Control

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX paired with the AMD Radeon 890M is a combination that lands near the bottom of the database for Control, ranking 2728 out of 2888 tested combos. This places it in the 5th percentile of all systems tested, meaning roughly 95% of configurations deliver higher frame rates in this title. The pairing of a top-tier mobile CPU with an integrated GPU creates a significant bottleneck, and the measured results reflect that imbalance across every resolution and preset.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 2728 out of 2888 is a clear indicator that this configuration is not suited for demanding action-adventure titles like Control. With only 160 combinations ranking below it, the data shows that this system sits in the bottom 5.5% of all tested setups. The primary culprit is the AMD Radeon 890M, an integrated graphics solution that, despite its modern RDNA 3.5 architecture, occupies the 45th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 9210 places it in direct competition with the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9221, 0.1% faster), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9273, 0.7% faster), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9294, 0.9% faster), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (9302, 1% faster). These are all older or lower-tier parts, which contextualizes the 890M’s position as a capable integrated solution but not a gaming powerhouse.

On the CPU side, the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a different story entirely. This 24-core, 24-thread Arrow Lake-HX processor sits in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 67469. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w5-3525 (67673, 0.3% faster), AMD EPYC 4484PX (67822, 0.5% faster), AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX (67868, 0.6% faster), and Intel Xeon 6515P (67006, 0.7% slower). The CPU is clearly not the limiting factor here; in fact, the data suggests that the Ultra 9 275HX is overqualified for the workload that the 890M can handle. The 2728th rank is almost entirely attributable to the GPU’s inability to keep pace with the CPU’s potential. In essence, this is a configuration where the processor outperforms its graphics counterpart by a massive margin, and the game’s frame rates suffer accordingly.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS data, the only playable setting at any resolution is Low, and even then, the experience is marginal. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 58 FPS, which is the only configuration that approaches smooth gameplay. Moving to Medium at the same resolution drops the average to 41 FPS, with minimums of 35 FPS and maximums of 47 FPS, which is playable but inconsistent. High settings at 1080p yield 37 FPS on average, while Ultra falls to 32 FPS. The data clearly indicates that Low is the recommended preset for any acceptable experience, as it is the only setting that maintains an average above 50 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the situation worsens. Low settings produce an average of 44 FPS, which is borderline playable for a slower-paced title but will struggle during Control’s combat sequences. Medium drops to 31 FPS (27 min, 36 max), High to 28 FPS, and Ultra to 24 FPS. None of these are recommended for a smooth experience, though Low at 1440p might suffice for users willing to tolerate occasional dips. At 3840x2160, the numbers are effectively unplayable: Low averages 30 FPS, Medium 21 FPS (18 min, 24 max), High 19 FPS, and Ultra 16 FPS. The verdict is straightforward: for this combo, 1080p with Low settings is the only viable path, and users should expect to make significant visual compromises to achieve acceptable frame rates. The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p—a 17 FPS difference—highlights how sensitive this integrated GPU is to quality presets, so staying on Low is critical.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data reveals a steep performance cliff as pixel count increases. From 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS drops by roughly 24% across all settings. For example, at Low settings, 58 FPS at 1080p falls to 44 FPS at 1440p, a 14 FPS reduction. At Medium, the drop is from 41 FPS to 31 FPS, a 10 FPS decline. High settings see a decrease from 37 FPS to 28 FPS, and Ultra from 32 FPS to 24 FPS. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering load increases linearly with pixel count, and the 890M’s limited shading units (1024) and texture mapping units (64) struggle to keep up.

The transition from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 is even more punishing. At Low settings, 44 FPS at 1440p drops to 30 FPS at 4K, a 32% reduction. Medium falls from 31 FPS to 21 FPS, High from 28 FPS to 19 FPS, and Ultra from 24 FPS to 16 FPS. The 4K results are uniformly below 30 FPS, which is the minimum threshold for playability in most action games. This steep decline—especially the 14 FPS drop from 1440p to 4K at Low settings—indicates that the GPU is the sole limiting component. The CPU’s 24 cores and 5.40 GHz boost clock are nowhere near being stressed at these resolutions; rather, the 890M’s 32 ROPs and 5.939 TFLOPS of FP32 performance simply cannot fill the larger frame buffers. The data suggests that 1080p is the practical ceiling for this combo, and 4K is entirely out of reach without drastic settings reductions or resolution scaling.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured FPS shows a clear hierarchy across presets. Low settings deliver an average of 58 FPS, which is the highest recorded for this combo. Medium settings produce 41 FPS on average, with a minimum of 35 FPS and a maximum of 47 FPS, indicating some frame time variance but overall consistency. High settings yield 37 FPS on average, while Ultra drops to 32 FPS. The 26 FPS gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p underscores the GPU’s sensitivity to graphical features like volumetric lighting and particle effects, which are prominent in Control.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers scale down predictably. Low settings average 44 FPS, Medium 31 FPS (27 min, 36 max), High 28 FPS, and Ultra 24 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 27 FPS suggests that during intense combat scenes, the frame rate can dip below the 30 FPS threshold, making the game feel choppy. At 3840x2160, the results are the weakest in the dataset. Low settings average 30 FPS, which is technically playable but barely, while Medium averages 21 FPS (18 min, 24 max), High 19 FPS, and Ultra 16 FPS. The 4K Medium minimum of 18 FPS is particularly telling—it indicates that even in less demanding scenes, the GPU cannot maintain a playable frame rate. Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low settings are the only tier that approaches playability, and even then, only at 1080p does the average exceed 55 FPS.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is the defining component in this combo’s performance, and the data shows it is severely undersized for Control. This integrated GPU, based on the Strix Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, operates with a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. It features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, along with 16 ray tracing cores. The memory is system-shared, with bandwidth dependent on the host system’s DDR5 configuration, which for the Ultra 9 275HX is dual-channel with a maximum of 102.4 GB/s. The GPU’s FP32 performance is rated at 5.939 TFLOPS, a figure that is competitive with discrete GPUs from several generations ago but insufficient for modern titles at high settings.

In Control, the 890M’s limitations are evident in the percentile ranking: it sits in the 45th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 9210. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9221, 0.1% faster), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9273, 0.7% faster), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9294, 0.9% faster), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (9302, 1% faster). These are all parts from the 2010s or early 2020s, and they all perform within 1% of the 890M. This context is crucial: the 890M is not a modern gaming GPU by any stretch, and its 45th percentile ranking confirms that it is outclassed by the majority of discrete options. The 16 ray tracing cores are present, but Control’s heavy use of ray-traced reflections and shadows would likely cripple performance if enabled, though the measured data does not include RT-specific settings.

The GPU’s 15 W TDP is another indicator of its intended role—it is designed for efficiency in thin-and-light laptops, not for sustained gaming loads. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 590 and PassMark G3D score of 8076 reinforce this, placing it firmly in integrated territory. In practical terms, the 890M’s performance in Control is capped at 1080p Low, where it manages 58 FPS. Any attempt to raise settings or resolution pushes frame rates into unplayable territory, as the 4K Ultra result of 16 FPS demonstrates. The GPU is unequivocally the bottleneck in this system.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a flagship mobile processor that is entirely wasted in this combo, at least for Control. This Arrow Lake-HX chip features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. It has a 36 MB shared L3 cache, with 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core. The CPU is built on a 3 nm process from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. It supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, which matches the GPU’s system-shared memory interface. The processor’s benchmarks are impressive: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 35589, single-core 2204, and Geekbench multi-core 20795 with single-core 2458. Its PassMark multithread score of 55759 and single-thread score of 4713 place it in the 94th percentile among all CPUs.

In the context of Control, the CPU’s role is minimal. The game is heavily GPU-bound, as evidenced by the FPS scaling across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the 58 FPS average is constrained by the 890M, not the CPU. The Ultra 9 275HX’s 24 threads are far more than Control can utilize, as the game typically relies on a handful of cores for physics and AI. The nearest CPU rivals include the Intel Xeon w5-3525 (67673 avg score, 0.3% faster), AMD EPYC 4484PX (67822, 0.5% faster), AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX (67868, 0.6% faster), and Intel Xeon 6515P (67006, 0.7% slower). These are all workstation-class processors, underscoring that the Ultra 9 275HX is designed for productivity workloads, not gaming. Its PassMark physics score of 3338 and data encryption score of 47112 indicate strong computational power, but that power is irrelevant when the GPU cannot render frames fast enough.

The CPU’s 55 W TDP and PCIe Gen 5 support (20 lanes) are features meant for high-end laptops with discrete GPUs, yet here it is paired with an integrated solution. The data shows that the CPU’s performance headroom is enormous—it could easily drive a much more powerful discrete GPU without becoming a bottleneck. In Control, the CPU’s percentile rank of 94 versus the GPU’s 45 creates a stark mismatch, and the resulting frame rates are entirely a function of the GPU’s capabilities. If this CPU were paired with a mid-range discrete graphics card, the results would be dramatically different, but as measured, the Ultra 9 275HX is effectively idle while the 890M struggles.