Control

The Intel Core i3-12100F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT ranks 2645 out of 3720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. That percentile position reflects a pairing that is entirely capable of running the game smoothly at mainstream resolutions, but which sits far from the top of the leaderboard when considering the full spectrum of hardware combinations tested. The rank is not a condemnation — it simply indicates that this combo occupies a practical, mid-tier performance envelope where the GPU does most of the heavy lifting and the four-core CPU keeps pace without becoming a bottleneck at the settings where the game is actually playable.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s position at 2645 of 3720 tested combinations means roughly 29% of tested systems land below it, while about 71% rank higher. This is not a surprising outcome for a CPU that sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs and a GPU at the 70th percentile among all GPUs. Both components are solidly mid-pack in their respective categories, and their combination produces a system that is better than the average tested rig but not competitive with high-end configurations. In practical terms, the ranking tells you that this PC will handle Control without drama at 1080p and 1440p, but it will not deliver the kind of headroom that lets you max out every setting at 4K. The data confirms this: at 3840x2160, even the Low preset only reaches an average of 58.9 FPS, which is just under the 60 FPS playable threshold, and every other 4K preset falls well below it.

The ranking also reflects a balance issue. The RX 6600 XT is the stronger component in this pairing, with an average benchmark score of 24442 compared to the i3-12100F’s 13494. The CPU’s single-thread performance is respectable — its 3dmark single-thread score of 893 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1674 indicate it can feed the GPU adequately — but the four-core, eight-thread design limits multi-threaded workloads. In a game like Control, which is not heavily CPU-bound at higher resolutions, this imbalance matters less than it would in simulation or strategy titles. The rank of 2645 is essentially what you would expect from a GPU-driven system with a modest but competent CPU.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the i3-12100F and the RX 6600 XT becomes clear when you look at how frame rates scale across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the GPU is the limiting factor only at the Ultra preset, where the average drops to 62.6 FPS. The CPU has enough single-thread headroom to push the Low preset to 116.3 FPS and the Medium preset to 81.8 FPS, which suggests that at lower settings, the game is largely GPU-bound. The i3-12100F’s 3dmark 4-thread score of 2859 and 8-thread score of 4026 are sufficient to avoid becoming a bottleneck at 1080p, where the GPU is processing frames as fast as the settings allow.

Moving to 2560x1440, the GPU’s role becomes more pronounced. The High preset drops to 56.4 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls to 50 FPS, while Low and Medium stay playable at 86.6 and 64.1 FPS respectively. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a consistent 20-25% performance hit across most presets, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU’s workload does not increase significantly with resolution, so the frame rate decline is almost entirely attributable to the RX 6600 XT rendering more pixels. At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overwhelmed. The High preset manages only 40.2 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 36 FPS. Even the Low preset at 58.9 FPS barely misses the 60 FPS threshold, confirming that the RX 6600 XT’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth are simply not enough for 4K in this title.

The preset scaling tells a similar story. At every resolution, the jump from Low to Medium costs roughly 10-13 FPS, and the jump from High to Ultra costs another 10-12 FPS. This consistent pattern indicates that the game’s settings scale primarily with GPU load, and the CPU is not the limiting factor in any configuration tested. The i3-12100F’s boost clock of 4.30 GHz and its 12 MB of shared L3 cache provide enough single-thread performance to keep up with the GPU’s output, even at the highest frame rates measured. In short, the GPU is the dominant component for this game at all resolutions, and the CPU is a supporting player that does not constrain performance.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for each component provides useful context for what this combo can do. On the CPU side, the i3-12100F’s average benchmark score of 13494 is nearly identical to the Intel Core 3 N355, which scores 13492 with a delta of 0%. The Intel Core i5-9500 is also close at 13452, just 0.3% behind, meaning either of these CPUs would deliver essentially the same frame rates in Control. The Intel Core 5 120UL scores 13594, which is 0.7% higher, and the Intel Core i7-1250U scores 13351, which is 1.1% lower. None of these differences would produce a measurable change in game performance, so if you are considering a system with any of these CPUs, the i3-12100F’s behavior is representative of what you would get.

On the GPU side, the RX 6600 XT’s average benchmark score of 24442 is bracketed by some unexpected company. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 scores 24277, just 0.7% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti scores 24236, 0.8% lower. The Intel Arc A350M scores 24647, 0.8% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER scores 24170, 1.1% lower. The RTX 2080 SUPER comparison is notable because it shows that a much older, higher-tier GPU can land in the same performance neighborhood based on average benchmark scores, but in a real-world game like Control, the RX 6600 XT’s modern architecture and driver support likely give it an edge that synthetic averages do not fully capture. For the purposes of this analysis, the data indicates that swapping the RX 6600 XT for any of these rivals would produce frame rates within a few percentage points of what is measured here.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, but the answer depends heavily on your target resolution. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold on every preset. The Ultra preset averages 62.6 FPS, which is above the playable threshold, and the High preset delivers 74.3 FPS for a more comfortable margin. If you have a 1080p monitor, you can play the game at maximum settings without any concerns about smoothness. At 2560x1440, the system remains playable but with restrictions. The Medium preset averages 64.1 FPS, which clears 60 FPS, and the Low preset hits 86.6 FPS. The High preset falls to 56.4 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 50 FPS, so you will need to settle for Medium or Low settings to maintain a playable frame rate. At 3840x2160, the system cannot reach 60 FPS on any preset. The Low preset comes closest at 58.9 FPS, but that is still below the threshold, and the High preset averages 40.2 FPS. If you want to play Control at 4K with this hardware, you will need to accept frame rates in the 36-59 FPS range, which is not ideal for a fast-paced action game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates show a clear progression of performance as resolution and settings change. At 1920x1080, the Low preset produces an average of 116.3 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this combo. The Medium preset drops to 81.8 FPS, the High preset to 74.3 FPS, and the Ultra preset to 62.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 53.7 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset is significantly more demanding but still playable. At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 86.6 FPS, the Medium preset 64.1 FPS, the High preset 56.4 FPS, and the Ultra preset 50 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra at this resolution is 36.6 FPS, a smaller absolute gap than at 1080p but with the Ultra preset falling below the playable threshold. At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 58.9 FPS, the Medium preset 46 FPS, the High preset 40.2 FPS, and the Ultra preset 36 FPS. The gap from Low to Ultra is 22.9 FPS, and no preset reaches 60 FPS. Notably, the minimum and maximum frame rates are not recorded for any configuration, so the analysis relies solely on averages, which means the actual experience could include occasional dips below these numbers.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the best settings that stay at or above 60 FPS are the Ultra preset, which averages 62.6 FPS. This is the highest quality setting that maintains playability, and it provides a slim but sufficient margin above the 60 FPS threshold. If you prefer more headroom, the High preset at 74.3 FPS is a safer choice, but Ultra is technically playable. At 2560x1440, the best settings that clear 60 FPS are the Medium preset, which averages 64.1 FPS. The Low preset at 86.6 FPS offers more performance, but Medium provides a better visual experience while still staying above the threshold. The High preset at 56.4 FPS and the Ultra preset at 50 FPS are both below 60 FPS and should be avoided if smooth gameplay is your priority. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS, so there is no recommended setting for this resolution. The closest option is the Low preset at 58.9 FPS, which is just under the threshold and might be acceptable if you are willing to tolerate occasional frame rate dips, but the data does not support calling it playable. For the best experience with this combo, stick to 1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, and treat 4K as out of reach for this game.