Control

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 880M combination delivers a strictly entry-level experience in Control, with the integrated GPU being the definitive bottleneck across all tested configurations. The data shows a combo rank of 2817 out of 2888 tested pairs, placing this system firmly in the bottom percentile for this title, a result that aligns with the GPU's 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs.

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

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 3, built on Intel's 3 nm Panther Lake architecture. It features 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Its 25 W TDP classifies it as a low-power part, but the benchmark scores suggest it has substantial compute headroom for a game like Control.

In synthetic testing, the CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18911 and a single-core score of 2200.5. These results place the processor at the 88th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44466. Compared to its nearest rivals, the data shows a near-tie: it sits 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i9-13950HX, 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i5-13600. For a game like Control, which is not heavily threaded, the single-core performance is more relevant, and the Cinebench R20 single-core score of 1849 indicates the CPU is more than capable of feeding the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations.

However, the measured FPS data reveals that the CPU is rarely the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 55, which is the highest result in the entire dataset. This suggests that even at the lowest settings, the CPU is not being stressed to its maximum potential; rather, the GPU is already saturated. The Passmark multi-thread score of 36811 and the integer math score of 90882 reinforce the notion that this processor has ample computational power for the game's logic. The conclusion is straightforward: the Core Ultra X9 388H is not the constraint in this pairing. Its 16 cores and high boost clock are more than adequate for Control, and the data indicates that any performance ceiling observed is due to the graphics subsystem, not the processor.

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

The AMD Radeon 880M 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 GPU has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its memory configuration is entirely system-shared, with the bus width and bandwidth listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent" respectively. The GPU's compute throughput is rated at 4.454 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16.

The Radeon 880M's benchmark results are modest, reflecting its integrated nature. It scores 7615 in Passmark G3D and 3719 in Passmark GPU Compute, placing it at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 8436, and its nearest rivals are all older discrete parts: it is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX330, 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8870M, and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375X. This places the 880M roughly in the performance class of a decade-old entry-level discrete GPU.

In Control, this GPU is the clear bottleneck. The measured FPS data shows a steep decline as settings increase, which is typical of a GPU that lacks raw fill rate and memory bandwidth. The DirectX 12 benchmark score of 32 in Passmark is telling, as Control uses DX12, and this low score correlates with the game's performance. The GPU's 16 ROPs and system-shared memory are simply insufficient for the game's rendering demands, particularly at higher resolutions. The data indicates that the 880M is overwhelmed by the game's particle effects and physics-based destruction, leading to the low average FPS observed across all tested settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 880M ranks 2817 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places the system in the bottom 2.5% of all tested configurations, which is a stark indicator of its performance ceiling. The rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, as the CPU's 88th percentile ranking is far above the GPU's 43rd percentile, creating a significant imbalance in capability.

This low combo rank means that the system will struggle to maintain playable frame rates in most scenarios. The data shows that only 71 other tested combos perform worse, which suggests that this pairing is at the extreme low end of the hardware spectrum for this title. For context, the GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks—like the GTX 675MX or MX330—are all older mobile parts, and their performance in modern games is similarly constrained. The combo rank of 2817 aligns with the GPU's performance class, confirming that the integrated graphics solution is the sole determinant of the system's gaming viability. The CPU's high benchmark scores do not translate into better FPS here because the GPU cannot keep up, making this a textbook case of a GPU-bound system.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system's performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 4K (3840x2160), the results are uniformly poor. On Low settings, the average FPS is 28, which is the only playable result at this resolution. Medium settings drop the average to 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 23. High settings yield an average of 18 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 15 FPS. None of these 4K results are suitable for smooth gameplay, as even the Low preset average of 28 FPS is below the 30 FPS threshold generally considered the minimum for playability.

At 1440p (2560x1440), the situation improves slightly but remains challenging. Low settings produce an average of 42 FPS, which is a significant jump from the 4K Low result. Medium settings average 30 FPS, with a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 34. High settings average 26 FPS, and Ultra settings average 23 FPS. The 1440p Low result is the only configuration in this resolution that breaks the 40 FPS barrier, suggesting that players willing to compromise on visual fidelity can achieve a semi-playable experience.

At 1080p (1920x1080), the system reaches its peak performance. Low settings yield an average of 55 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire dataset and is comfortably playable. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. High settings average 35 FPS, and Ultra settings average 30 FPS. The 1080p Low result is the only configuration across all resolutions that provides a consistently smooth experience, while the Medium and High presets hover around the edge of playability. The data shows a clear pattern: the system is only viable at 1080p on the lowest settings, with any increase in resolution or quality leading to sub-30 FPS averages.

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

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 55 at 1080p to 42 at 1440p, a 23.6% reduction, and then to 28 at 4K, a 49.1% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline as resolution increases is a direct indicator that the GPU's pixel throughput is the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the processor would be maxed out regardless of pixel count. Instead, the data shows that the 880M's 16 ROPs and system-shared memory cannot handle the increasing pixel workload.

A similar pattern emerges at Medium settings. The average FPS drops from 39 at 1080p to 30 at 1440p, a 23.1% reduction, and then to 20 at 4K, a 48.7% reduction from the 1080p baseline. The consistency of these percentage drops across settings confirms that the GPU is the sole constraint. At High settings, the averages are 35 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K, with the 4K result representing a 48.6% drop from 1080p. The pattern is unmistakable: the system loses roughly half of its frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K, regardless of the quality preset.

This behavior indicates that the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has more than enough headroom to feed the GPU at all resolutions. The CPU's 5.10 GHz boost clock and 18 MB of L3 cache ensure that it is not waiting on the GPU, but rather the GPU is struggling to keep up with the render demands. The data suggests that the system is heavily GPU-limited, and any attempt to improve FPS must focus on reducing the GPU's workload, either by lowering resolution or settings, rather than upgrading the CPU.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the only configuration that provides a consistently playable experience is 1080p with Low settings, which averages 55 FPS. This is the recommended preset for this system, as it is the only one that clears the 60 FPS threshold (though it does not quite reach it, 55 FPS is close enough for most players). The 1080p Medium preset, averaging 39 FPS, is a borderline option for players who prioritize visual quality over smoothness, but the minimum FPS of 33 suggests occasional stutters during intense scenes. The 1080p High preset at 35 FPS and Ultra at 30 FPS are both below the ideal playability threshold, making them less attractive choices.

For players who must use a higher resolution, 1440p Low at 42 FPS is the only viable option, though it still falls short of the smoothness offered by 1080p Low. The 1440p Medium preset at 30 FPS is marginal, and anything above that is not recommended. At 4K, the data shows that all presets are effectively unplayable, with the best result being 28 FPS at Low settings. This resolution should be avoided entirely.

The optimal strategy for this system is to lock the resolution at 1080p and use the Low preset. This provides the best balance of playability and visual clarity, given the hardware constraints. The Medium preset at 1080p offers a 29% reduction in FPS compared to Low, which is a significant trade-off for minor visual improvements. Given that Control is a fast-paced action game, frame rate consistency is more important than graphical fidelity. The data supports the conclusion that 1080p Low is the only sensible choice, as it is the sole configuration where the system performs adequately. Players seeking higher visual quality would need to accept sub-40 FPS averages, which is not recommended for this title's gameplay mechanics.