Control

The Intel Core i5-14600K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 delivers a robust Control experience across all tested resolutions, with the data showing that 1080p and 1440p gameplay comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS threshold even at the highest preset, while 4K remains playable at High settings. This combination ranks in the 77th percentile of tested configurations for this title, sitting at rank 847 out of 3720 total combos, indicating strong but not top-tier performance headroom.

FAQ

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

A: No. At 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset, the average frame rate drops to 55.5 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The highest playable 4K preset is High, which maintains an average of 63.5 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming?

A: The Ultra preset at 2560x1440 achieves an average of 81.1 FPS, making it the most demanding setting that still clears the 60 FPS threshold. All four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable at this resolution.

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

A: The Core i5-14600K has an average benchmark score of 48618, placing it within 0.8% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 (48995) and 0.7% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX (48287). It sits nearly identical to the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, -0.2% delta) and AMD EPYC 4345P (48470, +0.3% delta).

Q: Does the GPU hold up against similar performing alternatives?

A: The RTX 4070 posts an average benchmark score of 37648, which is within 1.3% of the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (37157) and 0.4% of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37507). The closest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla P4 at 37628, a 0.1% difference.

Q: What performance difference exists between Low and Ultra presets at 1080p?

A: The Low preset averages 193.4 FPS, while Ultra drops to 108.7 FPS — a reduction of roughly 84.7 FPS. Despite this, even the Ultra preset provides nearly double the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with lower settings?

A: Yes, but with limitations. The Low preset at 3840x2160 averages 95.3 FPS, and Medium averages 71.5 FPS. Only the Ultra preset fails to reach playable frame rates at 4K.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, benchmark data places the Intel Core i5-14600K in a tight cluster of processors with nearly identical average scores. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318H scores 48698 (0.2% faster), while the AMD EPYC 4345P scores 48470 (0.3% slower). The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX and Intel Core Ultra 5 245 round out this group with scores of 48287 and 48995, respectively — all within a 1.5% band. Gamers building with any of these four chips would experience virtually indistinguishable CPU-bound performance in Control, as the game's engine rarely stresses modern multi-core processors to their limits.

On the GPU side, the RTX 4070's nearest rivals present an interesting mix. The NVIDIA Tesla P4 matches it almost exactly at 37628 (0.1% lower), though this is a datacenter card without consumer display outputs. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 are within 0.4% and 1.3% margins, respectively, making them equivalent in raw compute terms. Notably, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile scores 38135 (1.3% higher), suggesting that a laptop-class GPU can approach desktop RTX 4070 performance in this benchmark suite. For Control specifically, any of these alternatives would produce frame rates within a few percent of the measured results, though driver optimizations and VRAM capacity may cause deviations in real-world gameplay.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling data across resolutions reveals how workload shifts between components. At 1920x1080, the GPU is the clear bottleneck: dropping from Ultra (108.7 FPS) to Low (193.4 FPS) yields a 84.7 FPS improvement, demonstrating that the RTX 4070's rendering load dominates. The CPU's 14 cores and 20 threads, alongside a 24 MB shared L3 cache, provide ample headroom to feed frames at this resolution without becoming the limiting factor.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern persists but with compressed margins. Ultra averages 81.1 FPS versus Low at 147.9 FPS — a 66.8 FPS spread. The relative performance drop from 1080p to 1440p at the same preset (Ultra: 108.7 to 81.1, a 25.4% reduction) indicates the GPU is still the primary constraint, as pixel count increases by 78% while frame rate decreases by a smaller proportion, suggesting some CPU-bound effects at lower resolutions.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's dominance becomes absolute. Ultra plummets to 55.5 FPS, while Low still manages 95.3 FPS. The 4K to 1080p ratio at Ultra (55.5 vs 108.7) shows a 48.9% performance penalty for quadrupling pixel count, which is characteristic of a heavily GPU-limited scenario. The CPU's role diminishes further at 4K; its single-thread score of 2064 in Cinebench R23 and multi-thread score of 24491 are more than sufficient to avoid becoming a bottleneck, as evidenced by the consistent frame rate scaling that follows GPU workload expectations.

How This Combo Ranks

With a combo rank of 847 out of 3720 tested configurations, this system places in the top 22.8% of all CPU-GPU pairings benchmarked in Control. This percentile position reflects a balanced pairing where neither component severely bottlenecks the other. The RTX 4070's 81st percentile standing among all GPUs and the i5-14600K's 90th percentile among all CPUs suggest the GPU is the more limiting factor, which aligns with the resolution scaling analysis. Systems ranked above this combo typically feature higher-tier GPUs (such as RTX 4080/4090 class parts) or CPUs with greater cache hierarchies, but the practical difference in Control's frame rates would be modest given the game's age and the high absolute performance already achieved.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control at playable frame rates across all three tested resolutions, with specific limitations only at the absolute maximum settings in 4K. At 1920x1080, every preset from Low (193.4 FPS) to Ultra (108.7 FPS) clears the 60 FPS threshold with substantial headroom. The 2560x1440 resolution similarly supports all presets, with Ultra still delivering 81.1 FPS — 21.1 FPS above the playability cutoff. At 3840x2160, the system maintains playability through High settings (63.5 FPS) and Medium (71.5 FPS), but Ultra falls short at 55.5 FPS. For users prioritizing visual fidelity at 4K, dropping from Ultra to High sacrifices some shadow and reflection quality to gain 8 FPS, crossing the 60 FPS line. The data indicates this is a high-refresh-rate capable system at 1080p, a solid 60+ FPS performer at 1440p, and a viable 4K machine with conservative settings.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that maintains 60 FPS or above is High, which averages 63.5 FPS. Choosing Medium (71.5 FPS) provides additional safety margin, while Low (95.3 FPS) is available for users seeking higher frame rates. The Ultra preset is not recommended at this resolution due to its 55.5 FPS average.

At 2560x1440, Ultra is the best choice, averaging 81.1 FPS. This provides 21.1 FPS of headroom above the threshold, with High (91.3 FPS) and Medium (104.1 FPS) as progressively safer alternatives if frame pacing is a concern.

At 1920x1080, Ultra again leads with 108.7 FPS average. This leaves 48.7 FPS of buffer, making it suitable for high refresh rate displays up to 100 Hz. For 144 Hz monitors, High (122.4 FPS) or Medium (138 FPS) would be more appropriate to prevent frame drops below the panel's refresh rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160:

• Low: 95.3 average
• Medium: 71.5 average
• High: 63.5 average
• Ultra: 55.5 average

2560x1440:

• Low: 147.9 average
• Medium: 104.1 average
• High: 91.3 average
• Ultra: 81.1 average

1920x1080:

• Low: 193.4 average
• Medium: 138.0 average
• High: 122.4 average
• Ultra: 108.7 average

The progression across resolutions shows consistent scaling: at Low settings, 1080p delivers 193.4 FPS, which drops to 147.9 FPS at 1440p (a 23.5% reduction) and 95.3 FPS at 4K (a 50.7% reduction from 1080p). At Ultra, the corresponding figures are 108.7, 81.1, and 55.5 FPS — reductions of 25.4% and 48.9%, respectively. The similar percentage drops across different presets indicate that neither CPU nor GPU bottlenecks disproportionately at any settings level; both components scale predictably with resolution. The lack of min/max frame data means stutter behavior cannot be assessed from this pack, but the average frame rates consistently exceed the 60 FPS threshold in all but one configuration (4K Ultra).