Control

The Intel Core i3-12100F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is a combination that lands in the 901st position out of 3,720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the top quarter of all systems evaluated. This pairing demonstrates a clear ability to run the game at acceptable frame rates across all tested resolutions, though the degree of headroom varies significantly depending on the resolution and quality preset selected. The data shows a system that is far more capable at 1080p and 1440p than at 4K, where the most demanding settings push it below the 60 FPS playability threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 901 out of 3,720 tested combinations places this system in the 76th percentile of all tested hardware pairings for Control. This is a strong showing, indicating that the combination of a quad-core Alder Lake processor with AMD's latest RDNA 4.0 flagship GPU is well-suited to the game's demands. The GPU's average benchmark score of 13,543 and the CPU's average of 13,494 are nearly identical, suggesting a balanced pairing where neither component dramatically outstrips the other in raw compute potential. In practical terms, this rank means the system sits ahead of the vast majority of tested configurations, with only about 24% of combinations delivering higher performance in this specific title.

The percentile ranking for the GPU alone is 55 against all GPUs, while the CPU sits at the 68th percentile against all CPUs. This discrepancy is interesting because it suggests the processor is relatively stronger in the broader benchmark landscape than the graphics card, yet in Control the system still performs admirably. The game appears to reward the GPU's substantial memory bandwidth and raw rasterization power, as evidenced by the high frame rates achieved even at demanding settings. The system's overall rank reflects a hardware pairing that comfortably exceeds the playable threshold of 60 FPS at most settings, with the only exception being the most extreme 4K Ultra configuration.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions reveals how the workload shifts between the CPU and GPU. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system produces 194.3 FPS, which drops to 122.7 FPS at High settings — a 36.8% reduction that demonstrates the GPU's sensitivity to graphical fidelity at lower resolutions. Moving to 2560x1440, the Low setting yields 147.6 FPS, while High produces 92.6 FPS, showing a similar proportional drop. At 3840x2160, the Low setting delivers 96.8 FPS and High drops to 61.3 FPS. The pattern across resolutions indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is more likely to be the limiting factor, as the frame rates at Low settings (194.3 FPS) suggest the processor's four cores and eight threads are working near their maximum capacity to feed the GPU.

As resolution increases to 4K, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint. The difference between Low and High settings at 4K is 35.5 FPS (96.8 vs 61.3), while at 1080p the same settings gap is 71.6 FPS (194.3 vs 122.7). This widening gap at lower resolutions indicates that the CPU's performance ceiling is reached first, capping frame rates before the GPU can fully stretch its legs. The i3-12100F's single-thread performance, as measured by its 3DMark single-thread score of 893, is respectable but not exceptional, and Control's engine appears to benefit from higher single-core throughput at lower resolutions. Conversely, the RX 9070 XT's massive 644.6 GB/s memory bandwidth and 48.66 TFLOPS of FP32 compute become increasingly relevant as pixel count rises, making the GPU the clear bottleneck at 4K.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS is High, which delivers 61.3 FPS. The Medium preset produces 72.2 FPS, and Low reaches 96.8 FPS, but Ultra drops to 52 FPS, falling below the playable threshold. This makes High the recommended setting for 4K gaming, offering a slim but sufficient margin above the 60 FPS target. The data shows that Ultra settings at 4K are not viable with this hardware, as the 8 FPS deficit indicates the GPU cannot sustain the required frame rate under maximum load.

At 2560x1440, all four presets exceed 60 FPS, with Ultra reaching 77.7 FPS. This makes Ultra the best playable setting at this resolution, providing a comfortable 17.7 FPS headroom above the threshold. The Medium preset achieves 101.1 FPS, High produces 92.6 FPS, and Low hits 147.6 FPS. The 1440p Ultra performance demonstrates that this resolution is the sweet spot for this combination, balancing visual quality with smooth gameplay. At 1920x1080, Ultra delivers 108 FPS, making it the clear choice for high-refresh-rate monitors. The Low setting reaches 194.3 FPS, Medium produces 137.9 FPS, and High achieves 122.7 FPS, all of which are more than sufficient for competitive play or demanding visual configurations.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the Intel Core 3 N355 with a delta of 0%, the Intel Core i5-9500 at 0.3% faster, the Intel Core 5 120UL at 0.7% slower, and the Intel Core i7-1250U at 1.1% faster. These processors would behave nearly identically to the i3-12100F in Control, meaning the system's frame rates would be virtually unchanged with any of these alternatives installed. The Core i5-9500, despite being an older architecture, offers essentially the same average performance, indicating that the i3-12100F's Alder Lake architecture provides no significant advantage in this game's CPU-bound scenarios.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 7770M at 0.1% faster, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 at 0.2% faster, the NVIDIA P106-090 at 0.5% faster, and the AMD Radeon Pro 555 at 1% faster. These comparisons are notable because they show that the RX 9070 XT's average benchmark score is closely matched by much older, lower-tier graphics cards. However, this similarity in average score does not necessarily translate to identical gaming performance, as the RX 9070 XT's modern architecture and 16 GB of GDDR6 memory provide advantages in memory-heavy workloads that may not be captured in the aggregate benchmark. In Control specifically, the measured FPS data shows the GPU performing well above the 60 FPS threshold at most settings, suggesting that the benchmark averages may understate its real-world gaming capability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the frame rates are consistently high across all settings. The Low preset produces an average of 194.3 FPS, Medium delivers 137.9 FPS, High reaches 122.7 FPS, and Ultra achieves 108 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 44.4% drop in performance, which is substantial but expected given the increased graphical load. The minimum and maximum FPS values are not recorded in the data, so the average figures represent the central tendency of performance without indicating variability or frame pacing consistency.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains strong but shows more pronounced differences between presets. Low settings yield 147.6 FPS, Medium produces 101.1 FPS, High delivers 92.6 FPS, and Ultra reaches 77.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra widens to 47.4%, reflecting the increased pixel count's impact on GPU load. The 1440p numbers indicate that even at Ultra, the system has nearly 18 FPS of headroom above the playable threshold, making this resolution the most flexible for users who want maximum visual quality without sacrificing smoothness.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly, with Low settings producing 96.8 FPS, Medium reaching 72.2 FPS, High achieving 61.3 FPS, and Ultra falling to 52 FPS. The 4K Ultra setting is the only configuration in the entire dataset that fails to meet the 60 FPS target, showing that the GPU's 16 GB of memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for high-quality 4K gaming but not for maximum settings. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 46.2%, which is consistent with the scaling observed at lower resolutions, suggesting that the GPU's performance degradation is proportional across the resolution range.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with maximum settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate is 52 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The highest playable setting at 4K is High, which achieves 61.3 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination?

A: The data indicates that 2560x1440 with Ultra settings provides the best balance, delivering 77.7 FPS. This resolution allows for maximum visual quality while maintaining a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS target.

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

A: The Intel Core i3-12100F has an average benchmark score of 13,494, which is within 1.1% of its closest competitors. The Intel Core i5-9500 is 0.3% faster, while the Intel Core 5 120UL is 0.7% slower, indicating that all four processors would perform nearly identically in this game.

Q: Why does performance drop so much at 4K compared to 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 194.3 FPS, but at 3840x2160, the same preset produces 96.8 FPS, a 50.2% reduction. This indicates that the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, as the increased pixel count demands more of the RX 9070 XT's resources.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more important for this game at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the CPU's limits are more apparent, as the frame rates at Low settings (194.3 FPS) suggest the processor is nearing its maximum throughput. The difference between High and Low settings at this resolution is 71.6 FPS, indicating that the GPU has more headroom than the CPU at lower resolutions.

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

A: The lowest average frame rate in the dataset is 52 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. All other configurations maintain averages above 60 FPS, with the next lowest being 61.3 FPS at 4K High settings.