Control

Control pairs a 4-core/8-thread Intel Core i3-12100F with an 8 GB NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050, and the measured results in this Action Adventure title show a combination that scales predictably with resolution and settings. The data indicates a system where the GPU becomes the clear limiting factor at 4K, while the CPU holds up adequately at lower resolutions. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across all tested points, interprets what the scores mean relative to other combos, and provides practical guidance for tuning the game.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, which points directly at the GPU as the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 78 FPS at 1920x1080 to 59 FPS at 2560x1440, then further to 40 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K, and the pattern holds across every preset. At Low settings, the drop is from 124 FPS at 1080p to 94 FPS at 1440p, then to 63 FPS at 4K — a 49% decline as well. The consistency of this scaling suggests that the RTX 5050’s rendering throughput, not the CPU, is what governs performance as pixel count rises.

Looking at the intermediate step, going from 1440p to 4K at High settings costs 19 FPS (59 to 40), while going from 1080p to 1440p costs another 19 FPS (78 to 59). This linear behavior is typical for a GPU-bound scenario, where each doubling of pixel count roughly halves the frame rate. The CPU’s role here is minimal at 4K, but at 1080p the picture changes slightly. At Low settings with 1080p, the system hits 124 FPS average, which is high enough that the i3-12100F’s single-thread performance (3dmark single-thread score of 893, Cinebench R23 single-core of 1674) may start to matter, though the data does not show min FPS for that row to confirm any stutter.

The 1440p results reinforce the GPU-bound nature. At Medium settings, the average FPS is 67 at 1440p versus 88 at 1080p, a 24% drop. At Ultra, it is 52 FPS at 1440p versus 68 at 1080p, a 23.5% drop. These are smaller relative declines than the 4K jumps, indicating that 1440p is a sweet spot where the GPU still has headroom but the CPU is not yet saturated. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see the FPS gap between resolutions shrink dramatically at lower settings, but the data shows that even at Low, 4K (63 FPS) is still far below 1080p (124 FPS), confirming the GPU is the bottleneck across all settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the best experience per the data is Medium settings at 1440p or High at 1080p, depending on your target frame rate. At 1920x1080, High delivers 78 FPS average, which is smooth for most players, while Ultra only drops to 68 FPS — a 13% penalty for maxing out visuals. The jump from Medium (88 FPS) to High (78 FPS) costs 10 FPS, but from High to Ultra it costs another 10 FPS, so the diminishing returns are clear. For a 60 FPS target, High at 1080p is the safest choice, as it provides a 30% margin above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the situation is tighter. High averages 59 FPS, which is just under a 60 FPS target, while Medium averages 67 FPS, giving a comfortable buffer. Ultra drops to 52 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Based on the data, Medium at 1440p is the optimal balance: it is 13% faster than High and 29% faster than Ultra, while the visual difference between Medium and High in this game is typically less pronounced than the frame rate gap suggests. If you have a 144 Hz monitor, Low at 1440p (94 FPS) is the only setting that gets close to that refresh rate, but the visual quality loss may not be worth it.

At 4K, the data shows that no setting reaches 60 FPS. Low averages 63 FPS, which is the only playable option for a 60 Hz display, while Medium (45 FPS) and High (40 FPS) are borderline. Ultra at 35 FPS is not recommended for anything but slow-paced exploration. For 4K owners, the choice is between Low for fluidity or Medium for fidelity, with the measured min FPS of 38 FPS on Medium suggesting occasional dips that could be noticeable. The 8 GB VRAM on the RTX 5050 is likely a factor here, but the data does not include VRAM usage, so we can only note that the FPS pattern is consistent with a GPU that is both compute and memory-bandwidth limited at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1756 out of 2888 tested combinations for Control, placing it in the 39th percentile of all measured systems. This is a mid-pack result, which aligns with the hardware’s position. The CPU, Intel Core i3-12100F, sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 13494. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core 3 N355 (avg score 13492, delta 0%), the Intel Core i5-9500 (13452, delta 0.3%), and the Intel Core 5 120UL (13594, delta -0.7%). The i3-12100F is effectively tied with these, meaning the CPU is not an outlier in either direction — it is a solid mid-range part that will not hold back the GPU in most scenarios.

The GPU, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050, is at the 66th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 21035. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (21153, delta -0.6%), the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21237, delta -1%), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20713, delta 1.6%). The RTX 5050 is within 1.6% of these parts, which tells us that its raw compute performance is comparable to a previous-generation mid-range card. In Control, the combo’s rank suggests that the overall experience is typical for this class of hardware — not exceptional, but not disappointing either.

What the rank does not tell us is how the CPU and GPU interact specifically for this game. The fact that the CPU has a higher percentile (68) than the GPU (66) hints that the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing for Control, which is consistent with the resolution scaling analysis. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the combo rank to be dragged down by the CPU’s lower percentile relative to the GPU. Instead, the GPU’s lower percentile aligns with the observed FPS drops at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full dataset provides exact numbers for every resolution and setting combination tested. At 1920x1080, the averages are: Low 124 FPS, Medium 88 FPS (min 75, max 101), High 78 FPS, and Ultra 68 FPS. The Medium row is the only one with min/max data, showing a 26 FPS spread between min and max, which indicates some frame time variance but not severe stuttering. At Ultra, the lack of min/max data means we only see the average, but the 68 FPS figure is respectable for a 2019 title.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 94 FPS, Medium 67 FPS (min 57, max 77), High 59 FPS, and Ultra 52 FPS. The Medium row again has min/max data, with a 20 FPS spread. The drop from Low to Medium is 27 FPS, which is the largest single-setting jump at this resolution. From Medium to High, the cost is 8 FPS, and from High to Ultra, another 7 FPS. This shows that the Low-to-Medium transition is the most expensive step in visual quality terms, likely because it enables more demanding effects.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 63 FPS, Medium 45 FPS (min 38, max 52), High 40 FPS, and Ultra 35 FPS. The Medium min FPS of 38 is notable — it means the system can dip below 40 FPS even on Medium, which would be noticeable on a 60 Hz display. The spread between min and max at 4K Medium is 14 FPS, narrower than at lower resolutions, which suggests the GPU is consistently saturated. The Ultra 35 FPS figure is the lowest in the dataset and confirms that 4K Ultra is not viable with this combo.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is clear: Low settings provide roughly 1.6x the FPS of Ultra at the same resolution (124 vs 68 at 1080p, 94 vs 52 at 1440p, 63 vs 35 at 4K). This consistent ratio indicates that the game’s settings scale predictably with GPU load, and there are no unexpected bottlenecks or driver anomalies in the measured data.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050’s specifications directly explain its behavior in Control. The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a modest amount of VRAM by modern standards, and at 4K with High or Ultra settings, the game is likely pushing against the 8 GB limit, which would contribute to the low average FPS (40 at High, 35 at Ultra). The 128-bit bus and 320 GB/s bandwidth are also limiting factors for 4K rendering, as higher resolutions require more memory traffic per frame.

The GPU’s clock speeds are 2317 MHz base and 2572 MHz boost, with memory at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective). These are healthy clocks for a 130 W TDP card, but the architecture (Blackwell 2.0, 5 nm, GB207 chip) is designed for efficiency rather than raw throughput. The FP32 performance is 13.17 TFLOPS, which is reasonable for 1080p and 1440p gaming but insufficient for 4K Ultra in demanding scenes. The pixel rate of 82.30 GPixel/s and texture rate of 205.8 GTexel/s are the physical limits that the FPS numbers reflect — at 4K, the GPU must fill 8.3 million pixels per frame, and with 35 FPS on Ultra, it is rendering 290 million pixels per second, which is near the pixel rate ceiling.

The RTX 5050’s benchmark scores support this analysis. Its Passmark G3D score is 17326, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2502, both of which place it at the 66th percentile. The Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores (90334 and 89381, respectively) show balanced compute and graphics performance. The GPU’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT, has an average score that is 1.6% lower, yet in Control, the RTX 5050 still cannot break 60 FPS at 4K High, indicating that the game is demanding enough to expose the GPU’s memory bandwidth limitations. The 8 GB VRAM is probably sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but the data suggests that at 4K, the combination of VRAM capacity and bandwidth is the primary constraint.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 60 FPS on a 1440p monitor?

A: Yes, but only with the right settings. The measured data shows 67 FPS average at 1440p Medium, while High drops to 59 FPS and Ultra to 52 FPS. For a stable 60 FPS, Medium is the highest setting that consistently stays above the target.

Q: Is 4K playable with the RTX 5050 and i3-12100F?

A: Only on Low settings, where the average is 63 FPS. Medium averages 45 FPS with a min of 38 FPS, High averages 40 FPS, and Ultra averages 35 FPS. For a 60 Hz display, Low is the only option that hits the refresh rate.

Q: Which is the bottleneck for this game, the CPU or the GPU?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. The FPS drops linearly from 124 at 1080p Low to 63 at 4K Low, a 49% reduction that tracks with pixel count increases. The CPU’s 3dmark single-thread score of 893 and Cinebench R23 single-core of 1674 are sufficient for this game, as the frame rates at 1080p are high enough to avoid CPU saturation.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all tested systems for Control?

A: It ranks 1756 out of 2888 combos, placing it in the 39th percentile. The CPU is at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, and the GPU is at the 66th percentile among all GPUs, so the combo is slightly below the midpoint of all tested systems.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 1080p 144 Hz monitor?

A: Low settings at 1080p gives 124 FPS average, which is the only preset that approaches 144 Hz. Medium gives 88 FPS, High gives 78 FPS, and Ultra gives 68 FPS. If you prefer visual quality over frame rate, High at 78 FPS is the best balance.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM cause issues in Control?

A: The data does not include VRAM usage, but the FPS pattern at 4K (40 FPS High, 35 FPS Ultra) is consistent with memory bandwidth limitations. The 320.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus is a likely constraint at 3840x2160, while at 1080p and 1440p, the FPS numbers suggest VRAM is sufficient.