Control

Control is a 2019 Action Adventure title that stresses the AMD Radeon 760M integrated graphics heavily, with the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX providing ample processing headroom. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings indicate that this combination is fundamentally GPU-limited, as the iGPU's performance ceiling is reached well before the CPU's capabilities become a factor. Benchmark results place this specific combo at rank 2878 out of 2888 tested configurations, underscoring that while the CPU is a top-tier mobile part, the graphics solution is the definitive bottleneck for this title.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and consistent, revealing a classic integrated graphics limitation scenario. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 40 FPS at 1920x1080 to 30 FPS at 2560x1440, a 25% reduction, and then plummets to 21 FPS at 3840x2160, which is roughly half the 1080p figure. This steep scaling curve indicates that the Radeon 760M's fill rate and shading resources are quickly overwhelmed as pixel count increases.

The situation becomes more extreme at higher preset levels. High settings see the average drop from 25 FPS at 1080p to 19 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 13 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings tell a similar story, with 22 FPS at 1080p falling to 17 FPS at 1440p and bottoming out at 11 FPS at 4K. The delta between Low and Ultra at each resolution is also telling: at 1080p, the gap is 18 FPS, while at 4K it narrows to just 10 FPS. This compression at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is so saturated with pixel work that the additional load from higher-quality textures and effects has less relative impact.

The data points to a system where the limiting component is unequivocally the GPU. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, with its 24 cores and 5.40 GHz boost clock, is not the constraint here. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates that hold more steady across resolutions, as the CPU workload does not scale with resolution in the same way. Instead, the dramatic FPS erosion with each step up in resolution aligns perfectly with a GPU that has a fixed amount of rasterization power. For playable frame rates, users must stay at 1080p, and even then, only the Low preset approaches a smooth experience.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K resolution?

A: The data indicates that 4K is not a viable option for this configuration. Measured average frame rates at 3840x2160 range from 11 FPS on Ultra settings to 21 FPS on Low settings, all well below the threshold for smooth, playable performance.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combo?

A: According to the benchmark data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution that yields playable frame rates. At this resolution, the Low preset achieves an average of 40 FPS, while Medium and High produce 29 FPS and 25 FPS respectively.

Q: How much of a performance difference is there between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: The measured FPS data shows a significant 18 FPS gap. Low settings average 40 FPS, while Ultra settings average 22 FPS at the same resolution. This indicates that the game's higher visual presets impose a substantial load on the integrated GPU.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX or the AMD Radeon 760M the bottleneck in this game?

A: The benchmark results clearly indicate the GPU is the limiting factor. The frame rates drop dramatically as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU's performance is not the constraint, as its high core count and clock speeds are more than sufficient for this title.

Q: Are the frame rates consistent, or do they vary significantly?

A: The data provides minimum and maximum FPS only for the Medium preset. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 29 FPS with a range from 24 to 33 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average is 22 FPS with a range from 18 to 25 FPS. This shows moderate frame time variance.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other systems tested for Control?

A: The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and AMD Radeon 760M ranks 2878 out of 2888 tested combos for this game. This places it in the bottom percentile of systems, which is consistent with the very low absolute FPS numbers measured.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its specification sheet is formidable, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, alongside 36 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU scores 35,589 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,204 in single-core, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 67,469 is within 0.7% of its nearest rivals, which include the Intel Xeon w5-3525 and AMD EPYC 4484PX.

However, in the context of Control, this CPU's immense power is largely untapped. The game's engine is not heavily multi-threaded in a way that would leverage 24 cores, and the measured FPS data shows that the system is not CPU-bound at any point. When a CPU is the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates that are similar across different resolutions, because the CPU workload remains constant while the GPU workload changes. The data contradicts this: FPS drops by roughly half from 1080p to 4K, which is a definitive sign that the GPU is the limiting factor.

The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 4,713 is strong, and its Geekbench single-core score of 2,458 indicates excellent per-core performance. These figures suggest that even if the game were more CPU-sensitive, the Core Ultra 9 275HX would likely handle it without issue. The fact that the system struggles to maintain 40 FPS at 1080p Low is not a reflection of the CPU's capability, but rather the Radeon 760M's inability to push frames faster. In this scenario, the CPU sits idle waiting for the GPU to complete its rendering tasks, a classic integrated graphics configuration where the processor's potential is wasted.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset for this configuration shows a linear degradation in performance as both resolution and visual fidelity increase. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 40 FPS, which is the highest measured figure in the entire set. Moving to Medium at the same resolution, the average drops to 29 FPS with a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 33. High settings produce 25 FPS average, and Ultra drops further to 22 FPS average. This progression shows that each step up in quality costs roughly 3 to 11 FPS, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium.

Stepping up to 2560x1440, the performance becomes increasingly marginal. Low settings average 30 FPS, which is playable but not smooth. Medium averages 22 FPS with a range of 18 to 25 FPS. High settings produce 19 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 17 FPS average. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 13 FPS, which is smaller than the 18 FPS gap seen at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming more uniformly saturated regardless of settings.

At 3840x2160, all presets are effectively unplayable for a smooth experience. Low settings are the only option above 20 FPS, averaging 21 FPS. Medium averages 15 FPS, High averages 13 FPS, and Ultra averages 11 FPS. The minimum and maximum data points for Medium at 4K are 12 and 17 FPS, respectively, showing that the frame rate can dip into single digits during heavy scenes. The overall picture is that this system is only suitable for 1080p gaming in Control, and even then, compromises on settings are necessary to achieve a stable frame rate.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. It features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, with a boost clock of 2599 MHz. The GPU's memory is system-shared, meaning its bandwidth is dependent on the host system's DDR5 memory configuration, which for this CPU is dual-channel with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The GPU's raw compute capability is rated at 5.323 TFLOPS for FP32 operations.

In the context of Control, the Radeon 760M is the primary determinant of performance. Its average benchmark score is 6,019, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in terms of average score are the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, with delta percentages of 0.3% and 0.3% respectively. This places the iGPU in the same performance class as entry-level discrete graphics cards from several generations ago, which explains its struggles with a demanding title like Control.

The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 5,310 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 400 are indicative of its limited rasterization power. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU's performance ceiling is reached at around 40 FPS in the least demanding scenario tested (1080p Low). The fact that the frame rate drops to 21 FPS at 4K Low demonstrates that the GPU's pixel fill rate is a hard limit, regardless of the CPU's capabilities. The 8 ray tracing cores are present, but given the overall performance level, enabling any ray-traced effects would likely result in a slideshow, though no such data was measured.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured frame rates, the optimal configuration for this system is the 1920x1080 resolution with the Low preset. This is the only combination that achieves an average FPS above 30, coming in at 40 FPS. This setting provides a playable, albeit not perfectly smooth, experience. The next viable option is 1080p Medium, which averages 29 FPS, but this is borderline for action-heavy scenes where the minimum FPS may drop below the average, potentially causing noticeable stutter.

For users who prefer higher visual quality over frame rate, 1080p High at 25 FPS average is a compromise, but the data suggests that the game's dynamic action sequences will likely suffer from frame pacing issues. The Ultra preset at 1080p, averaging 22 FPS, is not recommended for a playable experience. At higher resolutions, the Low preset at 1440p averages 30 FPS, which is technically playable, but the trade-off in resolution for a marginal FPS gain over 1080p High is not favorable. The 4K presets are all below 21 FPS and should be avoided entirely.

The data suggests that the best experience balances resolution and settings to maintain a consistent frame rate. The Low preset at 1080p offers the highest average FPS and likely the most consistent frame pacing, given that it has the most headroom. The Medium preset at 1080p provides a better visual experience at 29 FPS, but the measured minimum of 24 FPS indicates that there will be perceptible dips during intense moments. For this hardware, prioritizing frame rate stability over visual fidelity is the correct approach, making 1080p Low the clear recommendation from the measured results.