Control

# Control with Intel Core i3-12100F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

This combination pairs a modern 4-core/8-thread Alder Lake processor with an end-of-life Pascal-era GPU, producing benchmark results that are heavily skewed toward the graphics card as the primary bottleneck. The data reveals a system that can approach playability only at the lowest settings and resolution, with the GTX 1050 Ti's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 112.1 GB/s bandwidth acting as the definitive limiting factor across all tested configurations.

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

The Intel Core i3-12100F brings a solid foundation to this pairing, featuring 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. This Alder Lake-S architecture processor, built on Intel's 10 nm process, carries 12 MB of shared L3 cache and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory through its dual-channel controller. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU demonstrates respectable single-thread performance with a Geekbench single-core score of 1932 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1674, while multi-threaded results like the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11860 and Geekbench multi-core score of 7252 show capable scaling across its 8 threads.

The 3DMark thread scaling tests are particularly revealing for understanding how this CPU behaves under varied workloads. The 2-thread score of 1659 jumps to 2859 at 4 threads and 4026 at 8 threads, with the max-threads score of 4023 nearly identical to the 8-thread result. This plateau at 8 threads confirms that the processor's hyper-threading is fully utilized, but also indicates that additional thread counts beyond 8 provide no benefit—expected for a 4-core/8-thread design. The single-thread score of 893 in 3DMark, while lower than the multi-thread figures, still places this CPU in the 68th percentile of all processors, suggesting it has ample headroom for gaming workloads.

However, the measured FPS data in Control tells a different story than the CPU's synthetic capabilities. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 46 FPS average, while at 1080p Ultra it drops to 25 FPS. The pattern across all resolutions shows that the CPU is rarely the limiting factor—even at 4K Low with 23 FPS, the processor is likely waiting on the GPU rather than being saturated. The CPU's percentile ranking of 68th versus the GPU's 25th percentile highlights the massive imbalance in this pairing; the i3-12100F is capable of feeding far more frames than the GTX 1050 Ti can render. This suggests that in CPU-bound scenarios, this processor would perform admirably, but in Control, the GPU's constraints dominate the experience.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Control, and at what settings?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 46 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that approaches the 60 FPS threshold, though it still falls short.

Q: How does the i3-12100F compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i3-12100F has an average benchmark score of 13494, which is essentially identical to the Intel Core 3 N355's 13492 (0% delta). It sits 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-9500 (13452) and 1.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-1250U (13351), while trailing the Intel Core 5 120UL by 0.7% (13594).

Q: What is the GPU's synthetic benchmark percentile, and what does that indicate?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti sits in the 25th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 4193. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 M330, scores 4170 (0.6% slower), while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is 1.1% faster at 4241.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU bottleneck this system in Control?

A: The data strongly indicates GPU bottlenecking. The CPU ranks in the 68th percentile of all processors, while the GPU ranks in the 25th percentile. At 1080p Low, the system only reaches 46 FPS despite the CPU's capability, and performance scales with resolution as expected for a GPU-limited scenario.

Q: What is the frame time consistency at 1080p Medium?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 32, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 37 FPS. This represents a relatively narrow band of 10 FPS between min and max, indicating reasonable frame pacing.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested combinations for Control?

A: This combo ranks 3670 out of 3720 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 1.3% of all configurations. This reflects the GPU's low percentile ranking combined with Control's demanding graphics requirements.

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

The resolution scaling pattern in the measured data provides clear evidence of a GPU-bound system. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 46 to 34, a 26% decrease. From 1440p to 4K Low, it falls further to 23 FPS, another 32% reduction. The total drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low is exactly 50%—from 46 to 23 FPS. This halving of performance when pixel count quadruples (from ~2 million to ~8.3 million pixels) indicates that fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, both of which are GPU properties.

At High settings, the scaling is similar but compressed. The 1080p High average of 29 FPS drops to 22 FPS at 1440p (24% decrease) and then to 15 FPS at 4K (32% further decrease). The Ultra preset shows the same pattern: 25 FPS at 1080p, 19 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K. Interestingly, the percentage drops between resolutions are nearly identical across all settings presets, suggesting that the bottleneck remains constant regardless of quality level—the GPU's raw throughput is the constraint.

The Medium preset, which includes minimum and maximum FPS data, reveals additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the average is 32 FPS with a range of 27-37. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 24 with a range of 21-28. At 4K Medium, the average is 17 with a range of 14-19. The consistent ~10 FPS gap between minimum and maximum across resolutions indicates that frame time variance does not worsen with resolution, further supporting a steady GPU bottleneck rather than any memory or CPU-related stuttering.

If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see minimal FPS differences between 1080p and 1440p, as the render resolution would not significantly impact CPU workload. The fact that every resolution step produces substantial FPS drops—roughly 25-30% per step—confirms that the GTX 1050 Ti is saturated at all settings. The i3-12100F, with its 68th percentile ranking, is essentially idle waiting for the GPU to complete each frame.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo's rank of 3670 out of 3720 tested combinations places it in a precarious position—only 50 configurations perform worse in Control. This puts the system in the bottom 1.3% of all tested hardware pairings for this specific game. Given that the GPU sits in the 25th percentile of all graphics cards, while the CPU is in the 68th percentile, the ranking makes sense: the graphics card is dragging the entire system down to near-bottom-tier performance.

To contextualize this ranking, consider that the GTX 1050 Ti's average benchmark score of 4193 is only 0.6% above the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170), a mobile-class GPU. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4151 (1% slower), and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4268 (1.8% faster). These rivals are all low-end or older mobile parts, indicating that the 1050 Ti's performance class is at the very entry level of modern gaming.

The CPU's nearest rivals tell a more positive story, with the i3-12100F matching the Intel Core 3 N355 exactly (0% delta) and sitting within 1.1% of the Intel Core i7-1250U. The processor's 68th percentile ranking means it outperforms the majority of CPUs in the database, yet this advantage is completely neutralized by the GPU bottleneck in Control. The data suggests that pairing this CPU with a significantly stronger GPU would likely move the combo ranking up by hundreds of positions, as the CPU has demonstrated it can handle far more demanding workloads in synthetic tests.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the only configuration that approaches acceptable playability is 1080p with Low settings, achieving 46 FPS average. This is the sole preset/resolution combination that exceeds 40 FPS, and it remains the recommended choice for any semblance of smooth gameplay. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 14 FPS (from 46 to 32), which is a 30% performance penalty for what is likely a modest visual improvement.

At 1440p, Low settings produce 34 FPS, which may be tolerable for slower-paced action but falls below the 40 FPS threshold generally considered minimum for enjoyable third-person action games. The 1080p Medium setting at 32 FPS is similarly marginal, though it does offer a narrow frame time range (27-37 FPS) that suggests consistent performance without major hitches.

The High and Ultra presets are not recommended at any resolution. At 1080p, High yields 29 FPS and Ultra yields 25 FPS—both substantially below playable thresholds. At 1440p, these drop to 22 and 19 FPS respectively, and at 4K they fall to 15 and 13 FPS, which are effectively slideshows. The 4K Ultra result of 13 FPS is particularly telling, as it represents the absolute worst-case scenario for this hardware.

For players who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, 1080p Medium at 32 FPS offers the best compromise, providing a 10 FPS improvement over High while maintaining a stable frame window. However, the data is unambiguous: Low settings at 1080p is the only viable option for responsive gameplay, and even then, the 46 FPS average leaves no headroom for demanding combat sequences.

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

At 1920x1080, the full settings sweep shows a clear hierarchy. Low settings deliver the best performance at 46 FPS average, followed by Medium at 32 FPS (with a minimum of 27 and maximum of 37), High at 29 FPS, and Ultra at 25 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra represents an 84% reduction in average FPS (from 46 to 25), demonstrating the heavy cost of Control's visual features on this GPU.

Moving to 2560x1440, all settings see significant drops. Low averages 34 FPS, a 12 FPS decrease from 1080p. Medium averages 24 FPS (minimum 21, maximum 28), High averages 22 FPS, and Ultra averages 19 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 15 FPS at this resolution (34 to 19), compared to 21 FPS at 1080p, suggesting that resolution scaling compresses the settings-based performance differences.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates at any setting. Low averages 23 FPS, Medium averages 17 FPS (minimum 14, maximum 19), High averages 15 FPS, and Ultra averages 13 FPS. The total range between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 10 FPS (23 to 13), indicating that the GPU is so heavily saturated that even reducing settings provides diminishing returns. The Medium preset at 4K has the tightest frame time window of any configuration, with only 5 FPS between minimum and maximum, though this is likely due to the uniformly low performance rather than any optimization.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the dominant factor in this system's Control performance, and its specifications explain why. Built on the Pascal architecture with a 14 nm process from Samsung, this GPU packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die. The 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by modern standards but was considered entry-level even at its 2016 release.

The GPU's clock speeds are conservative: a base clock of 1291 MHz and boost clock of 1392 MHz, with memory running at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines deliver a pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s, texture rate of 66.82 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 2.138 TFLOPS. These figures place the 1050 Ti firmly in the low-end category, with its 25th percentile ranking confirming that three-quarters of all GPUs in the database outperform it.

Control is known for its demanding rendering techniques, and the 4 GB VRAM capacity is likely a critical constraint. At 1080p High settings, the game may require close to 4 GB of video memory, potentially causing texture swapping or reduced asset streaming. The measured FPS data supports this theory: the step from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 14 FPS (46 to 32), while the step from Medium to High only costs 3 FPS (32 to 29). This non-linear scaling suggests that Medium settings may already be pushing against the VRAM ceiling, with High and Ultra providing diminishing visual returns for the additional memory pressure.

The GPU's DirectX 12 support (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility are modern, but the underlying hardware is not. The 14 nm process and 2016 architecture mean that memory bandwidth limitations become severe at higher resolutions, as evidenced by the 4K results. The 112.1 GB/s bandwidth is simply insufficient for the pixel throughput required at 3840x2160, explaining why even Low settings at 4K only achieve 23 FPS. The GPU's end-of-life production status suggests that driver optimizations for newer games like Control are likely minimal, further cementing this combo's position at the bottom of the performance charts.