Control

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-14600KF combined with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3624 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. This places the pairing in the bottom 3 percent of all recorded configurations, indicating that while the CPU is exceptionally capable, the graphics card severely limits the overall experience. The CPU alone sits in the 90th percentile among all processors, while the GPU rests in the 40th percentile among all graphics cards. The massive gap between these two components defines the performance profile: the system is heavily GPU-bound across every resolution and preset tested.

Benchmark results show that the combination struggles to maintain smooth frame rates even at 1080p. The recorded data indicates that no tested resolution and preset pairing reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 4K, the system averages between 16.3 and 27.8 FPS depending on settings, which is far below any playable standard. At 1440p, averages range from 20.5 to 40.7 FPS, still well short of 60. At 1080p, the best result is 57.9 FPS on Low settings, which narrowly misses the playable threshold. The overall ranking reflects this consistent shortfall across all tested configurations.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance data reveals a clear division of labor between the two components. The Core i5-14600KF, with its 14 cores, 20 threads, and boost clock of 5.30 GHz, provides ample compute headroom for Control's engine. However, the GTX 1650, with 896 shading units, 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, and 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, becomes the limiting factor at every resolution.

The scaling between resolutions demonstrates that the GPU is the primary constraint. Moving from 1080p to 1440p on High settings drops the average FPS from 35.5 to 30.1, a reduction of about 15 percent. Moving from 1440p to 4K on High settings drops the average from 30.1 to 16.3, a reduction of roughly 46 percent. This steep decline as pixel count increases is typical of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU's performance headroom remains largely untapped; the processor could theoretically support much higher frame rates if paired with a stronger graphics card.

Preset scaling reinforces this conclusion. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is 25 FPS (57.9 versus 32.9), which indicates that the GPU's shading and memory bandwidth are the determining factors. The CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic, and the data shows that even at the lowest preset, the GPU cannot push the frame rate past the 60 FPS barrier. At 4K, the gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 8.8 FPS (27.8 versus 19.0), showing that the GPU is saturated at higher resolutions regardless of quality settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080: At Full HD, the system delivers its best results. On Low settings, the average frame rate is 57.9 FPS, just 2.1 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings reduce the average to 38.7 FPS, a drop of 19.2 FPS from Low. High settings yield 35.5 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 32.9 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a total decline of 25 FPS, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium.

2560x1440: At Quad HD, all presets fall below 60 FPS. Low settings average 40.7 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium settings average 27.4 FPS, High settings average 30.1 FPS, and Ultra settings average 20.5 FPS. Notably, High settings outperform Medium by 2.7 FPS, which suggests that the game's optimization at this resolution does not follow a strictly linear scaling pattern. The gap between Low and Ultra is 20.2 FPS, smaller than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming the dominant bottleneck.

3840x2160: At 4K, performance drops significantly. Low settings average 27.8 FPS, which is the only preset above 20 FPS at this resolution. Medium settings average 19.2 FPS, High settings average 16.3 FPS, and Ultra settings average 19.0 FPS. The data shows that Ultra actually outperforms High by 2.7 FPS, a counterintuitive result that may stem from the game's dynamic resolution scaling or specific rendering paths at higher quality settings. Regardless, all 4K presets are far below playable levels.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows that this PC cannot run Control at a playable level in any tested configuration. The playable threshold is set at 60 FPS, and no resolution or preset achieves this mark. At 3840x2160, all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) fail to reach even 30 FPS on average, with the best result being 27.8 FPS on Low. At 2560x1440, the best average is 40.7 FPS on Low, which is still 19.3 FPS short of the threshold. At 1920x1080, Low settings average 57.9 FPS, which misses the 60 FPS mark by a narrow margin of 2.1 FPS.

The verdict by resolution is unanimous: no settings combination at any resolution produces playable frame rates. Users seeking a smooth experience would need to either lower the resolution below 1080p (not tested in this dataset) or upgrade the graphics card. The CPU is not the limiting factor; the GTX 1650's 4 GB memory capacity and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for Control's rendering demands at modern resolutions.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its capability. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900 scores 49228 on average, which is 0.3 percent lower than the Core i5-14600KF's 49394. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G scores 49196, 0.4 percent lower. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 48995, 0.8 percent lower. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 49796, which is 0.8 percent higher. These deltas indicate that the Core i5-14600KF sits in a tight performance cluster; swapping to any of these processors would yield negligible differences in Control's frame rates, since the GPU remains the bottleneck.

The GPU's nearest rivals show a similar pattern. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 on average, 0.3 percent lower than the GTX 1650's 7472. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, 0.4 percent lower. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, 0.6 percent lower. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1 percent higher. All of these alternatives are within one percent of the GTX 1650's performance, meaning that replacing the GPU with any of these would produce nearly identical results in Control. Users seeking a meaningful improvement would need to look beyond this immediate peer group.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 60 FPS?

A: No. The best recorded average is 57.9 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which falls 2.1 FPS short of the 60 FPS playable threshold. All other tested configurations are further below the mark.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 offers the highest frame rates. Low settings at this resolution average 57.9 FPS, which is the closest any configuration comes to playable performance.

Q: Does the CPU matter for this game with this GPU?

A: The Core i5-14600KF is far more capable than the GTX 1650. The GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution and preset, so the CPU's performance headroom does not translate into higher frame rates in this specific pairing.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 0.3 percent slower, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is 0.4 percent slower, the AMD Radeon R7 350 is 0.6 percent slower, and the Intel Arc A310 is 1 percent faster. All are within one percent of the GTX 1650's performance.

Q: Is 4K playable with this system?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average is 27.8 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 19.2 FPS, High averages 16.3 FPS, and Ultra averages 19.0 FPS. All are far below playable levels.

Q: Which preset should I use at 1080p?

A: Low settings provide the best average at 57.9 FPS. Medium drops to 38.7 FPS, High to 35.5 FPS, and Ultra to 32.9 FPS. No preset reaches 60 FPS, but Low is the only option that approaches it.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves a playable frame rate. The best recorded average is 27.8 FPS on Low settings, which is 32.2 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all average below 20 FPS, making any quality setting at this resolution unsuitable for gameplay.

At 2560x1440, no preset achieves a playable frame rate either. Low settings average 40.7 FPS, which is the highest at this resolution, but still 19.3 FPS short of the threshold. The remaining presets (Medium at 27.4, High at 30.1, Ultra at 20.5) are all significantly below playable.

At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver the best result with an average of 57.9 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that comes closest to the 60 FPS threshold, though it still misses by 2.1 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all average below 40 FPS, so Low is the only settings level that provides near-playable performance. Users who prioritize frame rate over visual quality should select Low at 1080p; those who accept lower frame rates can use higher presets, but the data shows that none of them reach the playable standard.