Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title from 2019, and the combination of an Intel Core i3-12100F with an AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT produces a fascinating dataset. The measured frames per second reveal a system that is clearly capable of high refresh rates at mainstream resolutions but begins to show its limits when pushed to 4K. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results to understand the specific roles the CPU and GPU play, how the system scales across resolutions, and where it stands among the 1,636 tested combos.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture. Its base clock of 3.30 GHz can boost up to 4.30 GHz, which provides strong single-thread performance that is often critical for game logic. The processor has a 12 MB shared L3 cache and supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, though the benchmark data does not specify which type was used. With a TDP of 58 W, it is a modest-power part, but its benchmark scores suggest it is not a bottleneck in this particular game at the tested settings.

Looking at the CPU benchmarks, the 3dmark single-thread score is 893, and the Cinebench R23 single-core score is 1681, indicating robust per-core performance. The multi-threaded scores, such as 4051 in 3dmark_16_threads and 11912 in Cinebench R23 multicore, are respectable but not exceptional. In the context of Control, the game's physics and AI systems may leverage multiple threads, but the data shows that even with just 4 cores, the i3-12100F is able to feed the GPU adequately at lower resolutions. The percentileVsAllCpus of 72 places it above the majority of processors, and its avgBenchmarkScore of 13516 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, which has a score of 13534 and a deltaPct of -0.1. This suggests that for this game, the i3-12100F's performance footprint is comparable to much more expensive, high-core-count parts, highlighting that Control may not be heavily dependent on core counts beyond a certain threshold.

The CPU's influence becomes most apparent when examining the FPS at 1080p. At Low settings, the system achieves 144.1 FPS, which is a very high frame rate. If the CPU were severely limited, we would expect to see a ceiling that prevents the GPU from reaching such numbers, but the data does not show that here. The 3dmark_2_threads score of 1659 and the 3dmark_4_threads score of 2859 indicate that the processor scales reasonably well with additional threads, but the game's performance is more likely dictated by the GPU's raw throughput as resolution increases.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is a substantial graphics card based on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm process. It features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s. The GPU has a base clock of 2321 MHz and a boost clock of 2581 MHz, with a game clock of 2424 MHz. It contains 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, which gives it a texture rate of 413.0 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s. The FP32 performance is rated at 13.21 TFLOPS, which is substantial for a card in this class.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce its position. With a passmark_g3d score of 19786 and an avgBenchmarkScore of 33721, it sits at the 77th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6800, has an avgScore of 33493 with a deltaPct of 0.7, meaning the RX 6700 XT is just slightly ahead in this synthetic metric. Interestingly, the RX 6700 XT is also compared to much older cards like the AMD Radeon HD 7950 and RX 480, which have deltaPcts of -1, but these are likely statistical outliers in the database. The RX 6700 XT's 12 GB of VRAM is a key asset for a game like Control, which features complex textures and effects that can consume significant memory at higher resolutions.

In the measured FPS data, the GPU is the dominant factor at 4K. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the system only manages 39.8 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. This is not a CPU limitation; it is the GPU struggling with the sheer pixel count and the game's demanding effects. The card's 384.0 GB/s bandwidth and 13.21 TFLOPS are simply not enough to maintain high frame rates at this resolution with maximum settings. The results show a clear scaling pattern where the GPU's workload increases dramatically with resolution, and the CPU's role diminishes.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how the system scales across resolutions. Starting at 1080p, the system is largely GPU-bound at high settings, but the CPU is still capable of pushing high frame rates. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 144.1, which is an excellent result. Moving to High settings drops this to 88 FPS, and Ultra brings it down to 79.1 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 65 FPS, indicating that the GPU is the primary bottleneck as settings increase, but the CPU is not holding things back.

When moving to 1440p, the frame rates drop significantly. At 2560x1440 with Low settings, the average FPS is 109.5, which is a 24% reduction from 1080p. At High settings, it falls to 68.3 FPS, and at Ultra, it is 58.6 FPS. This represents a substantial drop, but the system remains playable at most settings. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a consistent pattern: the GPU is now doing more work, and the frame rates reflect that.

The most dramatic change occurs at 4K. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the system achieves 69.4 FPS, which is still playable but a far cry from the 144.1 FPS seen at 1080p. At Medium settings, it drops to 49.1 FPS, and at High, it is 46.7 FPS. Ultra settings yield just 39.8 FPS. The data indicates that at 4K, the GPU is the definitive limiting component. The CPU's role is minimal, as the frame rates are heavily constrained by the pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth of the RX 6700 XT. The drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 74.7 FPS, which is a 52% reduction, and this is almost entirely attributable to the GPU's inability to keep up with the resolution increase.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the grand scheme of tested hardware combinations, this pairing of the Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT holds a specific position. The comboRankInGame is 899 out of 1,636 combos, placing it in the 55th percentile of all tested systems. This is a middle-of-the-pack ranking, which is intriguing given the individual components' performance. The CPU ranks in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU ranks in the 77th percentile of all GPUs, yet the combined system ranking is lower than either individual component's percentile.

This discrepancy suggests that the pairing is not optimal for this specific game. The CPU's strong single-thread performance is a plus, but the GPU, while capable, may be outclassed by other combos that feature higher-end CPUs or GPUs. For instance, the CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-7700K, has a deltaPct of 1.8, meaning the i3-12100F is slightly behind it in average benchmark score. However, in gaming, the newer architecture may provide better IPC, but the data shows that the combo's overall rank is influenced by the GPU's performance at higher resolutions.

The rank of 899 suggests that while this system can handle Control well at 1080p and 1440p, it is not a top-tier configuration for 4K gaming. The data implies that the RX 6700 XT is the weak link in this scenario, as the CPU is not the limiting factor based on the resolution scaling analysis. The combo ranks in the middle because many other tested combinations likely feature more powerful GPUs or more balanced pairings, even if the individual CPU is adequate.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain 60 FPS?

A: The system achieves over 60 FPS at 1440p with High settings (68.3 FPS) and at 1080p with Ultra settings (79.1 FPS). At 4K, no settings preset reaches 60 FPS, with the highest being Low at 69.4 FPS, so 1440p is the practical ceiling for a smooth experience.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Core i3-12100F has an avgBenchmarkScore of 13516, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13534) and 1.8% higher than the Intel Core i7-7700K (13280). This shows the i3-12100F is competitive with high-end parts in synthetic tests.

Q: Is the GPU the bottleneck at 4K?

A: Yes, the data indicates that at 3840x2160, the frame rates drop to as low as 39.8 FPS on Ultra settings. Given the CPU's strong performance at 1080p, the GPU's inability to maintain high FPS at 4K confirms it is the limiting component.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings yield 109.5 FPS, while Ultra settings yield 58.6 FPS. This is a difference of 50.9 FPS, showing the significant impact of graphics settings on performance.

Q: Does the combo rank higher than its individual component percentiles?

A: No, the combo ranks 899 out of 1636 combos (55th percentile), while the CPU is in the 72nd percentile and the GPU is in the 77th percentile. This suggests the pairing is less efficient than the components' individual standings.

Q: Are there any settings where the system exceeds 120 FPS?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 144.1 FPS, which is above the 120 FPS threshold. No other resolution or settings combination reaches this level.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience depends on the target resolution and frame rate. For 1080p gaming, the system is highly capable, and even Ultra settings provide 79.1 FPS, which is smooth for most players. However, for those seeking the highest refresh rates, Low settings at 1080p deliver 144.1 FPS, which is ideal for competitive play or high-refresh monitors.

At 1440p, the best balance of visual quality and performance is High settings, which yields 68.3 FPS. This is just above the 60 FPS target and offers a significant visual upgrade over Medium (77.9 FPS) without the steep drop to Ultra (58.6 FPS). For players who prioritize frame rate over visuals, Low settings at 1440p provide 109.5 FPS, which is excellent for a responsive experience.

At 4K, the system is not capable of maintaining 60 FPS at any settings. The best option is Low settings, which achieves 69.4 FPS, but this sacrifices visual fidelity. Medium (49.1 FPS) and High (46.7 FPS) are playable but not ideal for fast-paced action. Ultra settings at 4K are not recommended, as the 39.8 FPS average is below the playable threshold for many users. The data suggests that 1440p High is the sweet spot for this combo, offering a good mix of quality and performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system's performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 144.1 FPS on Low, 99.2 FPS on Medium, 88 FPS on High, and 79.1 FPS on Ultra. This shows a clear scaling pattern, with Low being the fastest and Ultra the slowest, but all settings provide playable frame rates.

At 2560x1440, the results are 109.5 FPS on Low, 77.9 FPS on Medium, 68.3 FPS on High, and 58.6 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 50.9 FPS, which is slightly less pronounced than at 1080p, where the difference was 65 FPS. This suggests that the GPU is becoming more of a bottleneck as resolution increases, but the system still handles 1440p well.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly. Low settings yield 69.4 FPS, Medium yields 49.1 FPS, High yields 46.7 FPS, and Ultra yields 39.8 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 29.6 FPS, which is the smallest absolute gap across all resolutions, indicating that the GPU is struggling to keep up with the pixel count regardless of settings. The data shows that the system is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K being a stretch that requires lower settings to remain playable.