Control

Control, the 2019 action-adventure title, presents a demanding environment for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and AMD Radeon 760M combination, particularly at higher resolutions. The measured performance data indicates that this mobile platform is positioned at the very bottom of the tested combos, with a rank of 2878 out of 2888, suggesting that the integrated GPU is the primary bottleneck for achieving playable frame rates. The following analysis breaks down the CPU and GPU contributions, settings recommendations, and the scaling behavior of this specific hardware pairing.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It features a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a TDP of 25 W. The CPU’s cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, the processor achieves a multi-core score of 28221 in Cinebench R23 and a single-core score of 3984, placing it in the 87th percentile against all CPUs. Its average benchmark score is 40518.

The data shows that the CPU’s raw compute capability is substantial, but in the context of Control, its role is secondary to the GPU. The benchmark results show that even at 1080p Low settings, where the CPU would be most likely to be a limiting factor, the average FPS is 40. The performance drop to 25 FPS at High settings at the same resolution suggests that the game’s engine is demanding more from the overall system, but the CPU’s single-thread performance, as indicated by the Cinebench R23 score of 3984, is likely sufficient to feed the GPU in most scenarios. Compared to its nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is essentially on par with the Intel Core 7 253PE, with a delta of -0.1%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, with a delta of 0.2%. This indicates the CPU is not a unique weak point in this pairing.

The processor’s memory support for LPDDR5X with dual-channel configuration and a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s is a relevant factor, as the Radeon 760M uses system memory for its framebuffer. The CPU’s performance in data compression (312927 in Passmark) and floating-point math (105681) suggests it can handle the physics and game logic calculations in Control, but the frame rates are ultimately capped by the graphics solution. For this game, the CPU’s 16 cores are more than adequate; the bottleneck is clearly elsewhere, as evidenced by the fact that the lowest measured FPS at 4K Ultra is 11, which is far below what the CPU’s compute scores would predict as a limitation.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, and its TDP is 15 W. The GPU features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, along with 8 ray tracing cores. Its performance is rated at 5.323 TFLOPS for FP32 operations. The memory configuration is labeled as "System Shared," meaning its VRAM size, type, and bus width depend on the system's main memory allocation, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent."

The GPU's benchmark scores are modest, with a Passmark G3D score of 5310 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 400. This places the Radeon 760M in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival in terms of average score is the AMD Radeon RX 6400, with a delta of 0.3%, indicating that the integrated solution performs similarly to a low-end discrete desktop GPU. However, the measured FPS in Control tells a clearer story. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 40, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this combo. The performance degrades significantly with resolution and settings, confirming that the GPU is the primary constraint.

The Radeon 760M’s reliance on shared system memory is a critical factor. The bandwidth is system-dependent, which likely contributes to the performance cliff at higher resolutions. The GPU’s pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s are adequate for low-resolution rendering but are overwhelmed at 4K. The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the average FPS falls to 11, which is essentially unplayable. The GPU’s performance in DirectX 11 (52 in Passmark) and DirectX 12 (25) benchmarks aligns with the in-game results, showing that it is not well-suited for the demands of a modern action-adventure title at high fidelity settings. The GPU is the definitive limiting component in this configuration.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo are at the lowest resolution with the lowest preset. The only configuration that approaches a playable frame rate is 1080p with Low settings, which yields an average of 40 FPS. This is the only row in the entire dataset that exceeds 30 FPS. Moving to Medium settings at 1080p drops the average to 29 FPS, which is just below the threshold for smooth gameplay. The data shows that any increase in resolution results in a significant frame rate penalty.

For a better visual experience without a complete performance collapse, 1080p Medium is the only other option worth considering, but it comes with an average FPS of 29 and a minimum of 24, which may cause noticeable stutter in action sequences. Higher presets at 1080p, such as High (25 FPS) and Ultra (22 FPS), are playable only in the most static scenes. At 1440p, the situation worsens, with Low settings yielding an average of 30 FPS, which is acceptable but not ideal. The Medium preset at 1440p averages 22 FPS, and High and Ultra average 19 and 17 FPS, respectively. At 4K, all presets are below 21 FPS, making the game effectively unplayable.

The data clearly indicates that the best experience is achieved with the Low preset at 1080p. This provides the highest average frame rate and minimizes the risk of severe frame drops. Users seeking higher fidelity should be prepared for a significant performance hit. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 11 FPS, which is a 27.5% reduction. The data suggests that the graphics settings have a more pronounced effect on performance than resolution scaling, but both are heavily constrained by the GPU's limitations. In summary, the "best" experience is defined by the playable frame rate, which points directly to 1080p Low.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and AMD Radeon 760M combination ranks 2878 out of 2888 tested combos for Control. This places it in the bottom 0.3% of all configurations, indicating that it is one of the weakest pairings for this title. The rank is a direct reflection of the measured FPS data, which shows that the combo is unable to maintain playable frame rates at any settings beyond the lowest at 1080p. The CPU’s strong benchmark performance is irrelevant to this ranking, as the GPU's limitations dominate the results.

This low ranking is consistent with the GPU's percentile of 35th, but the gap between the CPU's 87th percentile and the GPU's 35th percentile highlights the imbalance. The combo's performance is so far below the median that it suggests the system is not designed for gaming at high resolutions. The nearest rival data for the GPU, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M with a delta of 0.3%, does not change the overall picture; these are all low-power or older parts that struggle with modern games. The ranking of 2878 out of 2888 is a clear indicator that users should expect significant compromises in visual quality and resolution to achieve a stable frame rate in Control. The data shows that this combo is at the extreme low end of the performance spectrum.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and steep performance drop as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the average FPS is 40 at 1080p, 30 at 1440p, and 21 at 4K. This represents a 25% decrease from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 30% decrease from 1440p to 4K. At High settings, the average FPS is 25 at 1080p, 19 at 1440p, and 13 at 4K, showing a similar pattern of diminishing returns. The scaling is not linear, which is typical when a component becomes saturated.

This resolution scaling behavior strongly indicates that the GPU is the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU's workload is primarily resolution-independent. The fact that the FPS drops by nearly half from 1080p to 4K at Low settings (40 to 21) demonstrates that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are being overwhelmed. The system-shared memory of the Radeon 760M is a likely culprit, as the bandwidth is dependent on the system's memory configuration, which is shared with the CPU. The data shows that the GPU is unable to keep up with the increased pixel count at higher resolutions, leading to a significant frame rate penalty. The scaling patterns confirm that the CPU performance, while not stellar, is not the primary constraint in this pairing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured FPS data for this combo in Control is as follows:

At 1920x1080, the average FPS varies significantly by preset. The Low setting produces the highest average at 40 FPS. The Medium setting averages 29 FPS, with a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 33. The High setting averages 25 FPS. The Ultra setting averages 22 FPS. The data shows a clear downward trend from Low to Ultra, with a total drop of 18 FPS between the lowest and highest presets.

At 2560x1440, the performance is lower across all presets. The Low setting averages 30 FPS. The Medium setting averages 22 FPS, with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 25. The High setting averages 19 FPS. The Ultra setting averages 17 FPS. The frame rate at 1440p Low is equivalent to the 1080p Medium setting, illustrating the cost of increased resolution.

At 3840x2160, the performance is severely limited. The Low setting averages 21 FPS. The Medium setting averages 15 FPS, with a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 17. The High setting averages 13 FPS. The Ultra setting averages 11 FPS. None of the 4K settings approach a playable frame rate, with the highest average being just 21 FPS at Low settings. The data shows that this resolution is not viable for this hardware combination, regardless of the settings chosen. The minimum FPS values at Medium settings across all resolutions are notably lower than the averages, indicating potential stuttering.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for this CPU and GPU combo in Control?

A: The data shows that the only setting that achieves a playable frame rate is 1080p with the Low preset, which yields an average of 40 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 29 FPS, which may be acceptable but is below the 30 FPS threshold.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H or the AMD Radeon 760M the main bottleneck?

A: The resolution scaling data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. As resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, the FPS drops sharply (e.g., from 40 to 21 at Low settings), which is a characteristic of GPU limitation, not CPU limitation.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested systems in Control?

A: This combo ranks 2878 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 0.3% of all systems. This is the lowest tier of performance for this game.

Q: What is the performance difference between 1080p and 1440p at Low settings?

A: At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 40 at 1080p to 30 at 1440p. This is a 25% reduction in performance, indicating a significant cost for the higher resolution.

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

A: The data shows that at 4K, all presets yield an average FPS below 21. The highest average is 21 FPS at Low settings, and the Ultra preset averages only 11 FPS. This makes the game unplayable at 4K.

Q: How does the Radeon 760M's performance compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6400, has a score of 6001, a delta of 0.3%, showing they are nearly identical in performance.