Control

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

The measured frame rates for Control on this configuration show a clear, steep decline as resolution climbs, which is the expected signature of a GPU-bound scenario at higher pixel counts. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average is 56 FPS; at 2560x1440 it drops to 43 FPS; and at 3840x2160 it falls to 29 FPS. That represents a 23% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 33% reduction from 1440p to 4K, for a total drop of roughly 48% from the lowest to the highest resolution tested at Low settings.

The pattern repeats at High settings, though the absolute numbers are lower. At 1080p High, the average is 36 FPS; at 1440p High, 27 FPS; and at 4K High, 18 FPS. The percentage deltas are similar, confirming that the scaling penalty is consistent regardless of the quality preset. The fact that the frame rate halves when the pixel count quadruples (from 1080p to 4K) indicates that the system is not CPU-limited in this title at these settings — if the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would stay flatter across resolutions. Instead, the data points to the GeForce GTX 1650 as the primary constraint.

At Medium settings, the measured rows include min and max FPS, which add detail. At 1080p Medium, the average is 40 FPS with a min of 34 and max of 46. At 1440p Medium, the average is 30 FPS with a min of 26 and max of 35. At 4K Medium, the average is 20 FPS with a min of 17 and max of 24. The min-to-max spread is roughly 12 FPS at each resolution, suggesting that frame pacing is relatively stable even as the average drops. The gap between min and average is about 15% at 1080p and 1440p, and about 15% at 4K, so the relative variance does not worsen with resolution.

Ultra settings are the most demanding, and the numbers show that this combination cannot sustain a playable experience at any resolution above 1080p. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 31 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 23 FPS. At 4K Ultra, it falls to 16 FPS. The step from 1080p Ultra to 1440p Ultra is a 26% reduction, and from 1440p to 4K a further 30% reduction. These figures reinforce the interpretation that the GPU is saturated; the CPU has headroom, as evidenced by the fact that the FPS scales almost linearly with the number of pixels being rendered.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture with a TU117 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It carries 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 2001 MHz, which translates to 8 Gbps effective. The GPU has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its base clock is 1485 MHz, with a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s, texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS. The card is rated at a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors; the suggested PSU is 250 W.

In the context of Control, a game released in 2019, the 4 GB VRAM capacity is a relevant factor. The game's asset streaming and texture detail at higher presets can pressure memory, and the measured data shows that even at 1080p, High and Ultra presets produce averages of 36 and 31 FPS, respectively. The drop from Low to Ultra at 1080p is from 56 to 31 FPS, a 45% reduction. This is too large to be explained purely by compute load; the memory bandwidth and capacity are likely contributing to the scaling. The 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is modest by modern standards, and at 4K the GPU is clearly overwhelmed, with all presets landing below 30 FPS.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, delta 0.3%), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, delta 0.4%), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425, delta 0.6%), and the Intel Arc A310 (7550, delta -1%). These are all older or lower-tier parts, which contextualizes the GTX 1650 as a budget-oriented GPU from its era. In DirectX 12 benchmarks, it scores 35 on Passmark's DX12 test, while DX11 scores 58 and DX9 scores 124, which suggests that the card handles older APIs more efficiently. Control uses DX12, and the measured FPS results are consistent with a GPU that is underpowered for modern titles at higher resolutions.

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 from the Alder Lake generation, built on Intel's 10 nm process. Its base clock is 3.30 GHz, with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The L3 cache is 12 MB shared, with 1.25 MB of L2 per core and 80 KB of L1 per core. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and the CPU has 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The TDP is 58 W, and it is unlocked? No — the multiplier is locked. The die size is 163 mm².

In CPU-centric benchmarks, the i3-12100F shows strong single-thread performance. It scores 893 in 3DMark single-thread, 168 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 703 in R20 single-core, 1674 in R23 single-core, and 1932 in Geekbench single-core. Its multi-thread results are also respectable for a 4-core part: 4051 in 3DMark 16-thread, 4026 in 8-thread, 4023 in max-thread, 1195 in Cinebench R15 multicore, 4981 in R20 multicore, 11860 in R23 multicore, and 7252 in Geekbench multicore. The Passmark multithread score is 14015, and single-thread is 3444.

The CPU's percentile versus all CPUs is 68, meaning it outperforms most desktop processors in general benchmarks. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core 3 N355 (13492, delta 0%), the Intel Core i5-9500 (13452, delta 0.3%), the Intel Core 5 120UL (13594, delta -0.7%), and the Intel Core i7-1250U (13351, delta 1.1%). The fact that the i3-12100F sits near these mid-range parts in average score indicates that it is not a weak link in this system.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is secondary. The measured FPS results show that the GPU is the limiting factor, as discussed above. However, the CPU's 4 cores and 8 threads are sufficient for the game's threading model; Control is not heavily multi-threaded, and the i3-12100F's high single-thread performance (boost clock 4.30 GHz) ensures that the game's main thread is not starved. The 12 MB L3 cache also helps with memory latency. There is no evidence from the FPS data that the CPU is causing stalls or frame drops; the min FPS values at Medium settings are proportional to the averages, indicating consistent frame delivery.

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

The measured FPS data for Control on the Intel Core i3-12100F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination is as follows:

1920x1080:

• Low: average 56 FPS
• Medium: average 40 FPS, min 34, max 46
• High: average 36 FPS
• Ultra: average 31 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: average 43 FPS
• Medium: average 30 FPS, min 26, max 35
• High: average 27 FPS
• Ultra: average 23 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: average 29 FPS
• Medium: average 20 FPS, min 17, max 24
• High: average 18 FPS
• Ultra: average 16 FPS

At 1080p, the jump from Low to Medium is a 16 FPS reduction (56 to 40), from Medium to High another 4 FPS (40 to 36), and from High to Ultra a further 5 FPS (36 to 31). The step from Low to Ultra is a 25 FPS drop, which is a 45% reduction. This shows that the Low preset is the only one that approaches a comfortable 60 FPS territory, and even then it falls short of 60.

At 1440p, the same pattern holds but with lower absolute values. Low averages 43 FPS, Medium 30, High 27, and Ultra 23. The gap between Low and Ultra is 20 FPS, a 47% reduction. The Medium preset's min of 26 FPS suggests that there are moments of noticeable slowdown, but the max of 35 FPS indicates that the system can occasionally reach playable levels.

At 4K, all presets are below 30 FPS. Low averages 29 FPS, Medium 20, High 18, and Ultra 16. The difference between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS, a 45% reduction. Even the Low preset does not maintain a smooth experience, and the Medium preset's min of 17 FPS and max of 24 FPS show that frame times are variable but not wildly so.

The data shows that this configuration is only viable for 1080p gaming, and even then, only at Low or possibly Medium settings if the user tolerates an average of 40 FPS. At 1440p and above, the experience is sub-30 FPS in most cases, which is below the threshold for smooth action gameplay.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1080p at 60 FPS?

A: No. The highest measured average at 1080p is 56 FPS, achieved on the Low preset. Medium, High, and Ultra all produce averages below 60 FPS (40, 36, and 31 FPS respectively). The system does not reach 60 FPS on any measured setting.

Q: What is the best resolution for this configuration?

A: The data indicates that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the game is playable, with Low averaging 56 FPS and Medium averaging 40 FPS. At 2560x1440, even Low drops to 43 FPS, and at 3840x2160, all presets fall below 30 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, placing it in the 40th percentile. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8850M with a score of 7447 (delta 0.3%), followed by the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (delta 0.4%), the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (delta 0.6%), and the Intel Arc A310 at 7550 (delta -1%). The GTX 1650 is slightly ahead of the first three and slightly behind the Arc A310.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The FPS scaling across resolutions indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. As resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, FPS drops by roughly half, which is typical of GPU-bound scenarios. The CPU's strong single-thread performance (boost 4.30 GHz, Cinebench R23 single-core 1674) and high percentile (68) suggest it is not limiting performance in this title.

Q: What is the minimum FPS at 1440p Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the measured minimum FPS is 26, with an average of 30 and a maximum of 35. This indicates that the game can dip below 30 FPS during demanding scenes.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: This configuration ranks 3588 out of 3720 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 4% of all tested systems. This is consistent with the low absolute FPS numbers across all resolutions.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the recommended settings depend on the user's priority for smoothness versus visual quality. At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 56 FPS, which is the closest to a 60 FPS target. This is the only preset that approaches a fluid experience. The Medium preset averages 40 FPS, with a min of 34, which may be acceptable for slower-paced sections but will feel less responsive during combat. High averages 36 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS, both of which are below the threshold for comfortable action gameplay.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, the Medium preset at 1080p provides a balance: it offers better textures and effects than Low while maintaining an average above 30 FPS. However, the min of 34 FPS means that there will be noticeable frame drops in busy scenes. The High and Ultra presets are not recommended at 1080p because the average FPS is too low for a game that requires precise timing, and the visual gains over Medium are likely marginal given the hardware's limitations.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 43 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. Medium drops to 30 FPS, and High and Ultra are 27 and 23 FPS respectively. For 1440p, the Low preset is the only viable option, and even then, users should expect occasional frame dips. At 3840x2160, no preset is recommended, as all averages are below 30 FPS, with the highest being 29 FPS on Low.

The data suggests that the optimal experience is 1080p with Low settings, yielding 56 FPS. If the user is willing to accept a lower frame rate, 1080p Medium at 40 FPS is the next best option. Higher resolutions and presets are not advisable based on the measured numbers.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the benchmark database for Control, the Intel Core i3-12100F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is ranked 3588 out of 3720 tested combinations. This places the combo in the bottom 3.5% of all systems tested for this game. The rank is derived from the measured FPS across all resolutions and settings, and the low standing reflects the GPU's limited performance in this title.

To contextualize, the GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472 puts it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all older or lower-tier parts. The CPU, by contrast, is in the 68th percentile, meaning it is a much stronger component relative to its peers. This disparity is evident in the game's performance: the CPU has headroom, but the GPU cannot keep up with the demands of Control at higher settings.

The combo's rank of 3588 out of 3720 indicates that there are only 132 tested combinations that perform worse in this game. This is a very low position, and it aligns with the absolute FPS numbers: the highest measured average is 56 FPS at 1080p Low, and no preset at any resolution reaches 60 FPS. For comparison, the combo's GPU rival, the Intel Arc A310, has a slightly higher average benchmark score (7550, delta -1%), suggesting that it might perform marginally better in some titles, though the measured FPS data for Control is specific to this configuration.

The data shows that this system is not suitable for playing Control at high settings or high resolutions. The low rank is a direct consequence of the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM, 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, and 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, all of which are insufficient for a demanding title like Control beyond 1080p Low. The CPU, while capable, does not compensate for the GPU's limitations in this game. Users with this hardware should set expectations accordingly: 1080p Low is the only preset that provides a near-60 FPS experience, and even that falls short.