makes it difficult to assess stability.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 46 at Low to 25 at Ultra. The Medium preset averages 33 FPS, with a minimum of 28 and a maximum of 38. The High preset at 29 FPS is below the playable threshold, and the Ultra preset at 25 FPS is the lowest recorded. The data shows a consistent pattern: as resolution increases, the FPS drops by approximately 20-25 FPS per settings tier.

The following table summarizes the average FPS for each configuration:

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 91 |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 64 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 57 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 50 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 69 |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 49 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 43 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 38 |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 46 |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 33 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 29 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 25 |

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and reveals the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 91 at 1080p to 69 at 1440p (a 24.2% decrease) and then to 46 at 4K (a 49.5% decrease from 1080p). This scaling is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, where the pixel count increase directly impacts the rendering load.

At Medium settings, the FPS drops from 64 at 1080p to 49 at 1440p (23.4% decrease) and to 33 at 4K (48.4% decrease). The High settings show a similar trend: 57 at 1080p, 43 at 1440p (24.6% decrease), and 29 at 4K (49.1% decrease). At Ultra settings, the FPS drops from 50 at 1080p to 38 at 1440p (24% decrease) and to 25 at 4K (50% decrease).

The consistent ~24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~49% drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU's performance is sufficient at all resolutions, as evidenced by the fact that the FPS scaling follows the pixel count ratio. The 4K resolution has four times the pixels of 1080p, and the FPS roughly halves, which is characteristic of a GPU that is heavily limited by fill rate and memory bandwidth.

The GPU's memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s is a key constraint at 4K. The 6 GB VRAM capacity may also be a factor, as Control's textures at 4K can exceed this limit, causing the GPU to use system memory. The measured FPS at 4K Low (46 FPS) is the only playable option, and the drop to 25 FPS at Ultra suggests that the GPU's ROP throughput of 85.68 GPixel/s is insufficient for the higher settings. The data clearly shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, with 1440p being a compromise, and 4K being only marginally playable at the lowest settings.