Control

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Control shows a steep and predictable drop as resolution climbs from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 121.1 FPS at 1080p to 89.1 FPS at 1440p, then to 61.8 FPS at 4K. That is a 51% reduction from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the render load is scaling aggressively with pixel count, which is typical for a GPU-bound title at lower quality presets.

At High settings, the progression is 72.5 FPS (1080p), 56.3 FPS (1440p), and 38.8 FPS (4K). The 4K figure represents a 46% drop from 1080p. For Ultra, the numbers are 68 FPS, 50.2 FPS, and 30.4 FPS respectively; the 4K result is less than half of the 1080p result. Medium settings follow a similar pattern: 86.1 FPS at 1080p, 63 FPS at 1440p, and 43.5 FPS at 4K.

The narrowing gap between settings at higher resolutions is telling. At 1080p, Low (121.1 FPS) beats Ultra (68 FPS) by 53.1 FPS. At 4K, Low (61.8 FPS) beats Ultra (30.4 FPS) by 31.4 FPS. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is the primary limiter regardless of preset, because even dropping to Low cannot push the frame rate past roughly 62 FPS. At 1080p, the CPU and GPU have more headroom, allowing the settings to have a larger relative impact. The data indicates that 4K Ultra is only playable for very low refresh rate displays, while 1080p Low exceeds 120 FPS, making it suitable for high-refresh monitors.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is built on the TU106 chip with a 12 nm process from TSMC. It carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), with a base clock of 1470 MHz and a boost clock of 1650 MHz. The GPU has 2176 shading units, 136 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, along with 34 RT cores and 272 tensor cores. Pixel rate is 105.6 GPixel/s, texture rate is 224.4 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 7.181 TFLOPS.

In Control's measured rows, the GPU's memory bandwidth and capacity appear sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but the 4K results expose its limits. At 4K Ultra, the average of 30.4 FPS is barely above the threshold for console-like smoothness. The card's passmark G3D score is 16462, with a percentile ranking of 63 among all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN with an average score of 19706, a delta of 0.3% — meaning the RTX 2060 SUPER is essentially tied with that older flagship in raw compute. The RTX 2070 is only 0.5% behind in average score, which is within noise.

Clock speeds matter here. The boost clock of 1650 MHz is modest by modern standards, but the 12 nm process limits how high clocks can go. The card's FP32 throughput of 7.181 TFLOPS is the theoretical ceiling, and the measured FPS suggests the card is hitting that ceiling at 4K. When you drop from Ultra to Low at 4K, FPS rises from 30.4 to 61.8 — a doubling — which indicates that the rendering pipeline is heavily shader-bound. The 8 GB VRAM is not the bottleneck at these settings, since even Ultra at 4K does not show a catastrophic drop that would indicate memory swapping. The data points to raw compute and fill rate as the limiting factors.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread part from the Alder Lake-S architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It runs at a base clock of 3.30 GHz 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. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode and uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The launch MSRP was $97.

In synthetic benchmarks, the i3-12100F scores 11912 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 1681 in single-core. Its 3DMark single-thread score is 893, and the 4-thread score is 2859. The average benchmark score is 13516, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX with an average score of 13534, a delta of -0.1% — meaning the i3-12100F is effectively equal to that massive workstation chip in this aggregate metric. The Intel Core i7-7700K is 1.8% behind at 13280.

For Control, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, the CPU has enough headroom to push 121.1 FPS, which shows that its 4.30 GHz boost clock and 12 MB L3 cache are sufficient for the game's engine at that level. The single-thread performance of 1681 in Cinebench R23 suggests strong per-core capability, which is important for Control's physics and AI systems. However, the 4-core/8-thread configuration may limit maximum frame rates in scenes with heavy particle effects or destructible environments, but the data does not show a CPU bottleneck at any measured resolution — the FPS scales consistently with resolution, which is a GPU-bound pattern.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with playable frame rates?

A: At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 30.4, which is barely playable. Dropping to 4K Low yields 61.8 FPS. For a consistent 60 FPS experience, you would need to use Low settings at 4K, or step down to 1440p.

Q: What is the best resolution for a 60 Hz monitor?

A: At 1440p Medium, the average is 63 FPS, which is just above 60. At 1440p High, it drops to 56.3 FPS. For a locked 60 FPS, 1440p Medium is the safest choice, while 1080p High hits 72.5 FPS.

Q: How much performance does Ultra cost compared to High?

A: At 1080p, Ultra (68 FPS) is 4.5 FPS slower than High (72.5 FPS). At 1440p, the gap is 6.1 FPS (50.2 vs 56.3). At 4K, the gap is 8.4 FPS (30.4 vs 38.8). The cost is consistent across resolutions.

Q: Is the RTX 2060 SUPER a bottleneck at 1080p?

A: No. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 121.1 FPS, which is close to what a 144 Hz monitor needs. The CPU's single-thread score of 1681 in Cinebench R23 appears sufficient, as the GPU is still the limiting factor at higher settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The i3-12100F scores 13516 on average, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13534) and 0.4% higher than the Intel Core i7-1250U (13462). It is effectively in the same performance class.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with High settings?

A: The measured average is 72.5 FPS. This is smooth for most single-player action games, though it is not high enough for competitive play on a 144 Hz display.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data offers a clear hierarchy for choosing settings based on your display and performance target. For 1080p, Low settings provide 121.1 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh monitors. Medium at 1080p gives 86.1 FPS, still above 75 Hz refresh rates. High at 1080p (72.5 FPS) is the sweet spot for a standard 60 Hz display with visual quality, while Ultra (68 FPS) adds only a marginal visual gain for a 4.5 FPS loss.

At 1440p, Medium (63 FPS) is the best balance for 60 Hz panels. High (56.3 FPS) is slightly below 60, which may cause visible judder on some monitors. Ultra (50.2 FPS) is only recommended if you can tolerate sub-60 frame pacing. Low (89.1 FPS) is excellent for 75 Hz or 90 Hz displays.

For 4K, the choices are stark. Ultra (30.4 FPS) is not recommended unless you have a VRR display and can tolerate low frame rates. High (38.8 FPS) is still below 40. Medium (43.5 FPS) approaches playable territory but is not smooth. Low (61.8 FPS) is the only preset that achieves a proper 60 FPS experience at 4K, though it sacrifices most visual effects. Given that Control is a visually demanding title, the best overall experience is likely 1440p Medium (63 FPS) or 1080p High (72.5 FPS), balancing fidelity and smoothness.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range is as follows: Low averages 121.1 FPS, Medium 86.1 FPS, High 72.5 FPS, and Ultra 68 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 53.1 FPS, showing that the GPU has significant headroom at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 89.1 FPS, Medium 63 FPS, High 56.3 FPS, and Ultra 50.2 FPS. The spread narrows to 38.9 FPS, indicating that the GPU is starting to become the limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 61.8 FPS, Medium 43.5 FPS, High 38.8 FPS, and Ultra 30.4 FPS. The spread is now 31.4 FPS, the smallest of any resolution, confirming that the GPU is fully saturated at 4K. The step from Medium to High at 4K costs 4.7 FPS, while High to Ultra costs 8.4 FPS, which is the largest single-step penalty across all resolutions. This suggests that Ultra settings include effects that are disproportionately expensive at high pixel counts. The data overall shows a system that is well-balanced for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but requires significant setting reductions to remain playable at 4K.