Can I Run It?

Instant compatibility check with FPS benchmarks and optimization tips

Control
Action Adventure 2019

Control

75%
Great Match Your system meets recommended requirements.

Performance

1080p (Full HD)

Low 1080p Measured
130 FPS
Ultra 1080p Measured
71 FPS

1440p (2K / QHD)

Low 1440p Measured
98 FPS
Ultra 1440p Measured
54 FPS

4K (Ultra HD)

Low 4K Measured
66 FPS
Ultra 4K Measured
36 FPS
12.2ms Frame Time
18ms Input Latency
1440p Best Resolution

Requirements Check

Processor
Required 37,485
Your CPU 69,996
Graphics Card
Required 27,787
Your GPU 16,014

Recommendations

Upgrade Needed

Your hardware doesn't meet minimum requirements for this game.

Average FPS: resolution vs quality settings

UltraHighMediumLow
4K Ultra HD 36 42 47 66
1440p QHD 54 62 70 98
1080p Full HD 71 82 92 130

Cell color: green is 120+ FPS, teal is 60+, amber is 30+, red is below 30. Cards marked Estimated above have no measured row and are scaled from your GPU benchmark percentile.

Every measured configuration

1920x1080 High 82
1920x1080 Low 130
1920x1080 Medium 92
1920x1080 Ultra 71
2560x1440 High 62
2560x1440 Low 98
2560x1440 Medium 70
2560x1440 Ultra 54
3840x2160 High 42
3840x2160 Low 66
3840x2160 Medium 47
3840x2160 Ultra 36

Performance Analysis: Control on Your System

Control is a demanding action-adventure title, and the data for the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F + AMD Radeon RX 9060 combination shows a system that is highly capable at mainstream resolutions but begins to strain at 4K. The measured results indicate a clear performance hierarchy: 1080p is thoroughly conquered, 1440p offers a solid high-refresh experience, and 4K requires significant settings compromises. The benchmark data places this combo in the 2152nd position out of 3720 tested configurations for this game, meaning it sits above the median but is far from the top tier. Below is a detailed breakdown of what these numbers mean for a practical gaming experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers excellent performance across all presets, with even the most demanding setting comfortably clearing the 60 FPS threshold. The Ultra preset averages 71 FPS, which is a strong result for maximum visual fidelity. Stepping down to High yields an average of 82 FPS, while Medium produces 92 FPS with a minimum of 78 FPS and a maximum of 106 FPS, showing a very stable frame delivery. The Low preset is exceptionally fast, hitting an average of 130 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a performance drop of roughly 45%, from 130 to 71 FPS, indicating that the GPU is the primary scaling factor at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains playable at most presets, but the headroom shrinks noticeably. The High preset averages 62 FPS, just barely above the 60 FPS playability threshold. The Medium preset is a safer choice for consistent smoothness, averaging 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 80 FPS, showing that it can occasionally dip below 60. The Low preset averages 98 FPS, offering plenty of speed for competitive play or high-refresh 1440p monitors. The Ultra preset, however, falls below the threshold, averaging 54 FPS, which is not ideal for a smooth experience. This resolution shows a clear divide: High and Medium are viable, but Ultra is not.

At 3840x2160, the system is severely taxed, and only the Low preset maintains a playable frame rate. The Low preset averages 66 FPS, which is just above the threshold. The Medium preset averages 47 FPS, with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 54 FPS, indicating a noticeable stutter potential. The High preset drops to an average of 42 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls to 36 FPS. These results show that 4K gaming with this hardware requires significant graphical compromises to remain fluid. The data reveals a steep performance cliff between Low and Medium at this resolution, with a 29% drop in average FPS from 66 to 47.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 1080p with maximum settings?

A: Yes. The benchmark data shows the Ultra preset at 1920x1080 achieves an average of 71 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold. The system has enough performance headroom to handle the highest settings at this resolution.

Q: What is the best setting for 1440p to stay above 60 FPS?

A: According to the verdict data, the High preset is the most demanding setting that stays playable at 2560x1440, with an average of 62 FPS. The Medium preset averages 70 FPS, but its minimum of 59 FPS shows it can dip below the threshold, so High is the recommended balance for a consistent experience.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this hardware?

A: Yes, but only with significant settings reductions. The data shows that at 3840x2160, the Low preset is the only playable option, averaging 66 FPS. All other presets, including Medium with 47 FPS and High with 42 FPS, fall below the playable threshold.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F has an average benchmark score of 69996, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. It is 0.2% behind the Intel Core i7-14700KF (score 70163) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (score 69875). This indicates it is effectively tied with these high-end processors.

Q: How does the GPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014, placing it in the 59th percentile of all GPUs. It is 0.7% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (score 16129) and 1% faster than the AMD Radeon R9 370X (score 15862). This shows it is a mid-range performer, closely matching a previous-generation mid-range card.

Q: What does the frame time data show for 1080p Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with the Medium preset, the system delivers an average of 92 FPS, with a minimum of 78 FPS and a maximum of 106 FPS. This narrow range between minimum and maximum indicates very consistent frame pacing, which is beneficial for smooth gameplay.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results show a clear shift in system bottleneck depending on resolution. At 1920x1080, the GPU is the primary limiting factor. The difference between the Low preset (130 FPS) and the Ultra preset (71 FPS) is substantial, showing that the GPU is being tasked harder as settings increase. The CPU, an AMD Ryzen 7 9700F with 8 cores and 16 threads, is powerful enough to feed the GPU at this resolution, as evidenced by the high frame rates even at Low settings.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts slightly, but the GPU remains the dominant factor. The scaling from Low (98 FPS) to Ultra (54 FPS) is still pronounced, indicating that the increased pixel count and graphical load are primarily impacting the GPU. The CPU's role becomes less critical as the GPU takes on more work. The system is able to maintain playable frame rates at High and Medium, but the GPU's limitations are clear at Ultra.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmingly the bottleneck. The frame rates are uniformly low, with the Ultra preset dropping to 36 FPS and the High preset at 42 FPS. Even the Low preset only manages 66 FPS. The CPU's performance is largely irrelevant in this scenario, as the RX 9060's memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s and 8 GB of GDDR6 memory are insufficient to maintain high frame rates at this resolution. The data suggests that for 4K gaming, the GPU is the sole limiting factor, and a more powerful graphics card would be necessary for a better experience.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Based on the average benchmark scores, several CPUs and GPUs would perform similarly to the components in this system. For the processor, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has an average score of 69875, which is 0.2% lower than the Ryzen 7 9700F's score of 69996. This means in CPU-bound scenarios, these two processors would behave nearly identically. Similarly, the Intel Core i7-14700KF scores 70163, which is 0.2% higher, and the Intel Core i7-14700K scores 69355, which is 0.9% lower. All four chips are within a 1% performance envelope, so a system with any of these would produce very similar frame rates in games that are not GPU-bound.

On the graphics side, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014. The closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, with a score of 16129, which is 0.7% higher. This means the RTX 3060 Ti would deliver nearly identical performance in most games. The AMD Radeon R9 370X, with a score of 15862, is 1% lower, and the AMD Radeon RX 7700, with a score of 15852, is also 1% lower. These cards would provide a very similar gaming experience, with the differences being well within the margin of error for typical gameplay. For Control specifically, a system with an RTX 3060 Ti would likely produce average FPS numbers within a few frames of the RX 9060 at all resolutions and presets.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 71 FPS. This is the recommended choice for users who want maximum visual quality without sacrificing playability. The system has ample headroom, so even this heavy preset is not a problem.

For 2560x1440, the most demanding preset that remains playable is High, averaging 62 FPS. While the Medium preset averages 70 FPS, its minimum of 59 FPS means it can dip below the threshold. The High preset is the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, as it consistently stays above 60 FPS according to the average data.

For 3840x2160, the only preset that achieves an average above 60 FPS is Low, with 66 FPS. This is the sole viable option for 4K gaming. The Medium preset at 47 FPS and the High preset at 42 FPS are not recommended for a smooth experience. Users at this resolution must accept significant graphical compromises to maintain playability.

The Verdict

The data shows that the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F + AMD Radeon RX 9060 system can run Control successfully at all tested resolutions, but the playable settings vary dramatically. At 1920x1080, the system is fully capable, running the Ultra preset at an average of 71 FPS, which far exceeds the 60 FPS playable threshold. This is the resolution where the hardware shines.

At 2560x1440, the system remains capable, with the High preset averaging 62 FPS. This is a playable experience, but with less headroom. Users can also choose the Medium preset for a higher average of 70 FPS, accepting that the minimum may occasionally dip to 59 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles. Only the Low preset achieves a playable average of 66 FPS. All other presets fall below the 60 FPS threshold, with Medium at 47 FPS, High at 42 FPS, and Ultra at 36 FPS. The verdict is clear: this PC is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming. For 4K, it is only viable with the lowest settings, and even then, the experience is not ideal. The system is a solid mid-range performer, but it is not built for high-resolution, high-detail gaming.