Control

FAQ

Q: Can this combination of Intel Core i7-14700KF and AMD Radeon RX 580 run Control at 60 FPS?

A: Only at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the average FPS is 62.3. At 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, no settings preset reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1080p for this combo?

A: Low is the only playable setting at 1920x1080, producing an average of 62.3 FPS. Medium falls to 46.7 FPS, High drops to 40.1 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 38.1 FPS.

Q: How does the RX 580 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The RX 580 scores 12928 on average. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile scores 12940 (0.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER scores 12986 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon 740M scores 12870 (0.5% lower), and the AMD FirePro W5100 scores 12847 (0.6% lower).

Q: How does the i7-14700KF compare to its nearest CPU rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The i7-14700KF averages 70163. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F scores 69996 (0.2% lower), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 69875 (0.4% lower), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X scores 69515 (0.9% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K scores 70879 (1.0% higher).

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The i7-14700KF sits in the 94th percentile, indicating it outperforms the vast majority of tested processors in the database's aggregate CPU benchmarks.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RX 580 is in the 53rd percentile, placing it near the middle of the GPU performance distribution.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a stark imbalance between the CPU and GPU in this pairing. The Intel Core i7-14700KF is a high-end 20-core, 28-thread processor with a 94th percentile ranking, while the AMD Radeon RX 580 is a mid-range GPU from 2017, sitting at the 53rd percentile. For Control, the recorded FPS measurements show that the GPU is the clear bottleneck at every resolution and preset.

Examining the resolution scaling, the average FPS drops dramatically as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 Low, the combo delivers 62.3 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low reduces this to 48.2 FPS, a 22.6% decrease. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls further to 35 FPS, another 27.4% drop from 1440p. This pattern repeats across all presets: High goes from 40.1 FPS at 1080p to 32 FPS at 1440p and 22.7 FPS at 2160p. Such consistent resolution-driven degradation points directly to GPU-bound performance, as the CPU workload for Control at these resolutions does not change substantially.

The preset scaling within each resolution further confirms the GPU's dominance. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 24.2 FPS (62.3 down to 38.1). At 1440p, the spread is 20.4 FPS (48.2 down to 27.8). At 2160p, the spread narrows to 17 FPS (35 down to 18). This narrowing at higher resolutions is typical of a GPU that is already saturated, where additional graphical load has diminishing absolute impact because the renderer is fully occupied. The CPU, with its 94th percentile standing, is nowhere near its limits here.

The i7-14700KF's capabilities, including a boost clock of 5.60 GHz and 33 MB of shared L3 cache, are far beyond what Control demands from a processor. The recorded data shows no evidence of CPU throttling or frame pacing issues that would indicate processor limitation. Instead, the RX 580's 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus width, combined with a 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, provide the raw throughput that determines the frame rates. The GPU's 53rd percentile ranking aligns with the observed mid-range performance in this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded measurements provide a complete picture across three resolutions and four settings presets. All figures are average FPS; minimum and maximum values were not recorded in the database.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly below playable thresholds. Low settings yield 35 FPS, Medium produces 25.1 FPS, High drops to 22.7 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 18 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 17 FPS, a 48.6% reduction from the Low baseline. This resolution is simply too demanding for the RX 580, regardless of how much graphical load is reduced.

At 2560x1440, performance improves but remains below 60 FPS across the board. Low settings average 48.2 FPS, Medium reaches 33.6 FPS, High manages 32 FPS, and Ultra falls to 27.8 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is substantial, a 14.6 FPS drop, while the step from Medium to High is a smaller 1.6 FPS loss. The Ultra preset adds another 4.2 FPS reduction. This suggests that Medium and High have similar computational costs, while Low is significantly lighter on the GPU.

At 1920x1080, the combo finally crosses the 60 FPS threshold, but only at Low settings. Low averages 62.3 FPS, which is the sole playable configuration. Medium drops to 46.7 FPS, High falls further to 40.1 FPS, and Ultra settles at 38.1 FPS. The relative performance pattern mirrors 1440p: Medium to High is a 6.6 FPS decline, while High to Ultra is only a 2.0 FPS decline. The Low preset is 15.6 FPS ahead of Medium, indicating that the RX 580 has a steep performance cliff when transitioning from minimal settings to the next tier.

Across all resolutions, the scaling from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 20-25% of the frame rate, and from 1440p to 2160p costs another 25-30%. This consistent geometry confirms that the GPU's rendering pipeline, not the CPU, dictates the outcome.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific CPU-GPU pairing at 3309 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. This places it in the bottom 11% of all recorded configurations. The 94th percentile CPU paired with a 53rd percentile GPU results in a combo that is heavily limited by its weakest link.

The rank of 3309 is particularly telling when considering the CPU's strength. The i7-14700KF is among the top 6% of processors in the database, yet the overall combo performance in Control lands near the bottom decile. This mismatch highlights how a mid-range GPU can negate the advantages of a high-end processor in a graphically intensive title. The RX 580's 53rd percentile standing, while not disastrous, is simply insufficient to leverage the CPU's headroom.

The data suggests that users who own this CPU would see far better results in Control by pairing it with a more powerful GPU. The CPU is not the constraint, and the recorded FPS figures would likely improve substantially with a GPU from a higher percentile bracket. Conversely, the RX 580, when paired with a weaker CPU, would likely produce similar frame rates, as the GPU remains the bottleneck.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Based on the nearest rivals in the database, several alternative components would behave similarly to this pairing.

For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F has an average benchmark score of 69996, just 0.2% below the i7-14700KF's 70163. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 69875 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X scores 69515 (0.9% lower). The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is 1.0% higher at 70879. In Control, any of these processors would produce nearly identical FPS results when paired with the RX 580, because the GPU is the limiting factor. The choice among these CPUs would have negligible impact on the measured frame rates.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile scores 12940, essentially identical to the RX 580's 12928 (0.1% difference). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is 0.4% higher at 12986, while the AMD Radeon 740M is 0.5% lower at 12870 and the AMD FirePro W5100 is 0.6% lower at 12847. Swapping the RX 580 for any of these GPUs would result in very similar Control performance. The GTX 1660 SUPER might offer a marginal improvement, but the delta is within statistical noise. Users seeking a meaningful FPS increase in Control would need to step up to a significantly more powerful GPU, not a near-peer replacement.

The Verdict

The question is straightforward: can this PC run Control? The answer depends entirely on the target resolution and settings. The database's playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the recorded data provides a clear verdict.

At 3840x2160, the answer is no. No preset achieves even half of the 60 FPS target, with the best case being Low at 35 FPS. This resolution is not viable for smooth gameplay with this hardware.

At 2560x1440, the answer is also no. The highest average is 48.2 FPS at Low settings, which falls short of the 60 FPS threshold. While it might be playable with adaptive sync or by accepting lower frame rates, the strict benchmark criterion is not met.

At 1920x1080, the answer is a qualified yes. Low settings deliver 62.3 FPS, clearing the 60 FPS bar. Medium and above all fall below the threshold, meaning players must accept reduced visual quality to achieve smooth performance. The verdict by resolution confirms this: playable settings exist only at 1920x1080, and the best settings at that resolution are Low with an average of 62.3 FPS.

The overall picture is that this combo can run Control at 1080p, but only with the lowest graphical preset. It cannot handle higher resolutions or more demanding settings at 60 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

For players who prioritize a stable 60 FPS experience, the database provides a single viable configuration.

At 3840x2160, there is no playable settings preset. The best that could be managed would be Low settings, but the average of 35 FPS is far below the 60 FPS target. No recommendation can be made for this resolution under the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, similarly, no settings preset reaches 60 FPS. Low is the closest at 48.2 FPS, but it still misses the mark. The verdict data lists no playable settings for this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the only playable preset is Low, which averages 62.3 FPS. This is the recommended configuration for achieving smooth performance. Medium drops to 46.7 FPS, which may be acceptable for some players but does not meet the strict 60 FPS criterion. The database explicitly identifies Low as the best settings at 1080p, with the average FPS at 62.3.

In summary, the optimal setup for this hardware is 1920x1080 with Low settings. This delivers a modest margin above the 60 FPS threshold, leaving little headroom for demanding scenes. Players seeking higher visual fidelity would need to accept frame rates in the 38-47 FPS range, which may be playable for some but falls short of the benchmark's playability standard.