Control

Control is an action-adventure title that stresses both the CPU and GPU depending on resolution and settings. The recorded data for the Intel Core i7-14700F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 shows a system that is heavily limited by the graphics card at every tested configuration. The CPU is a high-end desktop part with 20 cores and 28 threads, while the GPU is a 4 GB GDDR5 card built on the Turing architecture. The benchmark results indicate that the combination cannot reach the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or preset. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, the role each component plays, and the best settings for users who want to get the most out of this hardware.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the database records for the CPU, the Intel Core i7-14700F sits at the 91st percentile among all tested processors. Its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark score include the Intel Xeon 6505P, which is only 0.2% behind, and the Intel Xeon Phi 7290, which is 0.3% ahead. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X is 0.6% ahead, and the AMD EPYC 7313P is 0.8% ahead. These deltas are all within roughly one percentage point, meaning the CPU performance of this Intel chip is essentially equivalent to those four parts in the database's overall scoring. For a game like Control, any of these processors would likely deliver very similar frame rates when paired with the same GPU, since the graphics card becomes the limiting factor.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 records a 40th percentile ranking among all tested graphics cards. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A310, which is 1% faster, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 0.3% faster, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 0.4% faster, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 0.6% faster. The performance deltas here are also small, but the context is different. The GTX 1650 is placed among integrated graphics and older mobile parts, which illustrates its modest standing in the current database. The Intel Arc A310 is the closest competitor that is a dedicated desktop GPU, and it is only 1% ahead in aggregate score. Any of these GPUs would produce comparable frame rates in Control, with the caveat that the GTX 1650 has 4 GB of memory, which may matter at higher resolutions even if the raw score is similar.

The data suggests that users considering this combo should expect CPU performance to be far in excess of what the game needs, while the GPU will define the experience. The CPU rivals are all high-end workstation or desktop chips, whereas the GPU rivals are mostly low-end or integrated parts. This split confirms that the bottleneck is firmly on the graphics side.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded FPS data shows a clear pattern: performance scales strongly with resolution, which indicates GPU dominance. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 57.7 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same Low preset drops the average to 42.4 FPS, a reduction of about 26.5%. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 28.8 FPS, another drop of about 32.1% from the 1440p result. These large declines are typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the graphics card cannot keep up with the increasing pixel count.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent when looking at the gap between presets at a fixed resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 57.7 FPS while High and Medium both average 38.9 FPS, and Ultra drops to 31.1 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 18.8 FPS, or roughly 32.6% lower, which suggests that higher settings increase the load on the GPU's shading units and memory bandwidth. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, and its 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is likely a constraint when texture quality and effects are raised.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds. Low averages 42.4 FPS, Medium drops to 31.6 FPS, High to 26.5 FPS, and Ultra to 23.5 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 25.5% reduction, which is again consistent with GPU-bound rendering. At 3840x2160, Low averages 28.8 FPS, Medium 21.5 FPS, High 17.3 FPS, and Ultra 17.4 FPS. The Ultra result at 4K is actually slightly above High, which is likely due to measurement variance or specific scene differences, but the overall trend is that the GPU cannot handle this resolution under any settings.

The CPU has 20 cores and 28 threads, with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz and 33 MB of shared L3 cache. This is far more processing power than Control requires at these frame rates. The database shows the CPU's single-thread performance is high, with a Geekbench single-core score of 2429 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4958. Even at the lowest average FPS recorded, which is 17.3 FPS at 4K High, the CPU is unlikely to be the limiting factor. The game's frame pacing and draw calls would need to be extremely demanding to saturate this processor at such low frame rates. The data implies that swapping the GTX 1650 for a stronger GPU would yield immediate FPS gains across all resolutions, while changing the CPU would produce little to no measurable improvement.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the best result is 57.7 FPS on Low settings. This is the only preset at this resolution that comes close to the 60 FPS threshold, but it still falls short by 2.3 FPS. Medium and High both record 38.9 FPS averages, which is a significant drop from Low. Ultra is the slowest at 31.1 FPS. The min and max FPS values are not recorded in the database, so only averages are available for comparison. The spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 26.6 FPS, with Ultra being 46.1% slower than Low.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 42.4 FPS. Medium drops to 31.6 FPS, a 25.5% reduction. High averages 26.5 FPS, and Ultra is at 23.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 18.9 FPS, with Ultra 44.6% slower. No preset at this resolution reaches 60 FPS, and the best case, Low, is 17.6 FPS below the playable threshold. The trend from 1080p to 1440p shows a consistent penalty for the extra pixels, with Low dropping by 15.3 FPS, Medium by 7.3 FPS, High by 12.4 FPS, and Ultra by 7.6 FPS.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 28.8 FPS, Medium 21.5 FPS, High 17.3 FPS, and Ultra 17.4 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is just 0.1 FPS, which is within the margin of error and suggests that the GPU is saturated at this resolution regardless of the preset. The step from Low to Medium is a 7.3 FPS drop, and from Medium to High a 4.2 FPS drop. All 4K results are far below 60 FPS, with the best case, Low, being 31.2 FPS short of the threshold. The 4K data confirms that this combo is not viable at that resolution for Control, as even the lowest settings produce less than half the target frame rate.

Comparing the same preset across resolutions shows the scaling. For Low, 1080p is 57.7 FPS, 1440p is 42.4 FPS, and 4K is 28.8 FPS. For Medium, the numbers are 38.9, 31.6, and 21.5. For High, they are 38.9, 26.5, and 17.3. For Ultra, they are 31.1, 23.5, and 17.4. The relative performance loss from 1080p to 4K is severe for every preset, with Low losing 50.1% of its FPS, Medium losing 44.7%, High losing 55.5%, and Ultra losing 44.1%. This is additional evidence of a GPU-bound performance scaling.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 60 FPS on any settings?

A: No. The database shows that the best recorded average is 57.7 FPS at 1920x1080 on Low settings. Every other preset and resolution combination falls below 60 FPS, and the 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 resolutions have no playable settings at all.

Q: Which resolution gives the highest average FPS?

A: 1920x1080 on Low settings gives the highest recorded average at 57.7 FPS. This is the only tested configuration that comes within reach of the 60 FPS playable threshold, though it still does not reach it.

Q: How much does raising the settings from Low to Ultra affect performance at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low averages 57.7 FPS, Medium and High both average 38.9 FPS, and Ultra averages 31.1 FPS. Ultra is 26.6 FPS slower than Low, representing a 46.1% reduction in performance.

Q: Is the GTX 1650 the bottleneck in this system?

A: The data strongly indicates yes. The CPU is a 20-core, 28-thread part with a 91st percentile ranking, while the GPU is at the 40th percentile. Frame rates drop sharply with resolution, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation. The CPU's nearest rivals are high-end chips within 0.8% of its score, while the GPU's nearest rivals include integrated graphics.

Q: What is the best average FPS at 2560x1440?

A: The best average at 2560x1440 is 42.4 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 31.6 FPS, High 26.5 FPS, and Ultra 23.5 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Does the 4 GB VRAM on the GTX 1650 affect 4K performance?

A: The recorded 4K results are all very low, with the highest average being 28.8 FPS on Low settings. The memory bus is 128-bit with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, and the 4 GB GDDR5 capacity is likely insufficient for 3840x2160 rendering in Control, but the database does not isolate VRAM usage as a separate variable.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Control at 60 FPS according to the measured data. The verdict by resolution is clear: 3840x2160 has no playable settings, 2560x1440 has no playable settings, and 1920x1080 has no playable settings. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and the highest average FPS recorded across all tests is 57.7 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. That falls short by a small margin, but it is still below the threshold.

The GPU is the limiting factor. The GTX 1650's 40th percentile ranking and its placement near integrated graphics in the database make this clear. The CPU, by contrast, is a top-tier processor with a 91st percentile ranking. At 4K, the best average is 28.8 FPS on Low, and even that requires cutting the resolution to 1080p and using Low settings to get close to 60 FPS. Users who want a smooth experience in Control would need to consider a different GPU, as the data shows no configuration of this combo reaches the target frame rate.

The practical takeaway is that this system is playable only at lower resolutions and settings, and even then it does not hit the 60 FPS mark. The recorded FPS values are averages, so actual gameplay may see higher or lower frame rates depending on the scene, but the average is the best indicator available. At 1080p Low, the 57.7 FPS average is acceptable for less demanding play, but it is not a locked 60 FPS experience.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is the goal. The data shows that no preset at any resolution reaches 60 FPS, so the verdictByResolution field lists empty playable settings for all three resolutions. The best settings are therefore the ones that come closest to the threshold, even though they do not meet it.

At 3840x2160, the best average is 28.8 FPS on Low settings. Medium is 21.5 FPS, High is 17.3 FPS, and Ultra is 17.4 FPS. Low is the recommended preset here if the user must run at 4K, but the frame rate is well below playable.

At 2560x1440, Low is again the best preset with 42.4 FPS. Medium is 31.6 FPS, High is 26.5 FPS, and Ultra is 23.5 FPS. Low is the only preset that stays above 40 FPS, and it is the closest to the 60 FPS target at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, Low is the best preset with 57.7 FPS. Medium and High both average 38.9 FPS, and Ultra is 31.1 FPS. Low is the only preset that comes within 2.3 FPS of the 60 FPS threshold, making it the clear choice for the highest possible frame rate. If the user prioritizes visual quality over frame rate, Medium or High may be acceptable, but they are significantly slower.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i7-14700F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination ranks 3534 out of 3720 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 5% of the database, which is consistent with the measured FPS data. The rank reflects the GPU's inability to deliver playable frame rates in this game, despite the CPU's high-end status.

The CPU's own ranking is strong, at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 53620. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X, are within 0.8% of its score. The GPU, however, is at the 40th percentile with an average score of 7472, and its nearest rivals include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 and AMD Radeon R7 350. The combination of a top-tier CPU and a low-tier GPU results in a poor overall ranking for this specific game, because Control's performance scales primarily with the graphics card.

The rank of 3534 out of 3720 means that 186 other tested combos performed worse, while 3533 performed better. This is a bottom-tier result for the game. The data implies that the CPU is not the issue; the GTX 1650 is holding the system back. Users with this combo who want better performance in Control would need to upgrade the GPU, as the CPU has ample headroom to support a much faster graphics card. The recorded FPS values and the combo rank both point to the same conclusion: this system is underpowered for Control at the 60 FPS target, and the bottleneck is the graphics card.