Control

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data for this combination shows that none of the tested settings configurations reach the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and every measured average falls below that mark.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that produces the highest frame rate is Low settings, delivering an average of 28.6 FPS. This is still far below the 60 FPS target, but it is the best result available at 4K. Using High settings drops the average to 18.3 FPS, Medium to 22.9 FPS, and Ultra to 17.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is roughly 10 FPS, which indicates that even the least demanding settings cannot make 4K viable for this hardware.

At 2560x1440, the best achievable result is again on Low settings, with an average of 43.2 FPS. That is the only setting at this resolution that comes close to playable, but it still misses the 60 FPS bar by a significant margin. Medium settings average 28 FPS, High settings average 26.4 FPS, and Ultra settings average 22.8 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is substantial, a loss of about 15 FPS, which shows how sensitive this GPU is to even modest increases in quality at 1440p.

At 1920x1080, the situation improves but still falls short of the 60 FPS threshold. Low settings produce an average of 55.9 FPS, the highest recorded result across all resolutions and settings. Medium settings drop to 39.6 FPS, High settings to 37.4 FPS, and Ultra to 29.5 FPS. While 1080p Low is the only configuration that approaches a smooth experience, it does not officially meet the playable threshold defined in the database.

The verdict data confirms this: there are no playable settings for any resolution, and the best settings field is null for all three resolutions. In practical terms, a user would need to accept frame rates below 60 FPS, or consider this combination unsuitable for Control at the tested quality levels.

CPU and GPU Roles

The Intel Core i7-12700KF is a high-end desktop processor with 12 cores, 20 threads, and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its benchmark profile is strong, sitting at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35365. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, on the other hand, is a modest graphics card with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 128-bit memory bus, and a 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs. This disparity in performance class is the central story of this pairing.

The frame rate data shows that the GTX 1650 is the limiting factor across all resolutions. Consider the scaling between 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 at Low settings: the average drops from 55.9 FPS to 43.2 FPS, a reduction of about 12.7 FPS. Between 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 at Low settings, the average drops further from 43.2 FPS to 28.6 FPS, another reduction of about 14.6 FPS. This steady decline with increased pixel count is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering workload outpaces the card's shading units, texture mapping units, and memory bandwidth.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent when looking at the settings scaling within a single resolution. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium costs 16.3 FPS, from Medium to High costs 2.2 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 7.9 FPS. The large drop from Low to Medium suggests that certain settings, likely those affecting geometry, shadows, or post-processing, place additional load on the GPU's 896 shading units and 56 texture mapping units. The CPU, with its strong single-thread score of 1043 in 3dmark_single_thread and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4071, has ample headroom to feed the GPU at these settings.

At 2560x1440, the pattern repeats: Low to Medium costs 15.2 FPS, Medium to High costs 1.6 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 3.6 FPS. The consistency of this pattern across resolutions indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting performance, the frame rate deltas between settings would shrink as resolution increases, because higher resolutions would give the CPU more time to prepare frames. The data does not show that behavior, so the analysis points firmly at the GTX 1650.

The GPU's memory configuration also plays a role. With 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s, the card is likely constrained by both capacity and throughput at higher resolutions. The 3840x2160 results, where even Low settings only manage 28.6 FPS, suggest that texture data and frame buffers exceed what the 128-bit bus can efficiently handle. The CPU's memory support for DDR4 and DDR5, along with its 25 MB shared L3 cache, is more than sufficient for this game's logic and asset streaming.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded averages are as follows: Low settings produce 28.6 FPS, Medium settings produce 22.9 FPS, High settings produce 18.3 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 17.8 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 10.8 FPS, which is the smallest absolute spread across all resolutions. This compression at 4K indicates that the GPU is saturated even at the lowest settings, and additional quality presets have diminishing returns on frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low settings produce 43.2 FPS, Medium settings produce 28 FPS, High settings produce 26.4 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 22.8 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 20.4 FPS, which is wider than at 4K. The notable cliff between Low and Medium, a drop of 15.2 FPS, suggests that Medium settings enable features that heavily tax the GTX 1650's resources.

At 1920x1080, the averages are: Low settings produce 55.9 FPS, Medium settings produce 39.6 FPS, High settings produce 37.4 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 29.5 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 26.4 FPS, the widest of any resolution. This is the only resolution where Low settings approach the 60 FPS threshold, but it still falls short by 4.1 FPS. The progression from Medium to High is small at only 2.2 FPS, while High to Ultra costs 7.9 FPS, indicating that Ultra settings introduce a disproportionately heavy load for the visual improvement they offer.

The minimum and maximum frame rates are not recorded in the database, so all analysis relies on averages. The absence of min and max data means that frame pacing and stutter behavior cannot be assessed. However, the average values are consistent across settings and resolutions, which suggests a stable, if underwhelming, performance profile.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are all Intel parts with average benchmark scores very close to the i7-12700KF. The Intel Core i7-13700T has an average score of 35403, which is a delta of -0.1 percent relative to the i7-12700KF's 35365. The Intel Core i7-12700K scores 35287, a delta of 0.2 percent. The Intel Core i5-13600T scores 35305, also a delta of 0.2 percent. The Intel Core 5 213PE scores 35428, a delta of -0.2 percent. In practical terms, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Control when paired with the same GPU, because the game's performance is limited by the graphics card, not the processor.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are a mix of older and integrated solutions. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M has an average score of 7447, a delta of 0.3 percent from the GTX 1650's 7472. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, a delta of 0.4 percent. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, a delta of 0.6 percent. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, a delta of -1 percent. These delta values are all within one percent, meaning that swapping the GTX 1650 for any of these alternatives would produce nearly indistinguishable frame rates in Control. The Arc A310 is the closest match on the higher side, while the R7 350 is the closest on the lower side.

The practical takeaway is that this combination sits in a performance tier where the GPU is the decisive factor. A user upgrading from the GTX 1650 to an Arc A310 would see negligible improvement, and a downgrade to a Radeon R7 350 would also be imperceptible. The CPU's headroom is so large that even a significantly weaker processor, such as the i5-13600T, would not change the outcome.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i7-12700KF paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3585 out of 3720 tested combinations in the database for Control. This places the combo in the lower portion of all tested systems, roughly the 96th percentile from the bottom, or the 4th percentile from the top. The ranking reflects the GPU's limitations rather than the CPU's capabilities. The i7-12700KF alone sits at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, which is a strong position. The GTX 1650, however, sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, which drags the combined ranking down.

This disconnect between component percentiles is informative. The CPU is capable of far more than this GPU can deliver, and in a game like Control, which is visually demanding and relies heavily on GPU throughput, the pairing underperforms relative to what the CPU could support. If the same CPU were paired with a stronger GPU, the combo rank would rise substantially. Conversely, the GTX 1650 would produce similar frame rates even with a much weaker CPU, because it is the limiting factor in nearly every scenario.

The rank of 3585 out of 3720 also indicates that most other tested combinations, including those with weaker CPUs and stronger GPUs, outperform this pairing. This is expected given the GPU's modest specifications. Users considering this combination should understand that the CPU is not the constraint, and any performance improvements would require a GPU upgrade.

FAQ

Q: Can this combination run Control at 1920x1080 with playable performance?

A: No. The database defines playable as 60 FPS or higher. At 1920x1080, the highest recorded average is 55.9 FPS on Low settings, which falls short of the threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra settings produce averages of 39.6 FPS, 37.4 FPS, and 29.5 FPS respectively.

Q: Which resolution offers the best experience with this hardware?

A: 1920x1080 on Low settings is the closest to playable, with an average of 55.9 FPS. All other settings and resolutions produce lower averages. At 2560x1440, Low settings drop to 43.2 FPS, and at 3840x2160, Low settings drop to 28.6 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this pairing?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The Intel Core i7-12700KF ranks at the 85th percentile among CPUs with an average benchmark score of 35365, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks at the 40th percentile among GPUs with an average score of 7472. The frame rate drops between resolutions and settings follow a GPU-bound pattern.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: This combination ranks 3585 out of 3720 tested combos in Control. This places it in the lower range of all tested systems, consistent with the GTX 1650's modest performance class.

Q: What GPU alternatives would perform similarly to the GTX 1650?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M with a delta of 0.3 percent, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 with a delta of 0.4 percent, the AMD Radeon R7 350 with a delta of 0.6 percent, and the Intel Arc A310 with a delta of -1 percent. All would produce nearly identical frame rates in Control.

Q: Are there any settings that reach 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The database records no playable settings for any resolution. The best result is 55.9 FPS at 1920x1080 on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The verdict fields for playable settings are empty for all resolutions.