Control

Control is a demanding Action Adventure title that stresses both CPU and GPU, and the data for this configuration—Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus paired with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti—reveals a system where the graphics card is the primary bottleneck. With the CPU holding a 96th percentile ranking among all processors, benchmark results show a clear pattern of GPU-limited performance that scales predictably with resolution and settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a substantial performance drop as resolution increases, which is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 91 FPS, but this falls to 69 FPS at 1440p and further to 46 FPS at 4K. This represents a 24% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The pattern holds across all settings presets, with the gap between resolutions widening as the graphical load increases.

The scaling behavior is highly consistent, which tells a clear story about the limiting component. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at High settings drops the average from 57 FPS to 43 FPS, a 25% loss, while moving from 1440p to 4K at the same settings drops from 43 FPS to 29 FPS, a 33% loss. This progressive degradation with each resolution step is typical of a GPU that is running out of pixel-pushing capability rather than a CPU that is struggling to feed it data. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see smaller differences between 1440p and 4K, as the CPU workload remains relatively constant while the GPU workload increases dramatically.

The fact that even at 1080p with Low settings, the system only reaches 91 FPS—not a triple-digit figure—suggests that the GTX 1660 Ti is already near its effective limit at the lowest resolution tested. The data implies that the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, with its 24 cores and 24 threads, is not the constraint here. The CPU's capabilities are so far ahead of the GPU that even the most demanding CPU scenarios in this game are unlikely to expose its limits. The 4K Ultra result of 25 FPS average, with no minimum or maximum recorded, indicates a situation where the GPU is heavily oversubscribed, producing a playable but far from smooth experience.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a formidable processor on paper, with 24 cores, 24 threads, a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. Its benchmark scores reinforce this picture: it achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 44253 and a single-core score of 2439, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The data shows it is competitive with server-class parts, sitting within 2.1% of the AMD EPYC 4565P and effectively tied with the Intel Xeon 6520P in average benchmark score.

However, in this game, the CPU's role appears to be largely one of providing a stable, high-performance foundation that never becomes the bottleneck. The measured FPS data shows no signs of CPU-related stuttering or frame pacing issues, with the Medium preset recording minimum FPS values that are consistent with the average FPS at each resolution. For instance, at 1080p Medium, the system averages 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 FPS, and at 1440p Medium, it averages 49 FPS with a minimum of 41 FPS. These minimums are roughly 14-16% below the averages, which is a healthy margin that suggests the CPU is delivering frames consistently without dropping into CPU-bound territory.

The CPU's high single-thread performance, as indicated by the 354 Cinebench R15 single-core score and 5068 Passmark single-thread score, is likely what keeps the game running smoothly even when the GPU is saturated. Control is not a game that heavily multi-threads, so the 24-core count is less relevant than the raw single-core speed. The data suggests that the Ultra 7 270K Plus is more than sufficient for this title, and that upgrading the GPU would yield far greater performance gains than any CPU change. The 125W TDP and 3nm process node indicate an efficient part that should not throttle, further ensuring consistent CPU performance.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of what settings are playable at each resolution. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 91 FPS average, which is the only setting that breaks the 90 FPS barrier. The Medium preset at 64 FPS is very playable, and High at 57 FPS is also acceptable for most users. Ultra at 50 FPS is the lowest at this resolution but still maintains a playable frame rate. For competitive or high-refresh-rate play, Low is the obvious choice, but for visual quality, Medium offers a good balance with a 27 FPS uplift over Ultra.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more constrained. Low settings produce 69 FPS, which is good, and Medium delivers 49 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced action. High drops to 43 FPS, and Ultra falls to 38 FPS. The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot for 1440p, providing a playable experience while maintaining better visual fidelity than Low. The 20 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution shows the GPU is heavily taxed by higher settings.

At 4K, the options are limited. Low settings achieve 46 FPS, which is marginally playable, but Medium drops to 33 FPS and High to 29 FPS. Ultra at 25 FPS is not recommended for any serious gameplay. The data strongly suggests that 4K is not a viable resolution for this GPU in Control unless the user is willing to accept very low settings and frame rates below 30 FPS. The best experience per the measured rows is at 1080p Medium, which offers a 64 FPS average with a minimum of 55 FPS, providing a smooth and visually pleasing experience without the performance penalty of Ultra.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ranks 2471 out of 2888 tested combos in this game, placing it in the bottom 14.4% of all configurations. This low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU, which itself ranks in the 41st percentile of all GPUs. The CPU, by contrast, is in the 96th percentile, creating a significant imbalance in the system.

The data shows that the combo rank is not determined by the CPU's capability but by the GPU's limitations. The GTX 1660 Ti, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus, is an entry-level part from the GeForce 16 series, and its benchmark scores reflect this. It achieves a Passmark G3D score of 12871, which places it just 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon 540 and 2.3% ahead of the Intel Arc A310. These are all low-end GPUs, and in a game like Control with its demanding physics and particle effects, the GPU quickly becomes overwhelmed.

The ranking of 2471 out of 2888 suggests that most other combinations tested in this game perform better. This is not surprising given the GPU's age and market positioning. The CPU's high performance does not compensate for the GPU's shortcomings, as the game's frame rate is ultimately tied to the graphics card's ability to render frames. The data implies that this combo would be much better served by a mid-range GPU, which would allow the Ultra 7 270K Plus to shine. As it stands, the system is significantly underutilizing its CPU, and the overall gaming experience is limited by the GPU's performance ceiling.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing-architecture GPU with 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. It operates at a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. These specifications make it a competent 1080p card for its time, but the data shows it struggles with higher resolutions and settings in Control.

The GPU's role in this system is to render frames, and its performance is the limiting factor across all measured scenarios. The benchmark results show that the GPU is capable of 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is modest by modern standards. This is reflected in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1061 and the Passmark DirectX 12 score of 51, both of which indicate the GPU's limited compute capability in modern APIs.

The 6 GB VRAM is likely a constraint at higher resolutions, particularly at 4K where texture memory demands are highest. While the measured data does not directly show VRAM usage, the significant FPS drops at 4K (29 FPS at High, 25 FPS at Ultra) suggest that the GPU is both compute-bound and memory-bandwidth-bound. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is shared across 192-bit bus, which may not be sufficient for the high-resolution textures Control uses. The GPU's pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s are also limiting factors, as these directly impact the GPU's ability to fill high-resolution frames. The data indicates that the GTX 1660 Ti is overmatched by Control's graphical demands, and its role is to provide a playable experience only at lower resolutions and settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across 12 different configurations. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 91 FPS on Low, 64 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 55 and maximum of 74), 57 FPS on High, and 50 FPS on Ultra. These results show a clear progression, with a 41 FPS difference between Low and Ultra, indicating that the GPU is highly sensitive to settings changes at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the averages drop to 69 FPS on Low, 49 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 41 and maximum of 56), 43 FPS on High, and 38 FPS on Ultra. The difference between Low and Ultra here is 31 FPS, showing a compressed range as the GPU approaches its limits. The Medium preset at 1440p shows a minimum of 41 FPS, which is close to the 38 FPS average of Ultra, suggesting that even within the same resolution, there are significant performance variations.

At 3840x2160, the results are as follows: 46 FPS on Low, 33 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 28 and maximum of 38), 29 FPS on High, and 25 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 21 FPS, and all presets except Low fall below the 30 FPS playability threshold. The Medium preset's minimum of 28 FPS and maximum of 38 FPS shows a 10 FPS range, which is the tightest of any resolution, indicating that the GPU is consistently saturated. The data reveals that the GTX 1660 Ti can handle 1080p Medium well, 1440p Low to Medium acceptably, and 4K only on Low settings, with any higher settings producing sub-30 FPS averages.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 with Medium settings provides the best balance, achieving an average of 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 FPS. This is the only configuration that maintains an average above 60 FPS while offering a minimum above 50 FPS.

Q: How does this system perform at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the system only achieves playable frame rates on Low settings, with an average of 46 FPS. Medium averages 33 FPS, High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS, all of which are below the 30 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this configuration?

A: The GPU is clearly the bottleneck. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the GTX 1660 Ti ranks in the 41st percentile. The FPS scaling across resolutions and settings indicates the GPU is the limiting component.

Q: How does the CPU's benchmark performance compare to its rivals?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score of 93785 is effectively tied with the Intel Xeon 6520P (93786, 0% delta), and it is 1.5% behind the AMD EPYC 4564P, 1.9% behind the AMD EPYC 9175F, and 2.1% behind the AMD EPYC 4565P.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at Medium settings?

A: The data shows consistent frame delivery. At 1080p Medium, the average is 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 FPS and maximum of 74 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average is 49 FPS with a minimum of 41 FPS and maximum of 56 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average is 33 FPS with a minimum of 28 FPS and maximum of 38 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU's benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti has an average benchmark score of 7723, which is 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon 540 (7673), 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580), and 2.3% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7550).