Control

The Intel Core i7-14700F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is a mid-to-high-tier combination for running Control, placing in the 1895th position out of 3720 tested combos for this specific title. This percentile placement, roughly in the top half of all tested configurations, indicates that the pair delivers solid, above-average performance for a game of this generation, though it does not approach the upper echelons of the rankings. The data confirms that this is a capable setup for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K requiring significant settings compromises to maintain playable frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1895 out of 3720 tested configurations places it comfortably in the middle-to-upper tier of all hardware pairings evaluated for Control. This positioning suggests that while the combination is not a top-tier enthusiast setup, it outperforms the majority of systems that would be used to play this title. The ranking reflects a balanced pairing where neither component is a severe bottleneck for the other, allowing the system to deliver consistent frame rates across the board. When interpreting this rank, it is essential to note that the data is measured, not estimated, providing a high degree of confidence in the results. The percentile ranking of the CPU at 91 and the GPU at 72 relative to all other components on the market further contextualizes this performance: the processor is a top-10% part, while the graphics card sits in the upper quartile, a combination that yields a system capable of handling demanding titles like Control with relative ease at mainstream resolutions. The fact that the combo ranks higher than the GPU's individual percentile suggests that the strong CPU helps push the system's overall gaming performance upward, particularly in scenarios where the game engine is CPU-sensitive.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For users considering this hardware, the benchmark data provides several close alternatives that would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Control. The CPU's nearest rivals, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Xeon 6505P, which is essentially tied with a deltaPct of -0.2%, and the Intel Xeon Phi 7290, which is a mere 0.3% behind. More notably, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X is only 0.6% faster in average score, and the AMD EPYC 7313P is 0.8% faster. In practical gaming terms, these differences are negligible, meaning a system built with any of these processors would produce virtually indistinguishable performance in Control when paired with the same GPU. On the graphics side, the RX 6700 XT's nearest rivals are led by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile, which has an identical average score (deltaPct 0%), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090, which is 0.5% slower, and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell, which is 1.1% faster. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 is 1.5% slower. These deltas are all within a narrow band, so swapping the RX 6700 XT for any of these cards would yield a very similar experience in Control, with frame rate differences typically falling within the margin of error for benchmark runs. This information is useful for understanding the performance envelope of the system, as it indicates that the measured FPS figures are representative of a broader family of hardware.

CPU and GPU Roles

Analysis of the measured frame rates across resolutions reveals how the workload shifts between the CPU and GPU in Control. At 1920x1080, the system shows strong performance across all settings, with the gap between the Low and Ultra presets being significant: 142 FPS at Low versus 79.9 FPS at Ultra. This 62.1 FPS spread indicates that the GPU is the primary driver of performance differences, as the CPU has ample headroom to feed the graphics card at this resolution. The data shows that at 1080p, the CPU is not the limiting factor, as even the most demanding preset stays well above 60 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates drop proportionally, with the Ultra preset falling to 58.3 FPS, just below the 60 FPS playable threshold, while Low remains high at 104.7 FPS. This resolution begins to place more strain on the GPU, as the gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 46.4 FPS, suggesting that the graphics card is becoming a more significant constraint. At 3840x2160, the GPU's role becomes dominant, as the Ultra preset drops to 42 FPS, and even High dips to 48.1 FPS. The spread between Low (74.9 FPS) and Ultra (42 FPS) at 4K is 32.9 FPS, indicating that the GPU is heavily loaded at this resolution. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows an average frame rate reduction of roughly 25-30% across settings, while the jump from 1440p to 4K results in a further 30-35% reduction, highlighting the GPU's increasing importance at higher resolutions. The CPU, a 20-core, 28-thread part with a 5.40 GHz boost clock, provides more than enough processing power to avoid bottlenecks, as evidenced by the fact that even at 1080p Low, which is the most CPU-intensive scenario relative to GPU load, the system achieves 142 FPS.

The Verdict

The benchmark results confirm that this PC can run Control, with playable performance defined as maintaining an average frame rate of 60 FPS or higher. At 1920x1080, the system clears this threshold at all four tested settings: Low (142 FPS), Medium (98.4 FPS), High (91.9 FPS), and Ultra (79.9 FPS). This means users can enable the highest preset and still enjoy a comfortable margin above the playability threshold. At 2560x1440, the verdict is positive for High, Medium, and Low settings, with High achieving 69.4 FPS, Medium at 75.8 FPS, and Low at 104.7 FPS. However, the Ultra preset at 1440p falls short at 58.3 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. For 4K, the situation is more restrictive, as only the Low preset (74.9 FPS) reaches playable frame rates. The High (48.1 FPS), Medium (53.6 FPS), and Ultra (42 FPS) presets at 3840x2160 all miss the target. The verdict by resolution is clear: 1080p offers full flexibility with all presets playable, 1440p requires stepping down from Ultra to High for a smooth experience, and 4K demands the Low preset for acceptable performance. This pattern is typical for a mid-range GPU like the RX 6700 XT, which is not designed for high-fidelity 4K gaming.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1440p with Ultra settings?

A: No, the measured average frame rate at 2560x1440 with the Ultra preset is 58.3 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The High preset at this resolution achieves 69.4 FPS and is the highest playable setting.

Q: What is the best preset for 4K gaming with this hardware?

A: The only playable setting at 3840x2160 is Low, which delivers an average of 74.9 FPS. All other presets (Medium at 53.6 FPS, High at 48.1 FPS, and Ultra at 42 FPS) fail to meet the 60 FPS target.

Q: How much faster is the RX 6700 XT compared to the RTX 3090 in this game?

A: The RX 6700 XT has an average benchmark score of 27425, while the RTX 3090's closest rival score is 27565, resulting in a deltaPct of -0.5%, meaning the RTX 3090 is slightly faster, but the difference is negligible for gaming.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at 1080p?

A: No, the data shows that at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, the system achieves 142 FPS, indicating that the CPU is not a limiting factor. The Core i7-14700F's high single-thread performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4958, provides sufficient headroom.

Q: What frame rate can be expected at 1080p on High settings?

A: The measured average frame rate for 1920x1080 with the High preset is 91.9 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS playable threshold and provides a smooth experience.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more important for 4K performance in Control?

A: The data indicates that the GPU is the dominant factor at 3840x2160, as frame rates drop significantly across all presets, with the Ultra setting falling to 42 FPS. The CPU's role diminishes at this resolution, as even the strongest processor cannot compensate for the GPU's rendering limitations.

Best Settings per Resolution

The most demanding preset that maintains an average frame rate at or above 60 FPS varies by resolution. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is playable, delivering an average of 79.9 FPS, making it the best choice for maximum visual quality without sacrificing smoothness. At 2560x1440, the High preset is the highest playable option, achieving 69.4 FPS, as the Ultra preset's 58.3 FPS falls short of the target. For 3840x2160, only the Low preset meets the playability criterion, with an average of 74.9 FPS. These results demonstrate that the system can handle high visual fidelity at 1080p, requires a moderate reduction in quality at 1440p, and demands a significant compromise at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rate data provides a comprehensive view of performance across resolutions and settings. At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are as follows: Low at 74.9 FPS, Medium at 53.6 FPS, High at 48.1 FPS, and Ultra at 42 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, the averages increase substantially: Low at 104.7 FPS, Medium at 75.8 FPS, High at 69.4 FPS, and Ultra at 58.3 FPS. At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results: Low at 142 FPS, Medium at 98.4 FPS, High at 91.9 FPS, and Ultra at 79.9 FPS. The data shows a consistent scaling pattern, with each step up in resolution reducing frame rates by 25-35% across comparable settings. The gap between Low and Ultra presets widens at lower resolutions, from 32.9 FPS at 4K to 62.1 FPS at 1080p, indicating that the GPU's load scales more steeply with settings at lower resolutions. Notably, the min and max frame rate fields are null for all entries, so the analysis relies solely on average FPS figures. This breakdown confirms that the system's performance is well-suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K available only for users willing to accept the Low preset.