Control

Control launched in August 2019 and quickly became a reference point for demanding rendering workloads, which makes it a useful stress test for pairing a modern CPU with a mid-range GPU. The combination examined here — Intel's Core i7-14700F driving an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti — sits in an interesting position: the processor ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the graphics card sits in the 59th percentile of GPUs. That asymmetry shapes everything about how this pairing behaves in Control, and the measured data tells a clear story about where the limits lie.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3,720 tested hardware combinations in Control, this pairing ranks 2,559th. That places it in the back third of the leaderboard, which raises an immediate question: how can a build with a 91st-percentile CPU rank that low? The answer is that Control at higher resolutions is overwhelmingly a GPU exercise. The i7-14700F's benchmark portfolio — a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35,122, a single-core score of 4,958, and a PassMark multithread rating of 41,317 — is far more compute than Control can meaningfully use. The RTX 3060 Ti, with an average benchmark score of 16,129 and a PassMark G3D result of 20,349, becomes the deciding factor.

The rank is therefore a ceiling imposed by the graphics card, not a reflection of the system as a whole. Swapping the GPU while keeping the CPU would move this combination dramatically up the table; swapping the CPU while keeping the RTX 3060 Ti would barely move it at all. The ranking data, in other words, is less a verdict on the PC and more a verdict on the Ampere-class card's position in a demanding 2019 title with ray-tracing-era rendering requirements.

CPU and GPU Roles

At 1920x1080, the scaling data suggests the GPU remains the primary constraint even at the lowest resolution tested. Consider the Low preset progression: 119.3 FPS at 1080p, 90.9 FPS at 1440p, and 62.4 FPS at 4K. If the CPU were the bottleneck, frame rates would flatten as resolution drops — instead, they climb steeply at every step. The jump from 1080p to 1440p alone costs roughly a quarter of the frame rate on identical settings.

The gap between presets at a fixed resolution reinforces this. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra costs 55.7 FPS — a drop from 119.3 to 63.6. At 1440p the same settings change costs 39 FPS, from 90.9 to 51.9. Setting-dependent losses of this magnitude are the signature of GPU-bound behavior; a CPU bottleneck would compress the preset spread instead of widening it.

Where does the i7-14700F matter? Its single-core performance — a Geekbench single-core score of 2,429 and a PassMark single-thread result of 4,257 — ensures that no frame is lost waiting on the processor, and its 20 cores and 28 threads handle any background load without contention. The data shows no resolution or preset where frame rates plateau, which means the CPU never becomes the limiting component in this game. The 14700F is essentially overqualified here, and that is not a criticism — it simply means the upgrade path for this configuration runs entirely through the graphics card.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All figures below are measured averages for Control on this combination.

1920x1080:

• Low: 119.3 FPS average
• Medium: 81.3 FPS average
• High: 72.7 FPS average
• Ultra: 63.6 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 90.9 FPS average
• Medium: 63.7 FPS average
• High: 56.5 FPS average
• Ultra: 51.9 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 62.4 FPS average
• Medium: 43.0 FPS average
• High: 39.1 FPS average
• Ultra: 35.1 FPS average

A few patterns deserve attention. First, 1080p Ultra at 63.6 FPS is nearly identical to 1440p Medium at 63.7 FPS — a one-FPS difference. That equivalence gives players a genuine choice: sharper rendering at reduced detail, or maximum detail at lower resolution, at effectively the same frame rate. Second, the 4K results fall off a cliff. Even Low barely clears the 60 FPS threshold at 62.4 FPS, and Ultra drops to 35.1 — less than a third of the 1080p Low result. Third, minimum and maximum frame rates were not captured in this dataset, so the averages should be treated as central tendencies rather than guarantees of frame-time stability, particularly for settings that sit just above or below the 60 FPS line.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 1080p on max settings?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080 on the Ultra preset, the measured average is 63.6 FPS, clearing the 60 FPS playable threshold. Every preset tested at 1080p — Low through Ultra — is playable.

Q: What about 1440p?

A: Partially. At 2560x1440, Low (90.9 FPS) and Medium (63.7 FPS) clear 60 FPS. High (56.5 FPS) and Ultra (51.9 FPS) fall short, so settings discipline matters at this resolution.

Q: Is 4K playable at all?

A: Only on the Low preset, which averages 62.4 FPS. Medium (43.0), High (39.1), and Ultra (35.1) all fall well below the threshold.

Q: Is the CPU ever a bottleneck in Control?

A: The data indicates no. Frame rates scale with both resolution and preset at every point measured, which is the signature of a GPU-limited configuration. The i7-14700F's 91st-percentile ranking leaves substantial headroom.

Q: Which combination of resolution and settings gives the best experience?

A: Two options stand out: 1080p Ultra at 63.6 FPS for maximum visual detail, or 1440p Medium at 63.7 FPS for sharper resolution at nearly identical frame rates. For high frame rates, 1080p Medium delivers 81.3 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 3060 Ti compare to rival GPUs on paper?

A: Its average benchmark score of 16,129 sits within about two percent of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (0.7% delta), the Radeon Pro 5600M (-1.4%), and the Radeon RX 5700 XT (-1.4%), meaning these cards would deliver broadly similar results in Control.

Similar Performance Alternatives

On the CPU side, the i7-14700F's average benchmark score of 53,620 places it in a tight cluster. The Intel Xeon 6505P scores 53,701 (a 0.2% gap), the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 scores 53,469 (0.3%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X scores 53,288 (0.6%), and the AMD EPYC 7313P scores 53,206 (0.8%). Any of these processors would leave the Control experience essentially unchanged — not because the CPU is unimportant in general, but because this game's measured behavior on this pairing is GPU-bound at every tested configuration.

On the GPU side, the picture is equally compact. The Radeon RX 9060 averages 16,014 (0.7% behind the 3060 Ti's 16,129), the Radeon Pro 5600M averages 16,351 (1.4% ahead), and the Radeon RX 5700 XT averages 16,361 (also 1.4% ahead). The Radeon R9 370X, at 15,862, trails by 1.7%. Since these scores fall within roughly two percent of each other, Control frame rates on any of these cards should land within a few FPS of the numbers reported above. The practical implication: someone considering this build has genuine flexibility in GPU choice without changing the gameplay outcome, and conversely, no near-neighbor GPU swap will rescue the 4K High result.

Best Settings per Resolution

Using the 60 FPS threshold, the most demanding preset that remains playable at each resolution is:

• 1920x1080 — Ultra, 63.6 FPS average. The full preset ladder is playable, so there is no reason to compromise. Players wanting higher frame rates can drop to High (72.7 FPS), Medium (81.3 FPS), or Low (119.3 FPS).
• 2560x1440 — Medium, 63.7 FPS average. High falls 3.5 FPS short of the threshold at 56.5 FPS, so Medium is the ceiling, with Low available at 90.9 FPS for smoother motion.
• 3840x2160 — Low, 62.4 FPS average. This is a narrow clearance — just 2.4 FPS above the threshold — and Medium at 43.0 FPS is not close. Given that minimum frame rates were not measured, 4K on this hardware should be considered borderline rather than comfortable.

The pattern is consistent: each step up in resolution costs roughly one full preset tier of playability.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Control — with clear qualifications by resolution. At 1920x1080, the verdict is unambiguous: every preset from Low to Ultra is playable, and the best configuration is Ultra at 63.6 FPS. At 2560x1440, the verdict is positive with a caveat: Low and Medium are playable, Medium at 63.7 FPS is the best setting, and High and Ultra miss the threshold. At 3840x2160, the verdict is marginal: only Low is playable, at 62.4 FPS, and anything higher is not viable.

The curious finding in this dataset is the imbalance. A 91st-percentile CPU paired with a 59th-percentile GPU produces a configuration ranked 2,559th out of 3,720 in this game — a reminder that Control rewards graphics horsepower far more than CPU throughput. The i7-14700F contributes headroom this particular title cannot spend, and every measured limitation traces back to the RTX 3060 Ti's 8 GB of GDDR6 and its position in the GPU field. For anyone whose target is 1080p or 1440p, the pairing is fully validated by the data. For 4K ambitions in Control, the measured numbers say the graphics card, not the processor, is the component that needs to change.