Control

# Control with Intel Core i3-12100F + AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT

This pairing of a 4-core/8-thread Intel Core i3-12100F with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT produces a wide performance spread across Control's settings and resolutions, ranking in the 34th percentile of tested combinations. The data reveals a system that can handle 1080p and 1440p gaming comfortably at most presets, but struggles to maintain smooth frame rates at 4K Ultra. The measured results show a clear pattern: the RX 6650 XT's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus become the limiting factor at higher resolutions, while the i3-12100F's strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1674) keeps the system viable at lower settings.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows provide a clear hierarchy for the best experience at each resolution. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 77 FPS average, which is already above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, while Medium reaches 87 FPS and Low hits 122 FPS. The Ultra preset drops to 67 FPS, which is still playable but offers diminishing returns over High. For the best balance of visual quality and performance at 1080p, High is the recommended preset — it provides a substantial visual upgrade over Medium (which sits 10 FPS higher) while staying comfortably within playable territory. The gap between High and Ultra is only 10 FPS, suggesting the Ultra preset's additional effects are not worth the performance cost on this hardware.

At 2560x1440, the situation shifts noticeably. High produces 58 FPS, just below the 60 FPS target, while Medium reaches 66 FPS and Low hits 93 FPS. Ultra drops to 51 FPS, which is borderline for action-heavy scenes. The recommended preset here is Medium — it maintains a 66 FPS average with a reported minimum of 56 FPS and maximum of 76 FPS, providing a stable experience above 60 FPS. High at 58 FPS is close but risks dipping below 60 in demanding sequences. The data suggests Medium is the sweet spot for 1440p, balancing the GPU's load between the 8 GB VRAM and the 128-bit memory bus.

At 3840x2160, all presets fall below 60 FPS. Low achieves 63 FPS, which is the only measurable preset above the 60 FPS mark, while Medium drops to 44 FPS (with a 38-51 FPS range), High falls to 39 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 34 FPS. For 4K gaming, Low is the only viable preset for smooth play, but the 63 FPS result indicates the hardware is stretched to its limits. Medium at 44 FPS is technically playable but will feel inconsistent during intense combat sequences. The recommendation is to use Low at 4K if 60+ FPS is required, or accept Medium's 44 FPS for better visuals.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT relies on a Navi 23 chip built on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Its memory configuration is 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's clocks are set at 2055 MHz base, 2410 MHz game clock, and 2635 MHz boost, with memory running at 2190 MHz (17.5 Gbps effective). These specifications position the card as a mid-range option, and the measured results in Control reflect that positioning.

The VRAM capacity and bus width are the most critical factors in this game's results. At 1080p, the 8 GB buffer is sufficient, allowing the GPU to maintain strong performance across all presets. However, at 1440p and especially 4K, the 128-bit bus becomes a bottleneck. The bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s is adequate for 1080p and 1440p Medium, but at 4K High and Ultra, the frame rate drops disproportionately — from 63 FPS at 4K Low to 39 FPS at 4K High, a 38% reduction. This suggests the GPU's memory subsystem is struggling to feed the shader units at higher resolutions, rather than raw compute power being the limitation. The FP32 throughput of 10.79 TFLOPS is respectable, but the memory bandwidth cannot keep up with the pixel and texture demands of 4K Ultra settings.

The GPU's benchmark scores corroborate this analysis. The PassMark G3D score of 17,166 places it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (avg score 19,885, 0.6% faster) and AMD FirePro W7000 (avg score 19,905, 0.7% faster). The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,859 indicates solid DirectX 12 performance, which Control utilizes effectively. The GPU's RDNA 2.0 architecture with 32 ray tracing cores is present, but Control's implementation is modest enough that the rasterization performance dominates the measured FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT ranks 2,438 out of 3,720 tested combos in Control, placing it in the 34th percentile overall. This ranking reflects the mid-range nature of both components when paired together. The CPU itself sits in the 68th percentile of all CPUs based on its average benchmark score of 13,494, while the GPU sits in the 65th percentile with an average score of 19,765. The combo's rank is lower than either component's individual percentile, which suggests the pairing is not perfectly balanced for this particular game.

The i3-12100F's nearest CPU rivals include the Intel Core 3 N355 (avg score 13,492, 0% difference), Intel Core i5-9500 (avg score 13,452, 0.3% faster), and Intel Core 5 120UL (avg score 13,594, 0.7% slower). These comparisons show the CPU is competitive with older 6-core parts in synthetic benchmarks, despite having only 4 cores. For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (avg score 19,885, 0.6% faster), AMD FirePro D300 (avg score 19,637, 0.7% slower), and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (avg score 19,602, 0.8% slower). The RX 6650 XT's position among these professional-grade cards underscores its mid-range consumer status.

The 34th percentile combo ranking in Control specifically indicates that most other tested combinations achieve higher FPS in this game. This is likely because Control's engine scales well with both CPU cores and GPU memory bandwidth, and this pairing's 4-core CPU plus 128-bit memory bus creates a dual bottleneck that prevents it from reaching the upper echelons of the ranking. The data suggests that either a stronger GPU with more memory bandwidth or a CPU with more cores would improve this ranking significantly.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured results show a clear progression across presets. Low settings deliver 122 FPS average, which is the highest result at any resolution. Medium produces 87 FPS with a minimum of 74 FPS and maximum of 100 FPS, providing a very stable experience. High reaches 77 FPS, while Ultra drops to 67 FPS. The performance deltas between presets are 35 FPS from Low to Medium, 10 FPS from Medium to High, and 10 FPS from High to Ultra. This indicates that the Low to Medium jump is the most significant cost, while the High to Ultra transition is relatively modest in performance impact.

At 2560x1440, the same preset progression produces lower absolute numbers but similar relative steps. Low hits 93 FPS, Medium achieves 66 FPS (with a 56-76 FPS range), High reaches 58 FPS, and Ultra drops to 51 FPS. The deltas are 27 FPS from Low to Medium, 8 FPS from Medium to High, and 7 FPS from High to Ultra. The Medium preset's minimum of 56 FPS is the only measured minimum below 60 FPS at this resolution, suggesting that High might experience occasional dips below the target. The 1080p to 1440p scaling at each preset shows a 24% drop for Low, 24% for Medium, 25% for High, and 24% for Ultra, indicating consistent scaling behavior across all presets.

At 3840x2160, the results become more varied. Low achieves 63 FPS, Medium drops to 44 FPS (with a 38-51 FPS range), High falls to 39 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 34 FPS. The deltas are 19 FPS from Low to Medium, 5 FPS from Medium to High, and 5 FPS from High to Ultra. The 4K Low result at 63 FPS is notable — it is the only 4K preset above 60 FPS, and it represents a 48% drop from the 1080p Low result of 122 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K has a minimum of 38 FPS, which will cause noticeable stuttering during fast-paced action. The 4K Ultra result of 34 FPS is below the threshold for smooth gameplay in most scenarios.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination in Control?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the strongest resolution, with all presets achieving above 67 FPS average. At 2560x1440, Medium and Low maintain playable frame rates above 60 FPS, while 3840x2160 only reaches 60+ FPS on the Low preset.

Q: Does the Ultra preset provide meaningful gains over High?

A: Benchmark results indicate the performance cost is modest — 10 FPS at 1080p (77 to 67), 7 FPS at 1440p (58 to 51), and 5 FPS at 4K (39 to 34). However, the visual improvements are not quantified in the data, so the benefit is subjective.

Q: How does the i3-12100F's single-thread performance affect Control?

A: The CPU's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,674 and 3DMark single-thread score of 893 indicate strong single-thread capability. In Control, this helps maintain frame rates at lower resolutions where the GPU is less stressed, evidenced by the 122 FPS result at 1080p Low.

Q: Is the RX 6650 XT's 8 GB VRAM sufficient for 4K?

A: The measured data shows 4K performance drops significantly above Low settings, from 63 FPS at Low to 44 FPS at Medium. This suggests the 8 GB capacity and 280.3 GB/s bandwidth are inadequate for higher 4K presets, though the exact VRAM usage is not provided.

Q: What is the most stable preset across all resolutions?

A: Medium consistently provides the only measured minimum FPS values — 74 at 1080p, 56 at 1440p, and 38 at 4K. This indicates the Medium preset offers predictable frame pacing, though the 4K minimum falls below playable thresholds.

Q: How does this combo compare to similar hardware in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The CPU's nearest rival is the Intel Core 3 N355 with a 0% average score difference, while the GPU's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla K40m, which is 0.6% faster. These close margins suggest the combo performs as expected for its class.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor based on Alder Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. It operates at a 3.30 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.30 GHz, with a TDP of 58 W. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. This cache configuration is modest compared to higher-core-count parts, but the CPU's single-thread performance is strong, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,674 and Geekbench single-core score of 1,932.

In Control, the CPU's role varies by resolution. At 1080p, the GPU is less burdened, so the CPU's 4 cores can keep up with game logic and draw calls, enabling the 122 FPS Low result. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck, and the CPU's influence diminishes — this is why the frame rate drops are consistent across presets at each resolution. The CPU's multithreaded performance, shown by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 11,860 and PassMark multithread score of 14,015, is adequate for the game's threading model but not exceptional.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Core i5-9500 (0.3% faster average score), which has 6 cores but older architecture, and the Intel Core 3 N355 (0% difference), which is a lower-power part. The i3-12100F's 4.30 GHz boost clock and 1,674 single-core Cinebench score ensure that Control's primary thread runs efficiently. The 12 MB L3 cache is sufficient for the game's data footprint, though larger caches on rival CPUs may reduce memory latency in complex scenes. The CPU's 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it outperforms about two-thirds of tested processors, making it a capable partner for the RX 6650 XT in this game.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals distinct scaling patterns as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 122 FPS at 1080p to 93 FPS at 1440p (a 24% reduction) and then to 63 FPS at 4K (a 48% reduction from 1080p). At Medium, the progression is 87 to 66 to 44 FPS, representing a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 49% drop from 1080p to 4K. High settings follow a similar pattern: 77 to 58 to 39 FPS, with a 25% drop to 1440p and 49% drop to 4K. Ultra shows 67 to 51 to 34 FPS, a 24% drop to 1440p and 49% drop to 4K.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all presets is striking — every preset loses approximately 24% going from 1080p to 1440p and another 25% going from 1440p to 4K. This uniformity indicates that the scaling is purely resolution-driven and not preset-dependent, which points to the GPU's memory bandwidth as the limiting factor. The 280.3 GB/s bandwidth and 128-bit bus are the components that must handle the increased pixel throughput at higher resolutions, and the linear scaling suggests they are saturating at a predictable rate.

The pattern also reveals that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. If the i3-12100F's 4 cores were limiting performance, we would expect smaller frame rate differences between 1440p and 4K, as the GPU would become more dominant. Instead, the consistent 24-25% scaling at each step indicates the GPU's memory subsystem is the constraint. The 4K Low result of 63 FPS versus 1080p Low of 122 FPS — a 59 FPS drop — is particularly telling, as Low settings reduce shader and texture loads but still require the same memory bandwidth to output 4K pixels. This analysis suggests that users seeking better 4K performance would benefit more from a GPU with wider memory bus or higher bandwidth than from a CPU upgrade.