Control

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i3-12100F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 570 ranks 3524 out of 3720 tested combinations in the database for Control. This places the combo in the lower percentile of all tested systems, indicating that it sits well below the median performance tier for this title. The rank reflects the aggregate of all measured configurations, and while the individual components have respectable standing in their own right, their combined performance in Control is constrained by the GPU's age and the CPU's quad-core design.

The CPU itself ranks in the 68th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 13494. This places it above the majority of desktop CPUs, though it is not a top-tier part. The GPU, meanwhile, sits in the 74th percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 28766. The GPU's percentile is notably higher than the combo's overall rank suggests, which indicates that the pairing does not translate its component-level strengths into game-level performance. For Control specifically, the measured frame rates show a system that is heavily GPU-bound at higher resolutions, but also CPU-limited at lower settings where the processor's four cores become the bottleneck.

The combination of a 4-core, 8-thread CPU with a 4 GB GDDR5 GPU from the Polaris generation results in a system that can run the game, but only at modest settings and resolutions. The database's measured data shows that no resolution and preset combination reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best result recorded is 59.9 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is just 0.1 FPS short of the playable threshold. This is a critical finding: the system is capable of nearly hitting 60 FPS, but it falls just short, and only at the lowest visual quality preset.

Best Settings per Resolution

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of what settings are achievable at each resolution, with the playable threshold set at 60 FPS. Since no configuration in the database reaches 60 FPS, the "best settings" for each resolution are those that come closest to the threshold while maintaining the highest visual quality possible.

At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS recorded is 27.7 FPS at Low settings. The High preset yields 17.5 FPS, Medium yields 18.8 FPS, and Ultra yields 17.2 FPS. None of these come close to the 60 FPS threshold, and even the best result (Low) is less than half of the required frame rate. The data shows that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo in Control under any settings.

At 2560x1440, the best result is 42 FPS at Low settings. The High preset produces 30.1 FPS, Medium produces 28.4 FPS, and Ultra produces 26 FPS. The gap between Low and the next highest preset (High) is 11.9 FPS, which is substantial. While 42 FPS is playable in a general sense, it falls well short of the 60 FPS threshold. The data indicates that 1440p is only feasible at Low settings, and even then, it does not reach the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the best result is 59.9 FPS at Low settings. This is the closest any configuration comes to the 60 FPS threshold, missing it by only 0.1 FPS. The High preset yields 37.3 FPS, Medium yields 40.4 FPS, and Ultra yields 33.7 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is 19.5 FPS, which is a significant penalty for a modest visual upgrade. For 1080p, the data suggests that only Low settings are worth considering, as all other presets drop below 41 FPS.

The verdict data confirms that no resolution has any playable settings, meaning the system cannot maintain 60 FPS at any resolution and preset combination. The closest approach is at 1080p Low, which almost reaches the threshold but does not clear it.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1080p with High settings?

A: No. The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings is 37.3 FPS, which is well below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The system would need nearly double the performance to achieve a smooth experience at that preset.

Q: What is the best achievable frame rate for this combo?

A: The highest measured average FPS across all configurations is 59.9 FPS, recorded at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is just 0.1 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold, making it the closest any setting gets to playable performance.

Q: How does the system perform at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the best result is 42 FPS at Low settings. Higher presets drop significantly: High yields 30.1 FPS, Medium yields 28.4 FPS, and Ultra yields 26 FPS. None of these approach the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 27.7 FPS at Low settings. All other presets (High, Medium, Ultra) produce results between 17.2 and 18.8 FPS, which are far below playable levels.

Q: What is the CPU's performance percentile?

A: The Intel Core i3-12100F ranks in the 68th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 13494. This places it above average for general processing tasks, but it has only 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 570 ranks in the 74th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 28766. This is a mid-range result, but the card has only 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and a 256-bit bus.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i3-12100F, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Core 3 N355 with an average score of 13492 (a 0% delta), the Intel Core i5-9500 with a score of 13452 (a 0.3% delta), the Intel Core 5 120UL with a score of 13594 (a -0.7% delta), and the Intel Core i7-1250U with a score of 13351 (a 1.1% delta). These CPUs would provide nearly identical processing performance in Control, meaning the frame rate differences between them would be negligible. The i5-9500 offers two additional physical cores compared to the i3-12100F, but the benchmark scores indicate that this does not translate into a meaningful advantage for this game, which appears to be more dependent on single-thread and GPU performance.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6800M with a score of 28874 (a -0.4% delta), the AMD Radeon R9 M295X with a score of 28580 (a 0.7% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 470 with a score of 28996 (a -0.8% delta), and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 with a score of 28421 (a 1.2% delta). The RX 470 is particularly relevant, as it shares the same Polaris architecture and GCN 4.0 design, with identical memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s and a similar 4 GB GDDR5 configuration. Systems using any of these GPUs would produce very similar frame rates in Control, with differences of less than 1% in most cases.

In practical terms, a system with an RX 570 and any of these rival CPUs would behave almost identically in Control. The delta between the i3-12100F and its closest rival (the Core 3 N355) is essentially zero, so users upgrading or downgrading between these parts would see no measurable change in game performance. Similarly, swapping the RX 570 for an RX 470 would result in a performance difference of less than 1%, which is within measurement error.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database contains 12 measured configurations for this combo, spanning three resolutions and four quality presets. All FPS values are averages, with no minimum or maximum data recorded.

At 3840x2160, the results are as follows:

• High: 17.5 FPS
• Low: 27.7 FPS
• Medium: 18.8 FPS
• Ultra: 17.2 FPS

The spread between the best (Low) and worst (Ultra) is 10.5 FPS. The fact that Low is so much higher than the other presets suggests that the game's low settings significantly reduce the GPU load, but the absolute values are all far below playable levels. The difference between High and Ultra is only 0.3 FPS, indicating that these two presets impose nearly identical demands on the GPU.

At 2560x1440, the results are:

• High: 30.1 FPS
• Low: 42 FPS
• Medium: 28.4 FPS
• Ultra: 26 FPS

The gap between Low and the next best preset (High) is 11.9 FPS. This is the largest relative difference between Low and the rest of the presets across all resolutions, suggesting that at 1440p, the low settings reduce the GPU workload substantially. The Ultra preset is only 4.1 FPS lower than High, which again shows that the higher presets cluster together.

At 1920x1080, the results are:

• High: 37.3 FPS
• Low: 59.9 FPS
• Medium: 40.4 FPS
• Ultra: 33.7 FPS

The Low result of 59.9 FPS is the single best measurement in the entire dataset, and it is remarkably close to the 60 FPS threshold. The jump from Low to Medium is 19.5 FPS, which is the largest single-preset penalty observed. The difference between Medium and High is only 2.9 FPS, and between High and Ultra it is 3.6 FPS. This pattern indicates that at 1080p, the Low preset is in a class of its own, while the other three presets are grouped within a narrow band of 33.7 to 40.4 FPS.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, this PC cannot run Control at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or setting. The verdictByResolution field confirms that there are no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The closest any configuration comes to the threshold is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which produces an average of 59.9 FPS. This is 0.1 FPS short of the threshold, which is a razor-thin margin but still a failure to meet the playable standard.

At 1080p, the system is suitable only for Low settings if the user is willing to accept a frame rate that is technically below 60 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 40.4 FPS, which is a 32.3% reduction from Low. High and Ultra are even lower at 37.3 and 33.7 FPS respectively. These numbers suggest that the GPU is the limiting factor at 1080p for all presets above Low, as the frame rate scales directly with the visual quality demands.

At 1440p and 4K, the system is not viable for smooth gameplay. The best 1440p result (42 FPS at Low) is still 30% below the threshold, and the best 4K result (27.7 FPS at Low) is more than 50% below it. Higher presets at these resolutions produce results in the 17 to 30 FPS range, which would be noticeable stuttery and unresponsive for an action-adventure game like Control.

The overall verdict is that this combo is a borderline case for 1080p Low gaming, but it does not meet the database's playable criteria. Users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity could run the game at 1080p Low and experience near-60 FPS performance, but the strict threshold is not cleared.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured data reveals a clear division of labor between the CPU and GPU in Control. At 1920x1080, the frame rate scales significantly with the chosen preset, which indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck for higher settings. The Low preset produces 59.9 FPS, while Medium drops to 40.4 FPS, a 19.5 FPS penalty. This large drop when moving from Low to Medium suggests that the RX 570's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 2048 shading units are overwhelmed by the additional texture and shading work that Medium settings require. The GPU's 224.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth is sufficient for Low settings, but becomes a limiting factor at Medium and above.

At 1440p, the same pattern holds: Low produces 42 FPS, while all other presets cluster between 26 and 30.1 FPS. The GPU's fill rate (39.81 GPixel/s) and texture rate (159.2 GTexel/s) are simply not enough to handle higher quality presets at this resolution. The CPU, with its 4 cores and 8 threads, has enough headroom at 1440p to feed the GPU without becoming the primary constraint.

At 4K, the GPU is overwhelmingly the bottleneck. The best result is 27.7 FPS at Low, and all other presets are below 19 FPS. The RX 570's pixel rate of 39.81 GPixel/s means that rendering 3840x2160 (approximately 8.3 million pixels) at even moderate efficiency would require more than 30 FPS just to fill the screen, and the measured data shows that the GPU falls short of this.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent when comparing the 1080p Low result to the 1440p Low result. The 1080p Low result (59.9 FPS) is 42.6% higher than the 1440p Low result (42 FPS), which shows that the GPU is still the limiting factor even at the lowest settings. However, the fact that 1080p Low nearly reaches 60 FPS suggests that the CPU (with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz and a single-thread score of 893 in 3DMark) is capable of driving the game at that frame rate. If the CPU were weaker, the 1080p Low result would likely be lower than 59.9 FPS.

Between resolutions, the scaling is not linear. Moving from 1080p Low to 1440p Low reduces the frame rate by 30%, while moving from 1440p Low to 4K Low reduces it by another 34%. This indicates that the GPU's memory bandwidth (224.0 GB/s) and memory size (4 GB) are progressively more strained as resolution increases. The CPU's 12 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel memory support (DDR4 or DDR5) are adequate for this game, as evidenced by the relatively strong 1080p Low result.

In summary, the data indicates that the GPU is the dominant factor for all presets above Low at 1080p, and for all presets at 1440p and 4K. The CPU is sufficient to reach near-60 FPS at 1080p Low, but it cannot compensate for the GPU's limitations at higher settings or resolutions. Neither component is the sole bottleneck; rather, the GPU's age and memory constraints are the primary limiting factors, while the CPU's four cores are adequate for this particular game's demands.