Control

Control pairs the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H with the AMD Radeon RX 7800M in a combination that lands at rank 2505 out of 3720 tested combos for this title. The CPU, a 16-core, 16-thread Panther Lake part with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost of 5.00 GHz, sits in the 87th percentile among all processors. Its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark score are the Intel Core 7 253PE and Intel Core 5 223PE, with the X7 368H trailing both by 0.1% and 0.2% respectively, while it leads the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H and Intel Xeon 6507P by 0.2% each. The GPU, a Navi 32 chip on RDNA 3.0, places in the 73rd percentile for all graphics cards, with its closest competitors being the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (ahead by 0.2%) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (behind by 0.3%). The measured frame rates across resolutions and settings reveal a system that can handle the game at 1080p with ease but struggles to maintain smooth play at 4K on higher presets.

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

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H provides 16 physical cores and 16 threads, operating within a 25 W TDP envelope on the Intel BGA 2540 socket. Its L3 cache totals 18 MB shared, with 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 192 KB of L1 per core, feeding memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s via dual-channel LPDDR5X. In synthetic workloads, the chip scores 28,221 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3,984 in single-core, while Passmark multi-thread testing yields 32,956 and single-thread 4,005. These figures place the CPU in the 87th percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 40,518.

For a game like Control, which relies heavily on physics and object interactions, the CPU's role is to maintain a consistent frame delivery floor rather than push peak rates. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 120 FPS average, indicating that the processor can feed the GPU adequately at lower graphical loads. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 54 FPS (120 down to 66), which is a 45% reduction, showing that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at that resolution. The nearest rival comparisons show the X7 368H is essentially tied with the Intel Core 7 253PE (deltaPct -0.1) and Intel Core 5 223PE (deltaPct -0.2), meaning performance in CPU-bound scenarios will be nearly indistinguishable among these three parts. The data suggests that the processor's 16 cores and 5.00 GHz boost clock provide ample headroom for Control's engine, as frame rates scale more with GPU settings than with CPU frequency changes across the measured rows.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7800M packs 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's boost clock reaches 2335 MHz with a game clock of 2145 MHz, built on a 5 nm TSMC process with 28,100 million transistors across a 346 mm² die. It offers 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, with 60 ray accelerators for DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the card scores 2,994, while Geekbench Vulkan returns 126,668 and OpenCL 120,778. Passmark G3D gives 17,613, placing the GPU in the 73rd percentile overall.

In Control, the GPU's influence becomes dominant as resolution increases. At 4K Ultra, the system drops to 34 FPS average, while 4K Low reaches 61 FPS — a 27 FPS swing purely from graphical settings. The 12 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for the game's textures at all measured presets, as evidenced by the playable frame rates at 1440p Medium (64 FPS) and High (57 FPS). The nearest GPU rivals — AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 and AMD Radeon Pro W5500X — are within 0.3% of the RX 7800M's average score, yet the RX 7800M's 96 ROPs and 224.2 GPixel/s pixel rate give it an edge in fill-rate-heavy scenes typical of Control's particle effects. The 35.87 TFLOPS FP32 throughput helps maintain the 76 FPS average seen at 1080p High, where the GPU is the primary driver of performance.

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

The measured data shows a clear pattern of GPU limitation as resolution climbs. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 76 FPS at 1080p to 57 FPS at 1440p (a 25% drop) and then to 39 FPS at 4K (a 49% drop from 1080p). This steep decline — 37 FPS lost between 1080p and 4K — indicates that the RX 7800M's rendering throughput is the constraining factor rather than the CPU. For Medium settings, the same trend appears: 85 FPS at 1080p, 64 FPS at 1440p, and 43 FPS at 4K. The 42 FPS difference between 1080p and 4K Medium (85 to 43) represents a 49% reduction, mirroring the High preset's scaling.

Low settings reveal the system's ceiling more clearly. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 120 FPS, which drops to 91 FPS at 1440p (24% reduction) and 61 FPS at 4K (49% reduction). This consistent ~49% performance penalty from 1080p to 4K across Low, Medium, and High presets strongly suggests that the GPU is the bottleneck, as a CPU-bound scenario would show a smaller drop when lowering resolution. The Ultra preset follows suit: 66 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p, and 34 FPS at 4K, with the 32 FPS difference (66 to 34) being a 48% reduction. The data indicates that players seeking higher frame rates should prioritize reducing resolution over lowering graphical detail, as the pixel count has a nearly linear impact on performance.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and AMD Radeon RX 7800M ranks 2505 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control, placing it in the 33rd percentile of all combos. This ranking reflects the GPU's mid-tier position (73rd percentile among all GPUs) combined with the CPU's strong showing (87th percentile), suggesting that the overall system performance is dragged down by the graphics card relative to the processor. The rank implies that roughly two-thirds of tested combos deliver higher average frame rates in this game, which aligns with the GPU's nearest rivals being older workstation parts like the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 and FirePro S7150.

The gap between the CPU's 87th percentile and the combo's 33rd percentile ranking highlights that Control is heavily GPU-bound in this configuration. For context, the CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Core 7 253PE, would likely produce similar combo rankings when paired with the same GPU, given their 0.1% aggregate score difference. The GPU's 73rd percentile places it below many desktop-class parts, and the measured frame rates at 4K Ultra (34 FPS) are below the 60 FPS threshold that most gamers consider smooth. The 3720 total combos include many with higher-tier GPUs, which explains the low rank despite the capable CPU.

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

At 1920x1080, the system delivers 120 FPS average on Low settings, 85 FPS on Medium with a minimum of 72 and maximum of 98, 76 FPS on High, and 66 FPS on Ultra. The 1080p results show a 54 FPS spread between Low and Ultra, with the Medium preset's min-max range (72-98) indicating good frame pacing. At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 91 FPS average, Medium drops to 64 FPS (min 55, max 74), High yields 57 FPS, and Ultra falls to 50 FPS. The 1440p data shows a 41 FPS difference between Low and Ultra, with the Medium preset's 19 FPS range (55-74) suggesting occasional dips that may be noticeable in fast-action scenes.

At 3840x2160, the numbers become more challenging. Low settings manage 61 FPS average, Medium achieves 43 FPS (min 37, max 50), High produces 39 FPS, and Ultra drops to 34 FPS. The 4K results show a 27 FPS spread between Low and Ultra, and notably, only the Low preset crosses the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset's minimum of 37 FPS at 4K indicates that even mid-range settings can cause stutter during intense combat sequences. Across all resolutions, the Low preset consistently offers the highest frame rates, while Ultra provides the most demanding experience, with the gap between Low and Ultra widening from 54 FPS at 1080p to 27 FPS at 4K — a counterintuitive result that suggests diminishing returns from higher settings at lower resolutions.

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

For 1080p gaming, the Medium preset at 85 FPS average (min 72, max 98) offers the best balance, providing a 9 FPS improvement over High (76 FPS) while staying well above the 60 FPS threshold. The jump from Medium to Ultra costs 19 FPS (85 to 66), which is a 22% reduction for marginal visual gains in a game like Control. At 1440p, Medium remains the recommended choice with 64 FPS average (min 55, max 74), as it is the only preset that maintains an average above 60 FPS; High (57 FPS) and Ultra (50 FPS) both dip below that mark, and Low (91 FPS) sacrifices too much visual fidelity for the 27 FPS gain over Medium.

At 4K, the situation is more constrained. Low settings achieve 61 FPS average, making it the only playable option for smooth gameplay at this resolution. Medium (43 FPS), High (39 FPS), and Ultra (34 FPS) all fall below 45 FPS, which will result in noticeable stutter in a fast-paced action game. The 4K Low preset's 61 FPS is 18 FPS higher than Medium, and the 27 FPS gap between Low and Ultra (61 to 34) is the largest relative difference at any resolution. For users prioritizing frame rate over visual quality, the data supports dropping to 1440p Medium (64 FPS) instead of 4K Low (61 FPS), as the former offers both higher average frame rates and better graphical fidelity. The measured rows show that the Ultra preset is only viable at 1080p (66 FPS), and even then, it trails Medium's minimum frame rate at 1080p by 6 FPS (72 vs 66).