Control

The Intel Core i7-14700F and AMD Radeon RX 7600 combination delivers a playable experience in Control, but the headroom depends heavily on your target resolution. At 1920x1080, this system clears 60 FPS at every preset, including Ultra at 68.9 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, you drop to Medium as the highest playable preset, averaging 63.2 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low settings keep you above the 60 FPS threshold, with an average of 62.1 FPS. The data shows a clear pattern: this is a 1080p-class setup for Control, with 1440p possible if you compromise on quality, and 4K only viable at the lowest settings.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra. The measured average at Ultra is 68.9 FPS, which provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS playable threshold. Since Ultra is the highest preset available in the data, there is no further quality headroom to explore. High settings at this resolution run at 75.6 FPS, Medium at 85.3 FPS, and Low at 119.1 FPS. All presets are playable here, so you can choose based on visual preference rather than performance constraints.

At 2560x1440, the most demanding preset that maintains 60+ FPS is Medium, averaging 63.2 FPS. This is a slim margin of only 3.2 FPS above the playable threshold, so you should expect occasional dips in busy scenes. High settings fall just short at 57.4 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target. Ultra drops further to 51 FPS, and Low runs at 89.2 FPS. The recommendation is Medium for the best balance of visual quality and smoothness, but be aware that the margin is tight.

For 3840x2160, only Low settings achieve 60+ FPS, with an average of 62.1 FPS. Medium drops to 40.9 FPS, High to 39 FPS, and Ultra to 35.4 FPS. The gap between Low and the next preset is substantial — more than 20 FPS — indicating that the GPU is the limiting factor at this resolution. Stick with Low if you must play at 4K. The visual compromise is significant, but the frame rate is stable enough for play.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU benchmarks place the Intel Core i7-14700F in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 53620. Its nearest rivals in raw performance are the Intel Xeon 6505P, which scores 53701 (0.2% higher), the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 at 53469 (0.3% lower), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 53288 (0.6% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7313P at 53206 (0.8% lower). These deltas are all under 1%, meaning any of these processors would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Control. The Ryzen 9 7900X is the most relevant consumer alternative, as the Xeon and EPYC parts are server-oriented. In practice, swapping the i7-14700F for a Ryzen 9 7900X would change performance by less than a percent, which is imperceptible in gameplay.

For the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 sits in the 57th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15171. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM at 15199 (0.2% higher), the AMD Radeon 680M at 15270 (0.7% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro 560X at 15082 (0.6% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti at 15063 (0.7% lower). These are all within 0.7% of the RX 7600, so they would produce nearly identical results in Control. The RTX 3050 OEM is the closest direct competitor and would be a drop-in equivalent for frame rates. The Radeon 680M is an integrated GPU, which is an interesting data point but not a realistic alternative for a desktop build. The GTX 660 Ti is much older, yet its benchmark score aligns closely, though it lacks modern features like ray tracing acceleration.

The combined system ranks 2497 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the field. This ranking reflects that while the CPU is strong, the GPU holds the system back at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers consistent performance across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 119.1 FPS, which is nearly double the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings drop to 85.3 FPS, still a strong result. High settings run at 75.6 FPS, and Ultra at 68.9 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra is a 50.2 FPS drop, which is a 42.1% reduction in frame rate. The step from Medium to High is 9.7 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 6.7 FPS. This shows diminishing returns as you raise the preset — the gap between Low and Medium is 33.8 FPS, but the gap between High and Ultra is only 6.7 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low settings average 89.2 FPS, which is still well above the threshold. Medium drops to 63.2 FPS, just barely playable. High falls to 57.4 FPS, below the 60 FPS mark. Ultra averages 51 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 26 FPS drop, from Medium to High is 5.8 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 6.4 FPS. The transition from Low to Medium is the critical point — once you cross that, you are fighting for every frame. The difference between High and Ultra is small, suggesting that the GPU is already saturated at these settings.

At 3840x2160, the results are stark. Low settings average 62.1 FPS, barely clearing the threshold. Medium drops to 40.9 FPS, High to 39 FPS, and Ultra to 35.4 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 21.2 FPS, which is a massive 34.1% reduction. From Medium to High, the change is only 1.9 FPS, and from High to Ultra, it is 3.6 FPS. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU is the bottleneck — raising settings beyond Low causes a cliff-edge collapse in performance, and further increases have minimal additional impact because the hardware is already overwhelmed.

Across all resolutions, the minimum and maximum FPS values are not provided in the data, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates. The lack of min/max data means you should treat the averages as indicative but not exhaustive — stutters or frame time spikes could occur even when the average is above 60 FPS.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Control? The answer is yes, but with conditions. At 1920x1080, every preset — Ultra, High, Medium, and Low — clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best settings are Ultra at 68.9 FPS, giving you full visual quality with a comfortable margin. This is the ideal way to play with this hardware.

At 2560x1440, the system is playable at Low and Medium settings. The best playable preset is Medium at 63.2 FPS, but the margin is thin. High settings at 57.4 FPS are not playable by the 60 FPS standard, and Ultra at 51 FPS is worse. If you own a 1440p monitor, you can run Control, but you must accept Medium quality or lower. The experience will be smooth enough, but you are close to the edge.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings are playable, averaging 62.1 FPS. Medium at 40.9 FPS, High at 39 FPS, and Ultra at 35.4 FPS are all well below the threshold. This means 4K gaming is technically possible, but only with the lowest visual settings. For most players, this will not be a satisfactory experience, as the game loses much of its visual appeal at Low settings. The verdict is clear: treat this as a 1080p machine for Control, with 1440p as a secondary option at Medium.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a shifting balance between CPU and GPU depending on resolution. The Intel Core i7-14700F is a high-end processor — in the 91st percentile of all CPUs — with a multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 35122 and a single-core score of 4958. This is far more compute power than Control requires at any resolution. The GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 7600, is only in the 57th percentile of GPUs, making it the weaker link in this pairing.

At 1920x1080, the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU at all presets. The frame rate scales smoothly from Low (119.1 FPS) to Ultra (68.9 FPS), with the GPU being the limiting factor as settings increase. The CPU is not a bottleneck here; otherwise, the frame rate would plateau regardless of preset. The 50.2 FPS drop from Low to Ultra is entirely attributable to GPU workload.

At 2560x1440, the GPU becomes more stressed. The frame rate drops from 89.2 FPS at Low to 63.2 FPS at Medium, a 26 FPS reduction. The CPU still has headroom — the i7-14700F can handle the draw calls and physics at this resolution without issue. The GPU is now the primary constraint, as evidenced by the fact that High settings fall below 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmingly the bottleneck. The frame rate collapses from 62.1 FPS at Low to 40.9 FPS at Medium, a 21.2 FPS drop. The CPU has no influence here — even a weaker processor would produce the same results because the RX 7600 cannot render 4K frames fast enough. The scaling between Low and Medium at 4K (34.1% reduction) is much steeper than at 1080p (28.4% reduction from Low to Medium), confirming that the GPU is saturated.

The practical takeaway: at 1080p, the CPU and GPU are balanced, with the GPU taking over as the bottleneck as you raise settings. At 1440p, the GPU is the limiting factor. At 4K, the GPU is so far behind that CPU choice is irrelevant. Upgrading the GPU would yield the biggest gains in this system for Control, while the CPU would not need to be touched until you move to a much faster graphics card.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest preset that maintains 60 FPS at 1920x1080?

A: Ultra is the highest preset at 1920x1080, and it averages 68.9 FPS. All presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — exceed the 60 FPS threshold at this resolution.

Q: Can this system run Control at 2560x1440 without dropping below 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but only at Low or Medium settings. Medium averages 63.2 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. High settings fall short at 57.4 FPS, and Ultra is even lower at 51 FPS.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with the RX 7600 in Control?

A: Only at Low settings, which average 62.1 FPS. Medium drops to 40.9 FPS, High to 39 FPS, and Ultra to 35.4 FPS. The visual compromise at Low is significant, so 4K is not recommended unless necessary.

Q: How does the Intel Core i7-14700F compare to the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X in this game?

A: The Ryzen 9 7900X has an average benchmark score of 53288, which is 0.6% lower than the i7-14700F's score of 53620. In Control, this difference would be imperceptible — both CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates.

Q: What GPU alternatives are closest in performance to the RX 7600?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is the nearest rival, with a score of 15199 versus the RX 7600's 15171, a 0.2% difference. Other close matches include the AMD Radeon 680M (15270, 0.7% higher) and the AMD Radeon Pro 560X (15082, 0.6% lower). All would perform similarly in Control.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU matter more for Control at 1920x1080?

A: At 1920x1080, the GPU is the primary factor. The i7-14700F is in the 91st percentile of CPUs and has ample headroom, while the RX 7600 is in the 57th percentile of GPUs. Frame rates scale directly with GPU load as presets increase, confirming the GPU as the bottleneck.