Control

# Control with Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX + AMD Radeon 880M

This combination pairs Intel's top-tier mobile Core Ultra 9 275HX processor with AMD's integrated Radeon 880M graphics, producing benchmark results that are heavily skewed toward CPU-bound performance. Across all tested resolutions and settings in Control, the measured frame rates remain below 60 FPS, with the integrated GPU acting as the primary constraint. The data reveals a system where the processor holds enormous untapped headroom while the graphics solution struggles to keep pace, making this configuration suitable for low-resolution or reduced-settings play rather than high-fidelity experiences.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a 24-core, 24-thread processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture using TSMC's 3 nm process node. This is a flagship mobile part with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, representing a substantial amount of compute capability. In synthetic benchmarks, the chip scores 35,589 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,204 in single-core tests, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs tracked. Its average benchmark score of 67,469 sits remarkably close to workstation-class processors, with the nearest rival being the Intel Xeon w5-3525 at 67,673 (a 0.3% difference) and the AMD EPYC 4484PX at 67,822 (0.5% ahead). This places the 275HX in rarefied company for a mobile processor, though the deltaPct values indicate these differences are essentially negligible in real-world terms.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is largely one of over-provisioning. The game's engine, built around physics-heavy combat and destructible environments, benefits from strong single-thread performance, and the 5.40 GHz boost clock delivers that in abundance. The 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample bandwidth for game assets and physics calculations. However, the measured frame rates tell a different story: at 1080p Low settings, the system produces 55 FPS average, which is the highest result across any configuration tested. This indicates that even at the lowest graphical load, the system cannot approach the CPU's potential, as the integrated GPU becomes the limiting factor well before processor resources are exhausted.

The 275HX's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 interface feeds both the CPU and the integrated GPU, as the Radeon 880M relies on system memory. This shared bandwidth arrangement means the CPU's intensive tasks can contend with GPU memory requests, though in Control's case, the GPU is so far below the CPU's performance ceiling that this contention likely has minimal impact. The processor's Cinebench R20 scores of 19,899 multi-core and 2,809 single-core reinforce its position as a top-tier mobile compute engine, but the game's measured results show no scenario where the CPU approaches saturation. In short, the CPU is not the bottleneck in any tested configuration; it is the graphics subsystem that dictates the frame rate envelope.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm node. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, with system-shared memory providing both capacity and bandwidth that is dependent on the host system's DDR5 configuration. Its compute capability is rated at 4.454 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 operations, which is modest for modern gaming workloads but respectable for an integrated solution.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 880M scores 7,615 in Passmark G3D and 4,454 in FP32 compute, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 8,436 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8,427 (0.1% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8,458 (0.3% behind). These comparisons highlight that the 880M performs in the range of older discrete mobile GPUs from a decade ago, which aligns with the measured results in Control. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 535 and Passmark DirectX 11 score of 73 indicate limited DirectX capabilities, though the hardware supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4.

For Control, the GPU's role is the decisive factor in every measured scenario. The game's visual effects, including particle systems and reflective surfaces, place significant demand on the shading units and memory bandwidth. At 1080p Low settings, the 880M manages 55 FPS average, but this drops to 35 FPS at High and 30 FPS at Ultra, showing a clear progression of graphical load overwhelming the GPU. The 16 ROPs are particularly limiting for fill-rate-heavy scenes, and the system-shared memory bandwidth creates a ceiling that cannot be overcome by clock speed alone. The GPU's 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs positions it below the median, and the measured game performance reflects this — the 880M is a capable integrated solution for esports or older titles but struggles with the demands of a 2019 action-adventure game like Control at higher settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this combination is at 1080p with Low settings, where the system achieves 55 FPS average. This is the only tested configuration that approaches playable frame rates, and it does so with a substantial margin over the next-best option. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 39 FPS, which is still technically playable but falls below the smooth 60 FPS threshold that action games benefit from. The High preset at 1080p yields 35 FPS, and Ultra drops to 30 FPS, both of which introduce noticeable judder during combat sequences.

At 1440p, the results are more constrained. Low settings produce 42 FPS average, which is playable but requires significant visual compromises. Medium drops to 30 FPS, High to 26 FPS, and Ultra to 23 FPS, all of which are below the 30 FPS minimum for comfortable gameplay. At 4K, the situation becomes untenable: Low produces 28 FPS, Medium 20 FPS, High 18 FPS, and Ultra 15 FPS. None of these are recommended for actual play, as they fall below the threshold for interactive responsiveness.

The data strongly suggests that 1080p Low is the best experience per the measured rows, as it is the only configuration that maintains an average above 50 FPS. Players seeking higher visual fidelity could consider 1080p Medium at 39 FPS, but the 16 FPS drop from Low represents a significant sacrifice in smoothness. The 1440p Low option at 42 FPS offers a middle ground for those prioritizing resolution over detail, but the 13 FPS deficit compared to 1080p Low indicates the GPU's resolution scaling penalty outweighs the visual benefits in most scenarios. For this combination, the recommendation is unequivocal: 1080p Low delivers the best balance of playability and visual quality, with 1440p Low as a secondary option for users with higher-resolution displays.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and AMD Radeon 880M ranks 2,817 out of 2,888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 2.5% of all configurations. This ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU, as the CPU's 94th percentile standing is negated by the integrated graphics' 43rd percentile performance. The combo's rank reflects a fundamental mismatch between processor capability and graphics output — the system is built around a flagship mobile CPU but relies on an IGP that cannot leverage the available compute headroom.

In practical terms, this ranking means the combination performs worse than nearly every discrete-GPU laptop configuration tested, and even some older integrated solutions may outperform it in this specific game. The deltaPct values for the GPU's nearest rivals — 0.1% ahead of the GTX 675MX and 0.3% behind the MX330 — suggest that the 880M's performance is comparable to entry-level discrete GPUs from several generations ago, which are themselves not well-suited to Control's demands. The CPU's nearest rivals, the Xeon w5-3525 and EPYC 4484PX, are workstation parts that would not typically be paired with an integrated GPU, highlighting the unusual nature of this configuration.

The low ranking is not a surprise given the measured FPS data. Control is a graphically demanding title, and the 880M's 4.454 TFLOPS of compute is insufficient for smooth gameplay at most settings. The combo's position at 2,817 out of 2,888 indicates that only 71 tested combinations perform worse, and these are likely to be older or lower-end integrated solutions. For users considering this configuration, the ranking serves as a clear warning that the system is not designed for AAA gaming, and any expectations of high frame rates should be tempered by the data.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU as the definitive limiting component. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 55 FPS at 1080p to 42 FPS at 1440p and 28 FPS at 4K — a cumulative drop of 49% from the baseline. At Medium settings, the progression is 39 FPS to 30 FPS to 20 FPS, representing a 49% reduction as well. High settings show 35 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K, a 49% decline. Ultra settings follow the same pattern: 30 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 15 FPS at 4K, again a 50% drop.

This consistent ~50% reduction from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates that the GPU is scaling linearly with pixel count, which is characteristic of a fill-rate or bandwidth-limited component. The 16 ROPs and system-shared memory bandwidth create a hard ceiling that manifests as a proportional FPS loss as resolution increases. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rate would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as processor load does not scale with pixel count in the same way. The data shows no such flatness — every resolution step incurs a significant penalty, confirming that the 880M's rendering pipeline is saturated.

The resolution scaling also highlights the GPU's memory bandwidth constraints. At 4K, the pixel throughput requirement quadruples compared to 1080p, and the system-shared DDR5 memory cannot feed the GPU fast enough to maintain performance. The 102.4 GB/s CPU memory bandwidth is shared between the processor and GPU, and at 4K the GPU's demand for texture and framebuffer data overwhelms this shared resource. The result is that 4K is not viable at any setting, with the highest achievable average being 28 FPS at Low. Users should treat 4K as an unsupported resolution for this combination and focus on 1080p or, at most, 1440p with reduced settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest frame rate this combination achieves in Control?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 55 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that exceeds 50 FPS, with all other settings and resolutions falling below 42 FPS.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX or the AMD Radeon 880M the bottleneck in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU ranks in the 94th percentile with a 5.40 GHz boost clock, while the GPU sits in the 43rd percentile. The consistent ~50% FPS drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings confirms a GPU-bound scenario.

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

A: 4K is not playable in any practical sense. The best 4K result is 28 FPS average at Low settings, with Medium at 20 FPS, High at 18 FPS, and Ultra at 15 FPS. All of these fall well below the 30 FPS threshold for acceptable gameplay.

Q: How does the Radeon 880M compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The 880M's average benchmark score of 8,436 is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427) and 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458). This places it in the performance range of older entry-level discrete GPUs.

Q: What settings provide the most balanced experience for this combination?

A: The data shows 1080p Low at 55 FPS as the only configuration above 50 FPS. 1440p Low at 42 FPS is a secondary option, while 1080p Medium at 39 FPS offers slightly better visuals at a noticeable FPS cost.

Q: What is the overall ranking of this combo among all tested configurations in Control?

A: The combination ranks 2,817 out of 2,888 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 2.5% of all configurations. This low ranking is driven by the GPU's 43rd percentile performance rather than the CPU's 94th percentile standing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080 resolution, the measured average frame rates span from 55 FPS at Low settings to 30 FPS at Ultra. The Low preset achieves 55 FPS average, Medium produces 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 45, High reaches 35 FPS, and Ultra drops to 30 FPS. The 25 FPS spread between Low and Ultra demonstrates the GPU's sensitivity to graphical detail levels, with each step up in quality costing between 4 and 16 FPS. The Medium preset's min and max values indicate frame time variance that could cause perceptible stutter during intense scenes, while Low's flat average suggests more consistent performance.

At 2560x1440 resolution, the average frame rates range from 42 FPS at Low to 23 FPS at Ultra. Low settings produce 42 FPS, Medium averages 30 FPS with a minimum of 25 and maximum of 34, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The resolution increase from 1080p costs between 7 and 13 FPS depending on the preset, representing a 24-28% performance penalty. The Medium preset's min-max range of 25-34 FPS shows tighter frame pacing than at 1080p, but the lower average makes gameplay feel less fluid overall.

At 3840x2160 resolution, the results are uniformly below playable thresholds. Low settings average 28 FPS, Medium averages 20 FPS with a minimum of 17 and maximum of 23, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 15 FPS. The 4K resolution incurs a 49-50% FPS penalty compared to 1080p across all settings, confirming the GPU's fill-rate limitations. The Medium preset's min of 17 FPS and max of 23 FPS illustrate severe frame time spikes that would render the game nearly unplayable during combat or particle-heavy sequences. Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: the Radeon 880M cannot maintain smooth frame rates at higher settings, and only the 1080p Low configuration provides a passable experience.