Control

Control, Remedy’s 2019 action-adventure, remains a demanding showcase for physics and particle effects. The benchmark data for the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H paired with the AMD Radeon 8050S reveals a configuration that is capable but clearly constrained by resolution. This analysis examines the measured frame rates across three resolutions and four quality presets, interpreting what the numbers say about the balance between the CPU and GPU in this specific title.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear and consistent pattern: performance degrades significantly as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 116 FPS. Stepping up to 1440p Low drops that to 87 FPS, a reduction of 29 FPS. Moving to 4K Low further reduces the average to 59 FPS. This scaling is not linear; the jump from 1440p to 4K costs 28 FPS, nearly the same absolute loss as the jump from 1080p to 1440p, despite the pixel count increasing by a larger factor. This indicates that the AMD Radeon 8050S is being saturated by the fill-rate demands of higher resolutions.

The trend persists across all settings. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 73 at 1080p, to 55 at 1440p, and finally to 37 at 4K. The pattern is identical for Medium and Ultra presets. The data implies that the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is not the primary bottleneck in this game. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see a smaller performance gap between 1080p and 1440p, as the CPU workload remains relatively constant while the GPU workload increases. Instead, the consistent and substantial FPS drops with each resolution increase point directly to the GPU being the component that is holding back performance at higher resolutions.

The delta between Low and Ultra settings also grows with resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low (116 FPS) and Ultra (63 FPS) is 53 FPS. At 4K, the difference between Low (59 FPS) and Ultra (32 FPS) is only 27 FPS. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily loaded that the additional work required for Ultra settings cannot be fully compensated for by the CPU, which has more headroom. The shrinking delta implies that the GPU is reaching its absolute limits, and the extra graphical fidelity of Ultra settings comes at a relatively smaller absolute cost because the baseline performance is already low.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo can achieve in Control?

A: The highest measured average is 116 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with a playable frame rate?

A: At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 32 on Ultra to 59 on Low. The Low preset is the only one that approaches a 60 FPS average, while Medium (42 FPS), High (37 FPS), and Ultra (32 FPS) are all below that threshold.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 73 at 1920x1080 to 37 at 3840x2160. This represents a significant 36 FPS loss, or roughly a 49% reduction in average frame rate.

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

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 87 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 48 FPS. This is a 39 FPS difference, indicating that the Ultra preset imposes a substantial load on the AMD Radeon 8050S.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance more in this game?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary limiter. The consistent and significant FPS drops as resolution scales from 1080p to 4K, combined with the reduction in the FPS gap between presets at higher resolutions, points to the AMD Radeon 8050S being the bottleneck.

Q: Are there any benchmark results for the CPU or GPU individually that relate to this game?

A: The data provided includes synthetic benchmarks. The CPU has a PassMark single-thread score of 4280 and a multithread score of 36811. The GPU has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 58398. These numbers are not game-specific but indicate the raw compute potential of each component.

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

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor based on the Panther Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. It is a mobile-class chip with a 25 W TDP, which is designed for efficiency. In terms of synthetic performance, it scores 18911 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 2200.5 in single-core. Its PassMark single-thread score is 4280. These scores place it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 44466 is roughly on par with rivals like the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D and the Intel Core i9-13950HX.

The strong single-thread performance, indicated by the 2200.5 Cinebench R23 single-core score, is relevant for Control, which relies on a single main thread for game logic. However, the FPS data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, where the GPU load is lightest, the system achieves 116 FPS, which is likely near the ceiling of what the CPU can feed. However, the fact that this frame rate is not significantly higher suggests that even at this resolution, there is a balance between the two components. The 16 cores and 16 threads provide ample multi-threading headroom, but Control is not a title that scales perfectly with core counts, so the high boost clock is likely more important.

The data implies that the CPU's role in this combo is to provide a stable foundation that will not bottleneck the GPU until very high frame rates. The 2200.5 single-core Cinebench score is high enough to handle the game's logic. The l3 cache of 18 MB (shared) is also a decent amount, which can help with data access speeds. The fact that the FPS drops are so consistent with resolution scaling confirms that the CPU is not the component being stressed. If the CPU were a problem, we would see frame rate plateaus or stutters that are independent of resolution. The measured data does not show this pattern. The performance is instead a straightforward function of GPU load, which is determined by resolution and settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and the AMD Radeon 8050S ranks 2127 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This is a percentile ranking of roughly the 74th percentile (100 - (2127/2888)*100). This indicates that while this is not a top-tier configuration, it is also far from the bottom. It places this combo in the upper-middle range of systems that have been benchmarked for this specific game. This ranking suggests that there are many other hardware combinations that perform better, but also a significant number that perform worse.

The rank of 2127 out of 2888 is a holistic measure that takes into account all the measured FPS data points. It is a single number that summarizes the combo's overall capability in Control. Given that the GPU is the bottleneck, this rank likely reflects the Radeon 8050S's position in the market. The GPU's average benchmark score of 62108 places it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs, but its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M. The combo's rank is lower than the GPU's individual percentile rank, which suggests that the CPU, despite not being the bottleneck, is also not helping to push the combo into a higher tier.

The rank implies that for a user looking at this data, this is a mid-pack performer. It is not a system for 4K Ultra gaming, but it is more than capable of handling 1080p and 1440p with tweaked settings. The rank also serves as a warning that expectations for very high-refresh-rate 4K gaming should be tempered. The data indicates that the combo is better suited for the 1080p and 1440p space, where it can achieve frame rates between 48 and 116 FPS depending on the settings. The rank of 2127 reflects this mixed capability, placing it in a position where it is a competent, but not exceptional, performer.

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

The AMD Radeon 8050S is an integrated GPU based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. It has a die size of 308 mm², which is quite large for an integrated part. The GPU has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It also has 32 ray tracing cores. Its boost clock is 2800 MHz, and it has a pixel rate of 179.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 358.4 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is rated at 11.47 TFLOPS. Crucially, the memory is "System Shared," meaning it uses the system's LPDDR5X memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which is a critical factor.

This reliance on system memory is likely a major reason for the performance scaling observed in the data. The GPU's performance is directly tied to the memory bandwidth of the system. As resolution increases, the amount of memory bandwidth required to feed the GPU also increases. The data shows that the GPU struggles at 4K, with average FPS between 32 and 59. This is likely due to both the raw compute limits of the GPU and the bandwidth constraints of sharing memory with the CPU. The GPU's benchmark scores are notable, with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 58398, but these are not directly indicative of gaming performance.

The GPU's role as the bottleneck is evident in the FPS data. At 1080p Low, the 116 FPS average suggests the GPU is being fed adequately. However, the drop to 59 FPS at 4K Low is a stark illustration of its limitations. The 2800 MHz boost clock is high for an integrated part, but the memory system is the weak link. The performance delta between presets also points to the GPU's compute limits. For instance, at 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra is only 27 FPS, showing that the GPU cannot handle the extra load of the Ultra settings on top of the high resolution. The data strongly suggests that the GPU is the limiting component, and its shared memory architecture is a primary factor in its performance ceiling.

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

The dataset provides a complete matrix of average FPS for Control. Starting at 3840x2160, the results are as follows: Low averages 59 FPS, Medium averages 42 FPS, High averages 37 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. The Medium preset has a recorded minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 48 FPS. This shows a clear hierarchy where each step up in settings costs a significant number of frames. The 4K numbers are all playable in a technical sense, but only the Low preset approaches the 60 FPS target for a smooth experience.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance improves substantially. Low averages 87 FPS, Medium averages 62 FPS, High averages 55 FPS, and Ultra averages 48 FPS. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 53 FPS and a maximum of 71 FPS. This resolution offers a much better balance, with Low and Medium providing frame rates that are well above the 60 FPS threshold. High and Ultra are lower but still within a range that is often considered acceptable for slower-paced action-adventure games.

At 1920x1080, the combo shows its best performance. Low averages 116 FPS, Medium averages 82 FPS, High averages 73 FPS, and Ultra averages 63 FPS. The Medium preset has a minimum of 70 FPS and a maximum of 94 FPS. These numbers indicate that 1080p is the sweet spot for this configuration. Even the Ultra preset manages to stay above 60 FPS on average. The data shows a consistent progression: as resolution decreases, the average FPS increases for every settings preset. The relative gaps between settings also shrink at lower resolutions, indicating that the GPU has more headroom to work with.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1080p, the Ultra preset is the best choice for visual fidelity, as it maintains an average of 63 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. The High preset at 73 FPS offers a slight performance buffer for those who prefer more headroom, but Ultra is clearly viable. The Medium preset at 82 FPS is a good middle ground, but the data suggests that the GPU has enough power to handle the higher presets without dropping below the playable threshold.

For 1440p, the situation changes. The Ultra preset averages 48 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target. The High preset is not much better at 55 FPS. The Medium preset, with an average of 62 FPS, is the first one that breaks the 60 FPS barrier. Therefore, for a smooth experience at 1440p, the Medium preset is the recommended choice. It provides a solid frame rate while still offering improved visual quality over Low. The High preset is viable for those who can tolerate slightly lower frame rates, but Medium offers the best balance of performance and visual quality according to the data.

At 4K, the data suggests that the user must make significant compromises. The Low preset, averaging 59 FPS, is the only one that comes close to 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 42 FPS is playable but noticeably less smooth. The High and Ultra presets at 37 and 32 FPS, respectively, are more suited for screenshot-taking than for active gameplay. Therefore, for 4K, the Low preset is the only recommendation for a playable experience. The data indicates that this combo is not designed for 4K gaming with high settings. The best overall experience, balancing visual quality and frame rate, is achieved at 1080p with the Ultra preset, or at 1440p with the Medium preset.