Control

This analysis examines the performance of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H paired with the AMD Radeon 890M in the 2019 action-adventure title Control. The data is derived from measured frame rates across three resolutions and four quality presets, providing a clear picture of this mobile hardware combination's capabilities. The results show a system that is firmly oriented toward 1080p gaming, with significant compromises required at higher resolutions.

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 mobile processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of 25 W. The processor includes 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, alongside 192 KB of L1 cache per core. Memory support is limited to LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, yielding a peak bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates strong multi-threaded capability. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,911 places it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44,466. The nearest rivals are remarkably close: the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D scores 44,573 (a delta of -0.2%), the Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44,342 (a delta of +0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 44,309 (a delta of +0.4%). This places the X9 388H in a tightly contested performance band where single-digit percentage differences separate competitors.

For Control, the CPU's role is less about raw core count and more about consistent single-thread performance. The game's physics and AI systems benefit from the 5.10 GHz boost clock, which helps maintain frame pacing. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,280 is above average, and the multi-thread score of 36,811 indicates that background tasks will not interfere with gameplay. However, the measured frame rates in this game are predominantly GPU-limited, as evidenced by the steep drop in FPS as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 58 FPS average, but this falls to 44 FPS at 1440p and 30 FPS at 4K with the same settings. This scaling pattern suggests that even at lower resolutions, the CPU is not the primary bottleneck; instead, the integrated graphics solution is responsible for the majority of frame rate variation.

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

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. It features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units, along with 16 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2,900 MHz, with a TDP of just 15 W. Memory is system-shared, meaning the GPU draws from the same LPDDR5X pool as the CPU, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent."

In synthetic testing, the 890M achieves a PassMark G3D score of 8,076, placing it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 9,210. The nearest rivals are again very close: the AMD Radeon Vega 8 scores 9,221 (delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 scores 9,273 (delta -0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9,294 (delta -0.9%). This indicates that the 890M's raw compute performance is comparable to a mid-range discrete GPU from several generations ago, but its shared memory architecture limits effective bandwidth.

For Control, the GPU is the clear limiting factor. The game's demanding rendering techniques, including ray-traced reflections and particle effects, place heavy strain on the 890M. The measured FPS data shows a consistent pattern: at 1080p High, the average is 37 FPS; at 1440p High, it drops to 28 FPS; and at 4K High, it falls to 19 FPS. This represents a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K, which is steeper than the pixel count increase would suggest, pointing to memory bandwidth constraints. The system-shared memory architecture means that as resolution increases, the GPU competes with the CPU for bandwidth, exacerbating the performance drop. The 890M's 2,900 MHz boost clock provides adequate compute for 1080p gaming, but the lack of dedicated VRAM (size listed as "System Shared") prevents higher resolutions from being viable.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Control at 4K resolution?*

A: Technically yes, but the experience is below playable thresholds. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 16, and at 4K High it is 19 FPS. Even at 4K Low, the average is only 30 FPS, which is marginal for smooth gameplay. The data suggests 4K is not a practical target for this hardware.

*Q: What is the best resolution for this system in Control?*

A: The 1080p resolution provides the most consistent results across all settings. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 58, and at 1080p Medium, it is 41 FPS. These are the only configurations where the system approaches or exceeds 60 FPS, making 1080p the recommended target.

Q: How does the CPU performance compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44,466, which is nearly identical to its nearest rivals. It is 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (44,573), 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i9-13950HX (44,342), and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (44,309). The differences are negligible for gaming purposes.

Q: How does the GPU performance compare to its closest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon 890M has an average benchmark score of 9,210. It is 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9,221), 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9,273), and 0.9% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9,294). These deltas are minor, indicating the 890M is competitive with these older discrete GPUs.

Q: What settings are playable at 1440p?

A: At 1440p, the system achieves an average of 44 FPS on Low settings, 31 FPS on Medium, 28 FPS on High, and 24 FPS on Ultra. Only the Low preset approaches playable frame rates, while Medium and above fall below 35 FPS, which may be acceptable for slower-paced action but is not ideal.

Q: Is there a significant difference between Medium and High settings at 1080p?

A: Yes, the difference is measurable. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 41, while at 1080p High, it drops to 37 FPS. This 4 FPS difference (approximately 10%) is modest but noticeable, especially if the frame rate hovers near vsync thresholds.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 890M ranks 2,728 out of 2,888 tested combos for Control. This places it in the bottom 6% of all configurations in the database, which is expected given that it uses an integrated GPU rather than a discrete graphics card. The ranking reflects the GPU's limitations more than the CPU's capabilities. The processor itself sits in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, showing that it is a high-performing component, but the 890M's 45th percentile GPU standing drags the overall combo down significantly.

In practice, this means the combo is outclassed by nearly all systems with discrete graphics cards, even older ones. However, within the context of integrated graphics solutions, the 890M is competitive. Its PassMark G3D score of 8,076 is within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, a once-popular desktop GPU. The ranking of 2,728 out of 2,888 is not a reflection of poor engineering but rather the inherent limitations of an IGP. The CPU's high benchmark scores (e.g., Cinebench R23 multi-core of 18,911) suggest that if paired with a discrete GPU, the system would rank substantially higher. As configured, the combo is best suited for 1080p gaming at medium-to-low settings, where it can deliver playable frame rates.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling across resolutions provides clear evidence of GPU-bound performance. Starting at 1080p, the system achieves 58 FPS on Low settings. Moving to 1440p, this drops to 44 FPS, a 24% reduction. Going to 4K, it falls to 30 FPS, a 48% reduction from 1080p. This pattern is consistent across all settings. For example, at Medium settings, the system delivers 41 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p (a 24% drop), and 21 FPS at 4K (a 49% drop from 1080p).

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K is steeper than the pixel count increase would predict. A pure pixel-count scaling from 1080p to 4K (which is a 4x increase in pixels) would suggest a 75% FPS drop if the system were purely fill-rate limited. Instead, the observed ~50% drop indicates that the system is partially limited by other factors, likely memory bandwidth. The 890M's system-shared memory architecture, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent," means that higher resolutions require more memory access, which the LPDDR5X bus (153.6 GB/s) cannot sustain efficiently. This is why the 4K Low setting only achieves 30 FPS, barely half of the 1080p Low result. The CPU's role in this scaling is minimal, as its strong single-thread performance (5.10 GHz boost) ensures that it can keep up with the GPU's demands even at lower resolutions where the CPU would typically be the bottleneck.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system shows its best performance. On Low settings, it averages 58 FPS, which is the highest recorded value in the entire dataset. Medium settings yield 41 FPS, with a minimum of 35 FPS and a maximum of 47 FPS. High settings average 37 FPS, and Ultra settings average 32 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 26 FPS, representing a 45% performance penalty for maximum visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. Low settings average 44 FPS, which is still playable, but Medium settings fall to 31 FPS (min 27, max 36). High settings average 28 FPS, and Ultra settings average 24 FPS. The range from Low to Ultra is 20 FPS, a 45% penalty, which is consistent with the 1080p scaling.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles. Low settings average 30 FPS, which is borderline playable, but Medium settings drop to 21 FPS (min 18, max 24). High settings average 19 FPS, and Ultra settings average 16 FPS. The range from Low to Ultra is 14 FPS, a 47% penalty. The minimum FPS of 18 at 4K Medium indicates that the system can experience significant stuttering, as the frame rate dips below 20 FPS during demanding scenes.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1080p with Medium settings. This configuration yields an average of 41 FPS, with a minimum of 35 FPS and a maximum of 47 FPS. The minimum FPS is above 30, which ensures that the game remains responsive during action sequences. The visual quality improvement from Low to Medium is substantial, and the performance cost (17 FPS) is justified by the more stable frame pacing.

For players who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, 1080p Low is the best choice, offering 58 FPS average. This is the only configuration that approaches the 60 FPS standard, making it ideal for fast-paced combat. However, the visual downgrade is significant, with reduced texture quality and effects.

At 1440p, the only viable option is Low settings, which average 44 FPS. This is playable but requires accepting substantial visual compromises. Medium settings at 1440p (31 FPS) are not recommended, as the frame rate dips below 30 FPS during intense scenes, as indicated by the 27 FPS minimum.

4K resolution should be avoided entirely. Even at Low settings, the average FPS is 30, with no recorded minimum, but the experience is likely inconsistent. Ultra settings at 4K (16 FPS) are unplayable. The data clearly shows that this combo is designed for 1080p gaming, with 1440p as a stretch goal only on the lowest settings. The CPU has ample headroom, but the GPU's shared memory architecture limits its ability to handle higher resolutions.