Control

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT paired with the Intel Core i3-12100F delivers a playable experience in Control across most common gaming configurations, but 4K gaming requires significant settings compromises. At 1080p, this combination achieves over 60 FPS at every preset, including Ultra. At 1440p, Medium settings hold above 60 FPS, while High dips slightly below the threshold. At 4K, only Low settings reach the 60 FPS mark, with Medium, High, and Ultra all falling short. The data shows a clear pattern: this combo is well-suited for 1080p and capable at 1440p, but 4K gaming demands reduced visual fidelity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Control reveals how the Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT scale across three resolutions and four quality presets. The results are organized by resolution, moving from the most demanding to the least demanding.

3840x2160 (4K)

At 4K resolution, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 34 FPS, which falls well below the 60 FPS playable threshold. High settings improve this to an average of 39 FPS, still insufficient for smooth gameplay. Medium settings provide an average of 44 FPS, with minimum and maximum values of 38 and 51 FPS respectively. The only playable option at 4K is the Low preset, which achieves an average of 63 FPS, just clearing the 60 FPS benchmark. The gap between Low and Medium is substantial, representing a 19 FPS average difference, indicating that the GPU is heavily taxed at this resolution.

2560x1440 (1440p)

Moving to 1440p, the performance picture improves considerably. The Low preset reaches an average of 93 FPS, providing a comfortable margin above the playable threshold. Medium settings deliver 66 FPS on average, with minimum and maximum readings of 56 and 76 FPS, meaning brief dips below 60 FPS can occur during intense scenes. High settings average 58 FPS, just two frames short of the target. Ultra settings drop to an average of 51 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 42 FPS swing, demonstrating that settings choices have a major impact at this resolution.

1920x1080 (1080p)

At 1080p, this combination performs strongly across the board. The Low preset averages 122 FPS, providing headroom for high-refresh-rate displays. Medium settings average 87 FPS, with minimum and maximum values of 74 and 100 FPS, keeping the entire frame time distribution above 60 FPS. High settings reach 77 FPS on average, while Ultra still maintains 67 FPS. All four presets clear the 60 FPS threshold at 1080p, with the Ultra preset being the most demanding option that remains playable. The average FPS range from Low to Ultra spans 55 frames, from 122 down to 67.

The data also shows the impact of resolution scaling. Comparing the same settings across resolutions reveals significant drops: High settings go from 77 FPS at 1080p to 58 FPS at 1440p, then to 39 FPS at 4K. Low settings scale from 122 to 93 to 63 FPS across the same resolutions. The average FPS at Ultra drops from 67 at 1080p to 51 at 1440p to 34 at 4K, representing a near-50% reduction between 1080p and 4K.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest playable preset at 4K resolution for this CPU and GPU combo?

A: At 3840x2160, only the Low preset achieves an average FPS above the 60 FPS playable threshold, with a measured average of 63 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS, with averages of 44, 39, and 34 FPS respectively.

Q: Can this system maintain 60 FPS at 1440p with High settings?

A: No. At 2560x1440 with High settings, the average FPS is 58, which is 2 frames below the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset at 1440p averages 66 FPS, making it the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS.

Q: Which preset at 1080p delivers the highest average FPS?

A: The Low preset at 1920x1080 produces the highest average FPS at 122. The Medium preset follows at 87, with High at 77 and Ultra at 67. All four presets at 1080p are playable, meaning the user can choose any settings level without dropping below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded across all tested configurations?

A: The lowest recorded minimum FPS is 38, which occurs at 3840x2160 with Medium settings. The next lowest minimum is 56 FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings. At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the minimum is 74 FPS.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset averages 67 FPS, while High averages 77 FPS. This represents a 10 FPS difference between the two highest quality presets. Both remain above the 60 FPS playable threshold, but Ultra leaves less headroom for demanding scenes.

Q: Is the average FPS at 4K Low higher than the average FPS at 1440p Ultra?

A: Yes. The 4K Low preset averages 63 FPS, while the 1440p Ultra preset averages 51 FPS. This demonstrates that lowering resolution is not always the only factor; settings adjustments can compensate for resolution increases in terms of raw average FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data for Control reveals which component dominates performance at each resolution. The Intel Core i3-12100F has a benchmark percentile of 68 among all CPUs, while the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT sits at the 65th percentile among GPUs. These relative positions suggest a balanced pairing, but the measured FPS scaling tells a more detailed story.

At 4K resolution, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The average FPS at Ultra is 34, which is nearly half the 63 FPS achieved at Low settings. This 29 FPS difference between presets at the same resolution indicates that the GPU's rendering load is the primary constraint. The CPU, with its 4 cores and 8 threads, is likely not the bottleneck at this resolution because the frame rate scales heavily with graphical settings rather than with CPU-dependent factors.

At 1440p, the balance shifts slightly. The Low preset reaches 93 FPS, suggesting the CPU can feed the GPU enough data at this resolution. The drop to 66 FPS at Medium and 58 at High indicates the GPU begins to struggle as graphical complexity increases. The 35 FPS gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is similar in magnitude to the 29 FPS gap at 4K, showing that settings still dominate the performance profile.

At 1080p, the CPU's role becomes more apparent. The Low preset hits 122 FPS, which is a high frame rate that requires sufficient CPU throughput to maintain. The CPU's single-thread benchmark score of 893 in 3dmark and 1674 in Cinebench R23 single-core suggest it can handle this load. However, the scaling from Low to Ultra (122 down to 67 FPS) is still primarily driven by GPU workload. The fact that all presets remain above 60 FPS at 1080p indicates that neither component is severely limiting at this resolution.

The data shows that as resolution decreases, the CPU has a relatively larger influence on maximum achievable FPS, but the GPU remains the dominant factor for settings scaling at every resolution. For this game, the RX 6650 XT's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus width are sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but the 4K Ultra preset at 34 FPS demonstrates the GPU's limits at higher pixel counts.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT combination ranks 2438 out of 3720 tested combos in Control, placing it in approximately the 65th percentile of all configurations. This rank reflects the mid-range positioning of both components. The CPU itself has an average benchmark score of 13494, ranking in the 68th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU's average benchmark score of 19765 places it in the 65th percentile among all GPUs.

The combo's rank of 2438 out of 3720 means that 1281 combinations perform better in this game. Given that the GPU's percentile (65) is slightly lower than the CPU's (68), the GPU is likely the more limiting factor for this particular title. The measured FPS data supports this: at 4K Ultra, the GPU cannot maintain 60 FPS, while at 1080p Low, it exceeds 120 FPS, suggesting the CPU can push higher frame rates if the GPU allows.

This ranking indicates that the combo is not top-tier for Control, but it sits above the median. Users with this configuration can expect playable performance at most settings and resolutions, with the primary limitation being the GPU at higher resolutions. The combo's rank is consistent with other pairings in the same hardware tier, as shown by the nearest rival comparisons for each component.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i3-12100F provide context for similar CPU performance. The Intel Core 3 N355 has an average score of 13492, essentially matching the i3-12100F's 13494 with a 0% delta. The Intel Core i5-9500 scores 13452, which is 0.3% lower. The Intel Core 5 120UL scores 13594, 0.7% higher, and the Intel Core i7-1250U scores 13351, 1.1% lower. These CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios within Control.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals show a similar clustering. The NVIDIA Tesla K40m scores 19885, which is 0.6% higher than the RX 6650 XT's 19765. The AMD FirePro D300 scores 19637, 0.7% lower. The AMD FirePro W7000 scores 19905, 0.7% higher, and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 scores 19602, 0.8% lower. These GPUs would produce almost indistinguishable FPS results in Control, meaning users with any of these graphics cards paired with a similar CPU would see roughly the same performance.

The narrow deltaPct values across both CPU and GPU rivals indicate that this combo sits in a dense performance cluster. Swapping the i3-12100F for an i5-9500 or replacing the RX 6650 XT with a Quadro K5200 would not meaningfully change the measured FPS at any resolution or settings level. The practical differences between these alternatives are within measurement noise for most gaming scenarios.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control successfully, but the experience varies significantly by resolution. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold at every preset, from Low (122 FPS) to Ultra (67 FPS), making it fully playable with maximum visual quality. At 2560x1440, the system maintains 60 FPS at Low and Medium settings, with Medium averaging 66 FPS, but High (58 FPS) and Ultra (51 FPS) fall short. At 3840x2160, only the Low preset reaches 60 FPS, averaging 63 FPS, while all other presets fail to meet the threshold.

The verdict data confirms that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combination, offering playable frame rates at all quality levels. At 1440p, users must choose between Medium settings for smooth gameplay or High/Ultra for better visuals with some frame rate concessions. At 4K, the system is only playable at Low settings, which may be acceptable for users prioritizing frame rate over graphical fidelity. The 34 FPS average at 4K Ultra indicates that this resolution with maximum settings is not viable for this hardware.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, which delivers an average of 63 FPS. No other preset at this resolution reaches the 60 FPS threshold, so Low is the only recommended option for 4K gaming.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset provides the highest quality that maintains 60 FPS, averaging 66 FPS. The minimum FPS of 56 means there will be occasional dips below the target, but the average stays above it. Low settings at 1440p achieve 93 FPS but offer reduced visual quality, while High and Ultra fall below the threshold.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is the best choice, averaging 67 FPS while providing maximum graphical fidelity. This is the only resolution where Ultra settings maintain the 60 FPS threshold. Users seeking higher frame rates can opt for High (77 FPS), Medium (87 FPS), or Low (122 FPS), but Ultra offers the best visual experience without sacrificing playability.