Control

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Control with the Intel Core i7-13700K and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 shows a pattern of severe GPU limitation across all resolutions. At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are uniformly low regardless of settings. The High preset averages 17.8 FPS, Medium averages 19.7 FPS, Ultra averages 19.0 FPS, and Low averages 27.3 FPS. The difference between Low and the next step up is substantial, but even the best result at 4K remains far below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Dropping to 2560x1440 improves the situation but does not fundamentally change the conclusion. Low settings average 45.1 FPS, which is the only result above 40 FPS at this resolution. Medium averages 31.9 FPS, High averages 25.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 22.1 FPS. The scaling from 4K to 1440p is consistent with a GPU-bound workload: roughly doubling the pixel count roughly halves the frame rate in several settings comparisons. For instance, High at 4K averages 17.8 FPS versus 25.6 FPS at 1440p, while Low averages 27.3 FPS versus 45.1 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the GTX 1650 begins to approach playable territory but still does not reach it. Low settings average 53.5 FPS, which is the highest recorded result for this combo. Medium averages 39.3 FPS, High averages 39.1 FPS, and Ultra averages 33.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is significant, suggesting that the Low preset relieves enough load to gain roughly 14 FPS over the next tier. Interestingly, Medium and High produce nearly identical averages, differing by only 0.2 FPS, which implies the game's Medium and High presets impose a similar load on this GPU at 1080p.

No min or max FPS values were recorded for any combination of resolution and settings, so the analysis relies entirely on average frame rates. The absence of frame time variance data means the consistency of these averages cannot be assessed, but the averages themselves are consistently low enough to indicate a marginal experience at best.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database records no playable settings for any resolution. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and no combination of resolution and preset reaches that mark. At 3840x2160, the best configuration is Low with 27.3 FPS, but that is less than half of the threshold. At 2560x1440, Low again delivers the best result at 45.1 FPS, which is still 14.9 FPS short. At 1920x1080, Low averages 53.5 FPS, the closest any setting gets to 60 FPS, but it remains 6.5 FPS below the threshold.

The verdict by resolution confirms this: each resolution has an empty list of playable settings, and the best settings field is null for all three. The data indicates that this combination of CPU and GPU cannot maintain 60 FPS in Control at any tested resolution or preset. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist in the recorded measurements. Users seeking 60 FPS would need to lower the resolution below 1920x1080, reduce settings further than the Low preset, or accept a different hardware configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

Among all tested combinations in the database for Control, this pairing ranks 3541 out of 3720. That places it in the bottom 5% of all combos tested, a reflection of the GPU's limited throughput relative to the rest of the field. The CPU is far more capable than the GPU, but the ranking for this game is dominated by the graphics card's ability to render frames, and the GTX 1650 is simply not competitive in this title at high frame rates.

The rank of 3541 out of 3720 means roughly 179 other combinations perform worse. This is not a catastrophic result, but it is clearly below the median. The database's percentile for the GPU alone is 40, indicating that the GTX 1650 sits below the majority of all GPUs in aggregate benchmark scores. The CPU's percentile is 89, so the processor is well above average while the graphics card drags the overall ranking down.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The GPU's nearest rivals in the database provide a sense of what other graphics hardware would behave similarly in Control. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 in aggregate benchmarks, which is 0.3% lower than the GTX 1650's 7472. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, 0.4% lower. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, 0.6% lower. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1% higher than the GTX 1650. These four GPUs are within about 1% of the GTX 1650's average benchmark score, so users with any of these parts should expect very similar frame rates in Control, all of them struggling to reach 60 FPS.

On the CPU side, the Intel Core i7-13700K's nearest rivals are all within 0.5% of its average benchmark score of 46881. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900 scores 46971, 0.2% higher. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 scores 47022, 0.3% higher. The AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX scores 46654, 0.5% lower. The Intel Xeon w3-2535 scores 46653, 0.5% lower. Since the CPU is not the bottleneck in this game, swapping among these processors would produce negligible changes to the measured FPS. The frame rates would remain identical or nearly identical because the GTX 1650 is the limiting factor.

For a user considering an upgrade path, the data suggests that retaining the i7-13700K and replacing the GTX 1650 with a stronger GPU would yield far larger gains than changing the CPU. The nearest rival GPUs all cluster around the same performance level, so none of them would solve the 60 FPS deficit. The CPU's nearest rivals are all similarly powerful, reinforcing that the processor is not the constraint.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 1080p with the Low preset at 60 FPS?

A: No. The recorded average FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings is 53.5, which is 6.5 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best average frame rate this combo achieves in Control?

A: The highest recorded average is 53.5 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other resolution or preset combination exceeds this value.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to the Intel Arc A310 in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, while the Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1% higher. The difference is small enough that gaming performance in Control would be very similar.

Q: Is the 4K Ultra preset playable with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 19.0, far below the 60 FPS threshold. Even the Low preset at 4K only reaches 27.3 FPS.

Q: Which component is more likely to bottleneck in Control with this combo?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. The GTX 1650 ranks in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU ranks in the 89th percentile, and frame rates drop dramatically with resolution increases, which is typical of GPU-bound workloads.

Q: Does the Medium preset perform better than High at 1080p?

A: The recorded averages are nearly identical: Medium averages 39.3 FPS and High averages 39.1 FPS at 1920x1080. The difference is only 0.2 FPS, so neither preset offers a meaningful advantage over the other.

The Verdict

The data is clear: this PC cannot run Control at 60 FPS at any tested resolution or preset. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The best result across all measurements is 53.5 FPS at 1080p Low, which falls short of the 60 FPS threshold by 6.5 FPS.

At 4K, the experience is borderline unplayable, with all presets averaging between 17.8 and 27.3 FPS. At 1440p, Low settings approach playability at 45.1 FPS, but Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 32 FPS. At 1080p, Low is the only preset that comes close to 60 FPS, while Medium, High, and Ultra all sit in the 33 to 40 FPS range.

For users with a 60 Hz display, this combination would deliver a sub-60 experience at every setting. Lowering the resolution below 1080p or accepting a 30 FPS target with reduced settings would be the only paths to smoother gameplay, but neither option is reflected in the recorded data. The combination ranks 3541 out of 3720 tested combos for this game, placing it near the bottom of the database.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core i7-13700K and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is heavily skewed toward the GPU in Control. The CPU is a 16-core, 24-thread part with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz and a 30 MB shared L3 cache, and it ranks in the 89th percentile among all CPUs. The GPU, by contrast, has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, 896 shading units, and a 128-bit memory bus, ranking in the 40th percentile among all GPUs. The performance gap between the two components is enormous, and the game's frame rates reflect the GPU's limitations.

The scaling between resolutions provides strong evidence of GPU dominance. From 1080p Low at 53.5 FPS to 1440p Low at 45.1 FPS, the frame rate drops by 8.4 FPS, a 15.7% reduction. From 1440p Low to 4K Low at 27.3 FPS, the drop is 17.8 FPS, a 39.5% reduction. These large drops with increasing resolution are characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions because the CPU workload would not change much with pixel count.

The preset scaling also points to the GPU. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Medium is 14.2 FPS, while the difference between Medium and High is only 0.2 FPS, and the difference between High and Ultra is 5.3 FPS. This non-linear scaling suggests that certain preset changes affect GPU load more than others, but the overall pattern is consistent with a graphics card that simply runs out of throughput. The CPU, with its high benchmark scores, is not the limiting factor in any of these measurements.

At 4K, the GPU is overwhelmed regardless of settings. The spread from Low to Ultra is only 9.5 FPS, from 27.3 FPS down to 17.8 FPS, indicating that even the Low preset cannot relieve enough load to produce playable results. The CPU's role at this resolution is minimal: the processor could handle much more demanding graphics work, but the GTX 1650 cannot deliver the frames.

In summary, the data shows that Control is a GPU-bound title for this combination at all tested resolutions and presets. The i7-13700K provides ample headroom, but the GTX 1650's modest throughput caps the experience well below the 60 FPS threshold. Any meaningful improvement in frame rates would require a stronger graphics card, not a faster processor.