Control

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The recorded data shows that no preset at any tested resolution reaches 60 FPS. The highest average FPS recorded is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which falls 4 FPS short of the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combination achieves in Control?

A: The best recorded average FPS is 56 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next closest is 43 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, and 40 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings.

Q: How does the Intel Core i3-12100F compare to its nearest rivals in overall CPU benchmarks?

A: The CPU holds an average benchmark score of 13494, placing it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core 3 N355, scores 13492 with a 0% delta. The Intel Core i5-9500 trails at 13452 (0.3% slower), while the Intel Core i7-1250U scores 13351 (1.1% slower). The Intel Core 5 120UL is 0.7% ahead at 13594.

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in overall GPU benchmarks?

A: The GPU has an average benchmark score of 7472, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster at 7550, while the AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 0.3% slower at 7447. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441 (0.4% slower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425 (0.6% slower).

Q: Is there any resolution where the Ultra preset achieves a playable frame rate?

A: No. At Ultra settings, the recorded average FPS is 31 at 1920x1080, 23 at 2560x1440, and 16 at 3840x2160. All values remain far below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the combo's overall rank among tested hardware combinations for Control?

A: The combination ranks 3588 out of 3720 tested combos in the database. This places it in the bottom portion of tested configurations, indicating it sits well below the median performance level for this game.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data reveals that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck for Control across all resolutions and presets. This conclusion follows from the scaling pattern: as resolution increases, average FPS drops consistently at every preset level, which indicates that the rendering workload, handled by the GPU, is the limiting factor.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 56 FPS, while Medium drops to 40 FPS, High to 36 FPS, and Ultra to 31 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 25 FPS at 1080p. Moving to 2560x1440, the same preset progression yields 43, 30, 27, and 23 FPS respectively, with a spread of 20 FPS. At 3840x2160, the values fall to 29, 20, 18, and 16 FPS, a spread of 13 FPS. The shrinking delta between Low and Ultra as resolution increases suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is saturated even at Low settings, so further preset changes produce smaller absolute gains.

The resolution scaling itself tells a similar story. At Low settings, dropping from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 reduces average FPS from 56 to 43, a 23% decrease. Dropping further to 3840x2160 reduces it to 29 FPS, another 33% decrease. At Ultra settings, the same resolution steps reduce FPS from 31 to 23 to 16. The consistent degradation across resolution steps points to GPU-bound rendering, since the CPU workload for Control does not scale with pixel count in the same way.

The CPU specifications support this interpretation. The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz and an L3 cache of 12 MB shared. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11860 and single-core score of 1674 indicate a capable modern processor. In contrast, the GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, and a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. Its FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS is modest by current standards. The GPU's 40th percentile ranking versus the CPU's 68th percentile ranking reinforces the conclusion that the graphics card is the weaker link in this pairing.

The minimum FPS values recorded at Medium settings also illuminate the GPU's role. At 1920x1080 Medium, the minimum is 34 FPS against a 40 FPS average. At 2560x1440 Medium, the minimum is 26 FPS against a 30 FPS average. At 3840x2160 Medium, the minimum is 17 FPS against a 20 FPS average. The minimums track the averages proportionally, suggesting stable frame pacing without CPU-induced stutter. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the minimum frames would likely show more erratic behavior relative to the averages, especially at lower resolutions where the GPU has more headroom.

Given that the CPU outperforms the GPU in percentile terms, and the FPS scales smoothly with both resolution and preset changes, the data clearly indicates that the GTX 1650 is the constraining component. Users seeking higher frame rates in Control would need a more powerful GPU, while the i3-12100F has enough headroom to support a stronger graphics card in this title.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database provide a context for what kind of processor performance is required to match the i3-12100F. The Intel Core 3 N355 has an average benchmark score of 13492, essentially identical to the i3-12100F's 13494. The Intel Core i5-9500 scores 13452, just 0.3% lower, making it a near-match in overall CPU throughput. The Intel Core i7-1250U scores 13351, 1.1% lower. The Intel Core 5 120UL is 0.7% higher at 13594. All four rivals fall within a 1.8% band of the i3-12100F, meaning any of these processors would deliver effectively indistinguishable CPU performance in Control, assuming the GPU remains the same bottleneck.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals cluster even more tightly. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, just 1% above the GTX 1650's 7472. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, 0.3% below. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, 0.4% below. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, 0.6% below. All of these GPUs fall within a 1.7% performance band, so swapping the GTX 1650 for any of these would yield nearly identical frame rates in Control. It is notably the HD 8850M and UHD Graphics 750 are integrated or mobile-class parts, which may have different thermal or driver characteristics, but their raw benchmark scores place them in the same performance class.

The practical implication for users is that this CPU-GPU pairing sits in a well-populated performance tier. The i3-12100F could be paired with any of its rivals without materially changing Control's frame rates. The GTX 1650 could likewise be swapped for an Arc A310 or R7 350 with minimal impact. The combination's overall ranking of 3588 out of 3720 combos reflects this mid-to-low tier positioning, and the alternatives reinforce that this is a common performance level rather than an outlier.

The Verdict

The verdict from the recorded data is unambiguous: this combination cannot run Control at a playable 60 FPS at any resolution or preset. The verdictByResolution data lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The best case scenario is 1920x1080 with Low settings, producing an average of 56 FPS, which is 4 FPS below the playable threshold. At every other preset and resolution, the average FPS is lower.

For users who can tolerate frame rates below 60 FPS, the most viable option is 1920x1080 with Low settings at 56 FPS average. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 40 FPS, which may be acceptable for some players but falls well short of the playable threshold. At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 43 FPS, and at 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 29 FPS. None of these configurations reach the 60 FPS target, and the game's recommended threshold in the database is exactly 60 FPS.

The combination's rank of 3588 out of 3720 tested combos places it in the bottom 3.5% of tested configurations for Control. This is consistent with the measured FPS data, which shows the system struggling to maintain playable frame rates even at the lowest settings and resolution. Users considering this hardware for Control should expect a sub-60 FPS experience across the board, with playable performance only in the sense that the game will run, not that it will run smoothly by the database's standard.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded data shows the following results. Low settings produce an average of 56 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS. High settings produce an average of 36 FPS. Ultra settings produce an average of 31 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a consistent decline of roughly 4 to 5 FPS per preset step, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium at 16 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Low settings average 43 FPS. Medium settings average 30 FPS, with a minimum of 26 FPS and a maximum of 35 FPS. High settings average 27 FPS. Ultra settings average 23 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 13 FPS, and the decline continues more gradually through High and Ultra. The Medium preset's minimum of 26 FPS indicates that even the frame pacing at this resolution remains stable relative to the average.

At 3840x2160, Low settings average 29 FPS. Medium settings average 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 FPS and maximum of 24 FPS. High settings average 18 FPS. Ultra settings average 16 FPS. The minimum values at Medium settings show a minimum of 17 FPS, which nearly matches the Ultra average at the same resolution, indicating that the GPU is fully saturated at this pixel count regardless of preset.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset is the only one with complete min and max data recorded across all three resolutions. The data points form a clear pattern of performance degradation from Low to Ultra at every resolution, with the GPU's memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s and 4 GB memory capacity serving as the likely constraint at higher settings.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the best preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is none, since the Low preset only reaches 56 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The closest value is the Low preset at 56 FPS, but it does not meet the playable threshold. The database's playable settings list is empty for this resolution, confirming that no configuration reaches 60 FPS. The best recorded average FPS at 1080p is 56 FPS at Low settings.

At 2560x1440, the best preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is none, with the Low preset averaging 43 FPS as the highest recorded value. The playable settings list is empty for this resolution. The gap between the best measured FPS and the threshold is 17 FPS short of the target.

At 3840x1440, the best preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is none, with the Low preset at 29 FPS as the highest recorded value. The playable settings list is empty for this resolution, leaving a 31 FPS gap to the playable threshold. Across all three resolutions, no preset at any setting reaches the 60 FPS target.

Best settings per resolution therefore cannot be assigned, as the database records no playable settings for any resolution. Users who prioritize frame rate over visual quality should select the Low preset at 1920x1080 for a 56 FPS average, 43 FPS at 2560x1440, 29 FPS at 3840x2160, with no resolution meeting the 60 FPS target.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 3588 out of 3720 tested combos, placing it in the 132nd percentile from the bottom of the ranking distribution for Control performance in the database's measured dataset. This rank of 3588 out of 3720 places it in the bottom 3.5% of tested combos. This ranking is consistent with the measured FPS data, which shows the system failing to reach 60 FPS at any resolution or preset. The combo's performance sits below the vast majority of tested configurations, indicating that this hardware pairing is positioned near the lower end of the database's tested spectrum for this game.

The rank of 3588 out of 3720 means that only 132 tested combos perform worse than this pairing in Control. The i3-12100F's 68th percentile CPU ranking and the GTX 1650's 40th percentile GPU ranking combine to produce a result that is significantly weaker than either component's individual percentile would suggest. This is because Control's GPU-heavy workload amplifies the GTX 1650's limitations, while the CPU's relative strength cannot compensate for the graphics bottleneck. The data shows a system that is fundamentally constrained by its graphics card, and the overall rank reflects that constraint.