Control

Control is an Action Adventure title from 2019 that stresses both CPU and GPU heavily, and the data for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H paired with the AMD Radeon 8050S reveals a system that is consistently capable but ultimately limited by its graphics solution at higher resolutions. The measured frame rates show a clear hierarchy where the CPU provides enough headroom for the GPU to become the primary bottleneck, a dynamic that becomes more pronounced as pixel count increases. This analysis breaks down the specific roles of each component, how they scale across resolutions, and where this combo ranks among the thousands of tested configurations.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. It operates with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, which are critical figures for understanding its performance in a game like Control, which benefits from both high single-thread speed and multi-core scaling. The processor's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache, providing the fast data access that a physics-heavy action game requires.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU posts strong numbers that contextualize its in-game behavior. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28221 and single-core score of 3984 indicate a processor that can handle both heavily threaded background tasks and the primary game thread with ease. The Passmark single-thread score of 4005 further confirms this, suggesting that the CPU is rarely the limiting factor in Control's frame pacing. The data supports this interpretation: at 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 116 FPS, a figure that is more likely constrained by the GPU's raw output than by the CPU's ability to feed it draw calls.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides a benchmark-relative perspective. The Intel Core 7 253PE has an average score of 40557, which is 0.1% higher than the Ultra X7 368H's average of 40518, placing them in a statistical tie. Similarly, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40431, which is 0.2% lower, and the Intel Xeon 6507P scores 40426, also 0.2% lower. These negligible deltas mean that in CPU-bound scenarios, the Ultra X7 368H will perform nearly identically to these alternatives, and the differences in Control's frame rates will come down to the GPU and memory configuration rather than the processor's compute capabilities.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 87 against all tested CPUs indicates it is in the top 13% of processors, which is a strong position for a mobile part. When paired with a discrete-class integrated GPU like the Radeon 8050S, this CPU provides a solid foundation, ensuring that the system does not suffer from stutter or frametime spikes due to processor limitations. The 16 threads are particularly useful for Control's asynchronous compute and physics simulation, allowing the GPU to offload work without starving the main render thread. The data implies that the CPU is doing its job well; the measured FPS drops across resolutions are not characteristic of a CPU bottleneck, as they scale almost linearly with pixel count.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon 8050S is a mobile integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It features 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units, along with 32 ray tracing cores. The chip operates at a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz, which is a substantial boost ratio that allows for significant performance scaling under load. Its compute capability is rated at 11.47 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, which is a modest figure compared to discrete desktop GPUs but respectable for an integrated solution.

The most notable aspect of this GPU is its memory configuration: the memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," meaning it uses the host system's LPDDR5X memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The bandwidth is "System Dependent," which means the effective memory throughput is tied to the CPU's dual-channel memory bus, rated at 153.6 GB/s. This is a crucial bottleneck for a game like Control, which has high-resolution textures and complex lighting effects that require substantial memory bandwidth. At 4K Ultra settings, the system drops to 32 FPS, which suggests that the shared memory architecture is struggling to feed the GPU enough data, rather than the shader cores being fully saturated.

The GPU's benchmark scores show it performing at a level comparable to some mid-range discrete options. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 65818 and Vulkan score of 58398 place it in the 89th percentile against all GPUs. The nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, which scores 61896 and is 0.3% lower, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56, which scores 63693 and is 2.5% higher. The delta to these parts is small enough that in practice, the 8050S will trade blows depending on driver optimization and memory configuration. The fact that the 8050S is an IGP with a 55 W TDP and no dedicated power connectors means it is thermally and power-limited compared to a discrete card, which explains why its performance is not higher relative to its raw compute numbers.

In Control, the GPU's role is dominant. The measured FPS at 1080p High (73 FPS) versus 1080p Low (116 FPS) shows a 43 FPS swing purely from settings changes, which indicates that the GPU is the primary constraint even at the lowest resolution. The ray tracing cores are present, but the data does not include RT-specific benchmarks, so their impact cannot be quantified here; however, the presence of 32 RT cores suggests the hardware is capable of handling some ray-traced effects, albeit likely at a significant performance cost given the shared memory bandwidth.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling data is the most revealing aspect of this system's performance profile. Moving from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 at High settings, the average FPS drops from 73 to 37, a reduction of 36 FPS or approximately 49.3%. This is a steep decline that is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the render output unit (ROP) throughput and memory bandwidth become the limiting factors. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect a much smaller FPS drop, as the CPU workload does not increase proportionally with resolution.

At Low settings, the scaling is slightly less severe but still pronounced. The 1080p Low score is 116 FPS, while 4K Low is 59 FPS, a drop of 57 FPS or 49.1%. This consistency across settings suggests that the GPU's memory bandwidth is the primary constraint, as the shared system memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s is fixed regardless of the graphics settings. The Medium preset shows a similar pattern: 82 FPS at 1080p, 62 FPS at 1440p, and 42 FPS at 4K. The step from 1440p to 4K is a 20 FPS drop, which is proportionally larger than the step from 1080p to 1440p (also 20 FPS), indicating that the memory subsystem is being saturated at higher pixel counts.

The Ultra preset tells a similar story, with 63 FPS at 1080p, 48 FPS at 1440p, and 32 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1440p to 4K is 16 FPS, while the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 15 FPS. This near-linear decline in FPS with pixel count is a classic sign of a memory bandwidth bottleneck, as the GPU's compute units are not the limiting factor; instead, the system is struggling to move texture and geometry data from the shared memory to the GPU cores. The fact that the FPS does not halve when moving from 1080p to 4K (which would require a 4x pixel increase) suggests that the GPU is not fully saturated, but rather that the memory bandwidth is the hard ceiling.

For gaming at 1080p, the system is quite capable, with all presets exceeding 60 FPS except Ultra (63 FPS is still above 60). At 1440p, the system starts to struggle, with only Low (87 FPS) and Medium (62 FPS) maintaining playable frame rates, while High (55 FPS) and Ultra (48 FPS) dip below the 60 FPS threshold. At 4K, the system is only playable at Low settings (59 FPS), with Medium (42 FPS), High (37 FPS), and Ultra (32 FPS) all falling into the territory of presentation or screenshot territory rather than smooth gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and AMD Radeon 8050S ranks 2127 out of 2888 tested combinations for Control. This places it in the 26th percentile from the top, meaning that roughly 74% of all tested combos perform better in this specific game. This ranking is lower than the individual component percentiles (CPU at 87th, GPU at 89th) might suggest, which is a crucial insight. The discrepancy indicates that while each component is individually strong relative to its peers, their combination is not synergistic for Control's specific workload.

The reason for this ranking becomes clear when examining the GPU's nearest rivals. The Radeon 8050S is 2.5% slower than the Radeon Pro Vega 56 and 2.6% slower than the Radeon RX 7600M, which are likely paired with weaker CPUs in many other test configurations. However, the 8050S's integrated nature and shared memory architecture put it at a disadvantage in a game that is heavily reliant on memory bandwidth. The combo ranking of 2127 suggests that other systems with slightly slower GPUs but dedicated VRAM may achieve higher frame rates in Control, because the fixed memory bandwidth of the shared architecture is a more significant bottleneck than the GPU's compute capability.

Furthermore, the CPU's nearest rivals are all within 0.2% of its average score, so the CPU choice is unlikely to be the differentiator in this ranking. The data implies that the 8050S, despite its high individual percentile, is hamstrung by its memory subsystem in a way that synthetic benchmarks do not fully capture. The Geekbench scores are compute-heavy and do not penalize shared memory as severely as a real-world game like Control does. Therefore, the 2127 rank is a realistic assessment of how this combo performs in a memory-bandwidth-intensive scenario, and it suggests that users should temper expectations for high-resolution gaming.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU/GPU combo in Control?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where all presets achieve playable frame rates, with Low at 116 FPS, Medium at 82 FPS, High at 73 FPS, and Ultra at 63 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low (87 FPS) and Medium (62 FPS) exceed 60 FPS, while 3840x2160 is only playable at Low (59 FPS).

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518. Its closest rival, the Intel Core 7 253PE, scores 40557, which is 0.1% higher. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40431, which is 0.2% lower, and the Intel Xeon 6507P scores 40426, also 0.2% lower.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The resolution scaling data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The FPS drops by approximately 49% from 1080p to 4K at both High and Low settings, which is a classic sign of a graphics or memory bandwidth limitation, not a CPU limitation.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration and its impact?

A: The AMD Radeon 8050S has "System Shared" memory, meaning it uses the CPU's LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus rated at 153.6 GB/s. This shared bandwidth is a likely cause of the steep FPS drops at higher resolutions, as the GPU competes with the CPU for memory access.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems for Control?

A: It ranks 2127 out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the lower 26% of all configurations. This is notably lower than the individual component percentiles (CPU at 87, GPU at 89), suggesting the combination is less effective than the parts would indicate independently.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1440p with High settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 2560x1440 with High settings is 55 FPS, with no recorded minimum or maximum. This is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, so users may prefer Medium settings (62 FPS) for a more consistent experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers a range of 116 FPS at Low settings down to 63 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset records an average of 82 FPS with a minimum of 70 and a maximum of 94. The High preset averages 73 FPS, while Ultra averages 63 FPS. These figures suggest that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combo, as even the most demanding preset stays above 60 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. Low settings average 87 FPS, which is still very playable. Medium averages 62 FPS, with a minimum of 53 and a maximum of 71. High averages 55 FPS, and Ultra averages 48 FPS. The step from Medium to High is a 7 FPS drop, and from High to Ultra is another 7 FPS, indicating that each preset level adds a similar load. The data shows that 1440p requires a settings compromise to maintain smooth frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the system is pushed to its limits. Low settings average 59 FPS, which is just under the 60 FPS target. Medium averages 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 and a maximum of 48. High averages 37 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 17 FPS, which is the largest single preset jump across all resolutions, highlighting that the Medium preset introduces effects that are particularly demanding on the shared memory bandwidth. The data clearly shows that 4K gaming is only viable at Low settings, and even then, it is borderline.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

For the best experience at 1920x1080, the Ultra preset at 63 FPS is the ideal choice, as it provides the highest visual quality while maintaining a playable frame rate. If a user prefers a smoother experience with more headroom, the High preset at 73 FPS is a solid alternative that sacrifices some visual fidelity for a 10 FPS improvement. The Medium preset at 82 FPS is also viable, but the visual difference between Medium and High is often significant in a game like Control, and the FPS gain is modest.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 62 FPS is the recommended choice, as it is the only preset that consistently stays above 60 FPS. The High preset at 55 FPS is playable but may exhibit noticeable frame drops in intense scenes, while the Low preset at 87 FPS sacrifices too much visual quality for a game that relies heavily on atmosphere and lighting. The Ultra preset at 48 FPS is not recommended for gameplay, as the frame rate is too low for a fast-paced action title.

For 3840x2160, the Low preset at 59 FPS is the only playable option, and even then, it is borderline. Users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate may consider the Medium preset at 42 FPS, but this is a significant compromise that will likely result in a stuttery experience. The data suggests that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo in Control, and users should either lower the resolution to 1440p or 1080p or accept the Low preset at 4K. Overall, the best experience for most users will be at 1080p with Ultra settings, balancing the game's rich visuals with a playable frame rate.