Control

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H paired with the AMD Radeon 890M produces a specific performance profile in Control, one defined by a strong CPU and a modest integrated GPU. The benchmark data shows that this combination ranks at 2728 out of 2888 tested combos in this game, placing it in the lower portion of the field, yet the CPU’s high percentile suggests the bottleneck lies squarely with graphics processing. The measured frames per second (FPS) across resolutions and settings illuminate a system that can manage 1080p gaming at playable rates but struggles as resolution climbs.

FAQ

*Q: What is the overall standing of this CPU and GPU pairing in Control?*

A: The combo ranks 2728 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 5.5% of all tested systems for this game.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518, which is 0.1% lower than the Intel Core 7 253PE (40557) and 0.2% lower than the Intel Core 5 223PE (40585). It is 0.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40431) and the Intel Xeon 6507P (40426).

Q: What is the best average FPS achieved at 1080p, and at what settings?

A: The highest average FPS at 1920x1080 is 58, achieved with Low settings. Medium settings yield 41 FPS, High settings yield 37 FPS, and Ultra settings yield 32 FPS.

Q: Does the GPU outperform its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Vega 8?

A: The AMD Radeon 890M has an average benchmark score of 9210, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD Radeon Vega 8’s score of 9221. It also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 by 0.7% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 by 0.9%.

Q: How much does performance drop from 1080p to 4K at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 41 at 1920x1080 to 21 at 3840x2160, representing a 48.8% reduction in frame rate.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 1440p Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the minimum FPS recorded is 27, with a maximum of 36 and an average of 31.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning the GPU relies on the system’s main memory rather than dedicated VRAM, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This shared memory setup is a critical factor, as it ties graphics performance directly to the CPU’s memory subsystem, which in this case is LPDDR5X running on a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth.

The GPU’s raw compute capabilities are modest for modern gaming. It has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 16 ray tracing cores, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The pixel rate is 92.80 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 185.6 GTexel/s. Floating point performance is listed at 5.939 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. These specifications place the 890M in the 45th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 9210.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the 890M’s score is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9221, -0.1% delta), marginally lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9273, -0.7%), and slightly behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9294, -0.9%) and GTX 850M (9302, -1%). This indicates that the 890M performs in the same class as these older discrete GPUs, which is not enough for demanding 4K gaming but can handle lower resolution workloads. In Control, the measured FPS data confirms this: at 1080p Low, the average is 58 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it falls to just 16 FPS.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 3, built on Intel’s 3 nm Panther Lake architecture. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, operating with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The thermal design power is 25 W, which is typical for a high-performance mobile chip. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports LPDDR5X memory on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, and it has a PCIe Gen 5 interface with 4 lanes.

The CPU’s benchmark results are strong. In Cinebench R23, it scores 28221 in multi-core and 3984 in single-core. PassMark results show a multi-thread score of 32956 and a single-thread score of 4005. The average benchmark score is 40518, placing the CPU in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core 7 253PE (40557, -0.1%), the Intel Core 5 223PE (40585, -0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40431, 0.2%), and the Intel Xeon 6507P (40426, 0.2%). This indicates that the 368H is competitive with these other high-end mobile processors, with performance differences under one percent.

In Control, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with data. The high single-thread score of 4005 suggests it can handle game logic and physics calculations effectively. However, the bottleneck in this pairing is clearly the GPU. At lower resolutions like 1080p, the CPU has more headroom, allowing the GPU to reach higher FPS. At 4K, the GPU becomes the limiting factor, as the FPS drops dramatically even though the CPU is still capable. The data shows a 16-core processor that is not the constraint in this game, but its memory bandwidth is shared with the GPU, which can impact performance when both are under load.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and AMD Radeon 890M ranks 2728 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places the system in the bottom 5.5% of all tested configurations, indicating that it is a lower-performing setup for this specific game. The rank is a composite measure that reflects both the CPU and GPU capabilities, but given the CPU’s high percentile (87th) and the GPU’s mid-range percentile (45th), the low combo rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU’s limitations.

To contextualize this, the GPU’s average benchmark score of 9210 is barely above the AMD Radeon Vega 8, which is an older integrated solution. In contrast, the CPU’s score of 40518 is near the top of its class, with rivals like the Ryzen 9 7940H scoring similarly. This disparity means that the combo rank is a reflection of the weakest link, which is the graphics processing. For a game like Control that has demanding visual effects, the GPU cannot keep up with the CPU’s potential, resulting in a rank that is far below what the processor alone would suggest.

The data shows that the combo’s performance is consistent with its rank. At 1080p Low, it achieves 58 FPS, which is playable, but at 1080p Ultra, it drops to 32 FPS. At 4K, the performance falls below playable thresholds, with an average of 19 FPS at High settings and 16 FPS at Ultra. These numbers align with a system that is ranked in the lower percentile, as it cannot deliver high frame rates at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Control provides a clear picture of how this combo performs across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the highest average FPS is 58 with Low settings. Medium settings yield an average of 41 FPS, with a minimum of 35 and a maximum of 47. High settings produce an average of 37 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 32 FPS. These numbers indicate that 1080p is the most viable resolution for this system, with Low settings providing a smooth experience and Medium settings still being acceptable.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degrades noticeably. Low settings achieve an average of 44 FPS, but Medium settings drop to 31 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. High settings yield 28 FPS, and Ultra falls to 24 FPS. At this resolution, only Low settings approach a playable frame rate, while higher settings become increasingly stutter-prone.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles significantly. Low settings achieve an average of 30 FPS, which is borderline playable. Medium settings drop to 21 FPS, with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 24. High settings yield 19 FPS, and Ultra falls to 16 FPS. None of these frame rates are ideal for a smooth experience, as they are all below the 30 FPS threshold that is often considered the minimum for playable performance in action-adventure games.

The data shows a consistent pattern: each resolution step down from 1080p to 4K reduces performance substantially, and each settings step from Low to Ultra also reduces FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at the same resolution is significant, with a 26 FPS difference at 1080p (58 vs. 32) and a 14 FPS difference at 4K (30 vs. 16). This indicates that the GPU is the primary constraint, as it cannot maintain high frame rates even at lower settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, Low settings provide the best experience with an average of 58 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. Medium settings at 41 FPS are also viable for those who prefer better visual quality, as they stay above the 30 FPS minimum. High settings at 37 FPS are acceptable, but Ultra at 32 FPS may cause noticeable dips in intense scenes.

At 2560x1440, Low settings are the only sensible choice, with an average of 44 FPS. Medium settings drop to 31 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS threshold and may result in a less fluid experience. High and Ultra settings at 28 and 24 FPS, respectively, are not recommended for a playable experience.

At 3840x2160, Low settings produce an average of 30 FPS, which is marginal. Medium settings at 21 FPS are not playable for most users, and High and Ultra settings are effectively unplayable. The data suggests that 4K gaming is not feasible with this combo, even at the lowest settings, as the frame rates are too low for consistent performance.

For the best overall experience, the data recommends playing at 1080p with Low settings to achieve near-60 FPS, or Medium settings for a balance of visual fidelity and performance. At 1440p, Low settings are the only viable option. The GPU’s limitations are clear, and the settings recommendations are driven by the need to keep the frame rate above playable thresholds.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the limiting component in this system. At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 41 at 1920x1080 to 31 at 2560x1440, a 24.4% reduction. From 1440p to 4K, the FPS drops from 31 to 21, a further 32.3% reduction. Overall, from 1080p to 4K, the FPS drops by 48.8%, from 41 to 21. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound system, where increasing the resolution places a greater load on the graphics processor.

The CPU’s performance does not scale with resolution in the same way, as it is less affected by pixel count. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a high single-thread score of 4005, which indicates it can handle the game’s logic at any resolution. The bottleneck is the AMD Radeon 890M, which has to render more pixels as resolution increases. The GPU’s limited shading units and memory bandwidth become the limiting factor, causing the FPS to drop more steeply at higher resolutions.

The data shows that the system is not CPU-limited, as the FPS drops are consistent with GPU-bound behavior. At 1080p, the GPU can produce 58 FPS at Low settings, but at 4K, it can only manage 30 FPS, which is a 48.3% reduction. This indicates that the GPU is the primary constraint, and the CPU has ample headroom to support higher frame rates if the GPU were more capable. For users looking to improve performance, upgrading the GPU would provide the most benefit, as the CPU is already performing at a high level relative to its peers.