Control

The Intel Core i3-12100F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 presents a stark contrast in performance classes: a 4-core/8-thread budget desktop CPU facing off against a flagship 24 GB GPU. In Control, the data shows this combination delivers exceptionally high frame rates across all tested settings and resolutions, with the RTX 4090 clearly dominating the workload. The measured FPS figures indicate that even at 4K Ultra, the system maintains an average of 77.8 FPS, comfortably above the 60 FPS playability threshold. The i3-12100F, with its 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 13494, provides sufficient single-thread performance (3dmark single-thread score of 893) to avoid bottlenecking the GPU in this title, though the scaling patterns reveal where its limitations might surface.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Control?

A: The maximum recorded average FPS is 232.9 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. Even at the most demanding preset—3840x2160 Ultra—the average FPS remains at a playable 77.8.

Q: Is this combination capable of 4K gaming above 60 FPS in Control?

A: Yes. The verdict by resolution lists all four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) as playable at 3840x2160. The lowest of these, Ultra, still produces an average of 77.8 FPS, which is 17.8 FPS above the 60 FPS threshold.

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

A: The i3-12100F’s average benchmark score of 13494 is nearly identical to the Intel Core 3 N355 (13492, 0% delta) and the Intel Core i5-9500 (13452, 0.3% ahead). It trails the Intel Core 5 120UL by 0.7% and leads the Intel Core i7-1250U by 1.1%.

Q: What kind of scaling does the game show when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: The data shows a significant drop in FPS as resolution increases. At Ultra settings, the average FPS falls from 152.9 at 1920x1080 to 113.8 at 2560x1440 (a 25.6% decrease), then further to 77.8 at 3840x2160 (a 31.6% decrease from 1440p). This indicates the GPU becomes progressively more stressed at higher resolutions.

Q: Which component is the limiting factor at lower resolutions?

A: At 1920x1080 Low, the system reaches 232.9 FPS, a figure that suggests the CPU’s 4-core/8-thread configuration (with a max-threads 3dmark score of 4023) may be nearing its limit, as the RTX 4090’s raw compute (82.58 TFLOPS FP32) could theoretically push higher. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 152.9 to 232.9 FPS, a 52.3% difference, which shows the GPU still has headroom.

Q: Does the RTX 4090’s nearest rival benchmark comparison reveal any performance anomalies?

A: The RTX 4090’s average benchmark score of 60347 is nearly matched by the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60326, 0% delta) and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60140, 0.3% behind). However, these are professional workstation cards, and the RTX 4090’s 88th percentile ranking among all GPUs indicates it sits near the top of consumer performance, which the measured FPS in Control confirms.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the synthetic benchmark data, the Intel Core i3-12100F sits within a tight cluster of CPUs that would likely deliver similar frame rates in Control. The Intel Core 3 N355 (13492 average score, 0% delta) and Intel Core i5-9500 (13452, 0.3% ahead) are the closest matches, meaning any of these processors paired with the RTX 4090 would produce nearly identical results in this game, assuming the same GPU performance. The Intel Core 5 120UL (13594, 0.7% ahead) and Core i7-1250U (13351, 1.1% behind) also fall within a 2% band, so the choice among these would have negligible impact on Control’s frame rates, which are overwhelmingly GPU-bound at higher settings.

For the GPU side, the RTX 4090’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database are all professional-grade cards: the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60326, 0% delta) and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60140, 0.3% behind) essentially match the 4090’s average score, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (61896, 2.5% ahead) slightly exceeds it and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58657, 2.9% behind) lags. In practical terms for Control, these workstation cards would likely produce comparable FPS at 4K, though the RTX 4090’s specific driver optimizations for gaming and its 24 GB GDDR6X memory (1.01 TB/s bandwidth) give it an edge in texture-heavy scenes. Users seeking similar gaming behavior could consider any of these GPUs, but the measured data shows the RTX 4090 itself delivers 90.8 FPS at 4K High, so alternatives with near-identical scores should fall within a few frames of that figure.

CPU and GPU Roles

The interaction between the i3-12100F and RTX 4090 in Control reveals a clear division of labor that shifts with resolution. At 1920x1080, the CPU’s role becomes more prominent: the average FPS at Low settings is 232.9, but this drops to 152.9 at Ultra, a 34.4% reduction. This gap suggests that while the GPU is still the primary driver, the 4-core/8-thread i3-12100F (with a passmark multithread score of 14015) might be constraining the absolute ceiling at low settings, where the GPU could otherwise render even faster. The 3dmark 2-thread score of 1659 and single-thread score of 893 indicate solid per-core performance, but the modest 4-core count limits parallel processing in CPU-bound scenarios.

At 2560x1440, the balance tips further toward the GPU. The Ultra preset yields 113.8 FPS, while Low reaches 209 FPS—a 83.7% difference. The RTX 4090’s 16384 shading units and 512 TMUs are clearly doing the heavy lifting, as the resolution increase from 1080p to 1440p at Ultra costs 39.1 FPS (from 152.9 to 113.8). This 25.6% drop is consistent with GPU-bound rendering, where pixel count scales with resolution. The CPU’s role diminishes because frame times are longer, giving the i3-12100F more time to prepare each frame.

At 3840x2160, the GPU’s dominance becomes absolute. The Ultra preset averages 77.8 FPS, and even High drops to 90.8 FPS, while Low reaches 139.3 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 61.5 FPS, or 44.2%, which is proportionally smaller than at 1440p (95.2 FPS difference, 45.6%). This suggests that at 4K, the RTX 4090’s memory bandwidth (1.01 TB/s) and pixel rate (443.5 GPixel/s) are the limiting factors, not the CPU. The i3-12100F’s 12 MB of shared L3 cache and DDR4/DDR5 support are sufficient to feed the GPU, as evidenced by the fact that the 4K Ultra score still exceeds 60 FPS. In summary, the data indicates the RTX 4090 matters more at every resolution, but the CPU’s influence is most noticeable at 1080p Low, where the 232.9 FPS figure likely approaches the i3-12100F’s real-world frame generation limit.

The Verdict

The data clearly shows that this PC can run Control at above 60 FPS in every configuration tested. The verdict by resolution confirms that all four settings—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—are playable at each of the three resolutions. At 3840x2160, the best settings are Ultra with an average FPS of 77.8, which is 17.8 FPS above the playable threshold. Moving to 2560x1440, Ultra averages 113.8 FPS, providing substantial headroom over 60 FPS. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers 152.9 FPS, making the experience exceptionally smooth. The minimum FPS data is not provided in the measured results, so only average figures can be considered, but the margin above 60 FPS at 4K Ultra is comfortable enough that brief dips are unlikely to cause stutter. For players with 144Hz or 240Hz monitors, the 1080p Low setting at 232.9 FPS would be the target, while 4K users can max out the game’s settings without concern. The i3-12100F’s modest single-thread performance (cinebench r23 single-core score of 1674) does not appear to impede the RTX 4090 in this title, as the GPU remains the bottleneck at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 ranks 140th out of 3720 tested combos in the database for Control. This places it in the top 3.8% of all configurations tested, which is a strong showing given the CPU’s budget-tier positioning. The rank is likely driven almost entirely by the RTX 4090’s exceptional performance, as the GPU’s 88th percentile ranking among all GPUs far exceeds the CPU’s 68th percentile. The data does not include direct comparisons to other combos’ FPS scores, but the high rank suggests that this pairing outperforms the vast majority of systems, including many with more balanced CPU-GPU pairings. The 24 GB of VRAM and 82.58 TFLOPS FP32 compute are overkill for Control, a 2019 title, which explains why the system achieves such high frame rates. Users considering this combo should note that the CPU is the weaker link, and while it does not bottleneck in this game, other CPU-intensive titles might not see the same 4K performance. The rank of 140 out of 3720 indicates that this is a top-tier performer for Control specifically, but the i3-12100F’s 4 cores may limit longevity in future titles.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS is Ultra, based on the measured data. At 3840x2160, Ultra yields an average of 77.8 FPS, which is the highest visual quality available while staying above the playability threshold. The next step down, High, offers 90.8 FPS, but Ultra is still viable, so it is the recommended choice. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 113.8 FPS, providing a massive safety margin above 60 FPS, so there is no reason to drop below the maximum settings. At 1920x1080, Ultra achieves 152.9 FPS, which is more than double the 60 FPS threshold, making it the obvious choice for maximum visual fidelity. The data shows that at no resolution does the system fall below 60 FPS on any setting, so users can freely select Ultra without compromising playability. For those seeking higher refresh rates, the Low preset at 1080p reaches 232.9 FPS, but that sacrifices visual quality unnecessarily given the headroom at Ultra. In all cases, the i3-12100F and RTX 4090 combination provides enough performance to run Control at its highest settings while maintaining a fluid experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K): The average FPS scales from Low to Ultra as follows: Low produces 139.3 FPS, Medium drops to 97.7 FPS, High comes in at 90.8 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 77.8 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 41.6 FPS, indicating a significant performance cost for the first step up in quality. From Medium to High, the drop is 6.9 FPS, which is modest, while High to Ultra costs 13.0 FPS. This pattern suggests that the Medium preset offers a sweet spot for 4K if users prefer higher frame rates, but Ultra remains well above 60 FPS.

2560x1440 (1440p): At this resolution, Low averages 209 FPS, Medium reaches 148.6 FPS, High hits 132.4 FPS, and Ultra delivers 113.8 FPS. The gap from Low to Medium is 60.4 FPS, which is substantial, while Medium to High costs 16.2 FPS and High to Ultra costs 18.6 FPS. The data shows that even at Ultra, the system has 53.8 FPS of headroom above the 60 FPS threshold, making this resolution ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors without compromising settings.

1920x1080 (1080p): The highest average FPS is 232.9 at Low settings, which drops to 196.6 FPS at Medium, then 171.4 FPS at High, and finally 152.9 FPS at Ultra. The scaling from Low to Medium is 36.3 FPS, Medium to High is 25.2 FPS, and High to Ultra is 18.5 FPS. At this resolution, the CPU’s influence is more apparent, as the 232.9 FPS Low result is likely near the i3-12100F’s practical limit. However, all settings far exceed 60 FPS, with Ultra providing 92.9 FPS of headroom. The measured data does not include minimum or maximum FPS values, so only average performance can be assessed, but the consistency across resolutions indicates robust performance for this title.