Control

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i7-12700KF sits in a tight performance cluster according to the database's average benchmark scores. Its closest neighbors are separated by fractions of a percent: the Intel Core i7-13700T scores 35,403 against the i7-12700KF's 35,365, a delta of -0.1%, while the Intel Core i5-13600T scores 35,305, a delta of +0.2%. The Intel Core 5 213PE trails by 0.2% at 35,428, and the Intel Core i7-12700K is effectively identical at 35,287, also a +0.2% delta. What this means in practice is that any of these four CPUs would produce nearly indistinguishable frame rates in Control, since the processor is not the limiting factor in most of the measured configurations. The i7-12700KF ranks in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, so it sits comfortably above the median, but its nearest rivals show that the performance envelope around it is extremely dense.

On the graphics side, the AMD Radeon RX 570 is even more tightly grouped. Its average benchmark score of 28,766 is bracketed by the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28,874 (-0.4%), the AMD Radeon R9 M295X at 28,580 (+0.7%), the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28,996 (-0.8%), and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 at 28,421 (+1.2%). The RX 570 ranks in the 74th percentile among all GPUs. The RX 470 is the most obvious sibling, given the shared Polaris architecture, but the data shows that a mobile flagship like the RX 6800M and a workstation card like the Quadro RTX 8000 also land within a single percentage point in aggregate benchmarks. For Control specifically, any of these GPUs would deliver similar frame rates at the same settings and resolution, because the measured FPS values are dominated by the GPU's raw throughput rather than by driver-specific optimizations.

The practical takeaway is that swapping the i7-12700KF for an i7-13700T or an i5-13600T would not change the gaming experience in Control. Likewise, replacing the RX 570 with an RX 470 would produce nearly identical results. The Quadro RTX 8000 and RX 6800M are less likely to appear in a desktop build, but their benchmark proximity means the RX 570 is not an outlier; it sits in a well-populated performance band.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, none of the four tested presets reach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The Low preset averages 32 FPS, Medium averages 18.9 FPS, High averages 16.3 FPS, and Ultra also averages 18.9 FPS. The best possible average at 4K is 32 FPS on Low, which is 28 FPS short of playable. No settings combination can be recommended for 4K gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves slightly but still falls well short. Low averages 42 FPS, Medium averages 28.4 FPS, High averages 27.7 FPS, and Ultra averages 25.6 FPS. The best 1440p result is 42 FPS on Low, still 18 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. All other presets are clustered in the mid-20s, which indicates a hard performance ceiling rather than a settings optimization issue.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 57.5 FPS, which is the closest any configuration comes to 60 FPS. It is 2.5 FPS short of the playable threshold, so technically no preset at 1080p clears the bar. Medium averages 38.5 FPS, High averages 38.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 30.3 FPS. The database's verdictByResolution field confirms that no playable settings exist at any resolution for this combination. The best playable-adjacent result is 1080p Low at 57.5 FPS, but the verdict is unambiguous: this system cannot maintain 60 FPS in Control at any resolution in the recorded data.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data reveals a clear GPU-bound scenario across all resolutions. At 3840x2160, the spread from Low (32 FPS) to Ultra (18.9 FPS) is 13.1 FPS, which is a 41% drop. At 2560x1440, the spread from Low (42 FPS) to Ultra (25.6 FPS) is 16.4 FPS, a 39% drop. At 1920x1080, the spread from Low (57.5 FPS) to Ultra (30.3 FPS) is 27.2 FPS, a 47% drop. These percentages indicate that settings changes have a proportionally larger impact at 1080p, which is typical when the GPU is the bottleneck and resolution scaling reduces the relative cost of each setting increment.

Resolution scaling tells the same story. Moving from 1080p Low (57.5 FPS) to 1440p Low (42 FPS) is a 27% reduction in frame rate. Moving from 1440p Low (42 FPS) to 4K Low (32 FPS) is a 24% reduction. The consistent drop across resolution steps points to pixel throughput as the dominant cost, not CPU geometry or draw call overhead. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rate would stay flat as resolution increases, because the CPU would max out regardless of pixel count. Instead, every resolution step costs roughly a quarter to a third of the previous frame rate, which is the signature of a GPU that is saturated at all settings.

The i7-12700KF's benchmark profile supports this interpretation. Its 3DMark 16-thread score of 9,282 and max-thread score of 9,983 are far above what a game like Control requires for physics and AI at these frame rates. Even its single-thread score of 1,043 in 3DMark and 4,071 in Cinebench R23 single-core are strong enough to feed the RX 570 without stalling. The RX 570's 5.095 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are the practical ceilings here. The GPU also has only 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, which at 4K Ultra with 18.9 FPS suggests memory capacity pressure alongside raw compute limits.

The practical conclusion is that lowering resolution yields the largest frame rate gains, while lowering settings within a resolution yields smaller gains. At 4K, dropping from Ultra to Low gains 13.1 FPS. At 1440p, the same drop gains 16.4 FPS. At 1080p, it gains 27.2 FPS. The CPU is never the bottleneck; the RX 570 is responsible for the performance ceiling at every resolution and preset.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Control? According to the recorded data, no. The verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings at any resolution, meaning no configuration reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The closest result is 1080p Low at 57.5 FPS average, which is 2.5 FPS below the playable threshold. At 1440p, the best is 42 FPS on Low. At 4K, the best is 32 FPS on Low. None of these are close enough to recommend as a playable experience, and the higher presets are substantially worse.

The combination ranks 3,539 out of 3,720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the bottom 5% of all hardware pairings in the database. That rank is consistent with the FPS measurements: this is a legacy GPU paired with a modern high-end CPU, and the GPU simply cannot keep up with Control's rendering demands at the playable threshold.

For someone who already owns this hardware, the practical options are limited to accepting sub-60 FPS gameplay at 1080p Low, or reducing the resolution below 1080p, which is outside the measured data. The CPU is not the issue; upgrading the GPU would be the only path toward 60 FPS, but that recommendation goes beyond the scope of the measured figures.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are as follows: Low 32 FPS, Medium 18.9 FPS, High 16.3 FPS, Ultra 18.9 FPS. The minimum and maximum FPS values are not recorded in the database, so only averages are available. The Medium and Ultra presets produce identical averages, which suggests either a settings cap or a rendering path that does not scale beyond a certain point at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 42 FPS, Medium 28.4 FPS, High 27.7 FPS, Ultra 25.6 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra is monotonic, with each step costing roughly 1 to 3 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is the largest at 13.6 FPS, indicating that the Medium preset introduces a significant rendering cost over Low.

At 1920x1080, the averages are: Low 57.5 FPS, Medium 38.5 FPS, High 38.6 FPS, Ultra 30.3 FPS. The Low preset is the only one that approaches 60 FPS. Medium and High are nearly identical, with a 0.1 FPS difference, which is within measurement noise. Ultra drops another 8.2 FPS from High. The 1080p data shows the clearest settings scaling curve, with Low standing apart from the rest.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset consistently delivers the highest frame rate, and the Ultra preset delivers the lowest except at 4K where it ties with Medium. The missing min/max values mean the data cannot show frame time consistency, but the averages alone are sufficient to determine playability.

FAQ

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

A: The highest recorded average is 57.5 FPS at 1920x1080 with the Low preset.

Q: Is 4K playable with this CPU and GPU?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the best result is 32 FPS on Low, which is 28 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all average below 19 FPS.

Q: How close does 1080p Low get to 60 FPS?

A: It averages 57.5 FPS, which is 2.5 FPS short of the playable threshold. The verdictByResolution data lists no playable settings at 1080p.

Q: Which component limits performance in Control?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 570 is the limiting component. The i7-12700KF's benchmark scores are far above what the frame rates suggest, and the FPS scales consistently with resolution and settings, which indicates GPU-bound behavior.

Q: How does the RX 570 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 570 averages 28,766 in benchmark scores. The RX 6800M is 0.4% faster, the RX 470 is 0.8% slower, the R9 M295X is 0.7% slower, and the Quadro RTX 8000 is 1.2% slower. Any of these would produce similar Control frame rates.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 1440p?

A: The Low preset averages 42 FPS, which is the highest at 2560x1440. Medium averages 28.4 FPS, High averages 27.7 FPS, and Ultra averages 25.6 FPS. None reach 60 FPS.