Control

Control pairs a 14-core Intel Core i5-14600K with a 6 GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, and the measured frame rates show a system that is clearly bound by the graphics card at higher resolutions. The data indicates that this combination is positioned at rank 1435 out of 1636 tested combos for this title, placing it in the lower tier of performance. The GTX 1660 SUPER, which sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs, is the primary constraint, while the i5-14600K, at the 93rd percentile among CPUs, has ample headroom. This imbalance becomes increasingly apparent as resolution scales, with the gap between settings narrowing at 4K as the GPU reaches its limits.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with Low settings, the system averages 90 FPS, but this falls to 72.2 FPS at 1440p and further to 48.3 FPS at 4K. That is a 46.3% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, showing that even at the lowest graphical load, the GPU struggles to maintain high frame rates as pixel count increases. The trend is consistent across all settings presets, though the relative drop becomes more severe at higher quality levels.

At High settings, the average frame rate goes from 58 FPS at 1080p to 42.8 FPS at 1440p (a 26.2% drop) and then to 28.2 FPS at 4K (a 51.4% drop from 1080p). The Ultra preset shows a similar pattern: 52.6 FPS at 1080p, 37.8 FPS at 1440p, and 25.5 FPS at 4K. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is particularly punishing, with average losses of 34.1% for High and 32.5% for Ultra. These numbers indicate that the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit memory interface are insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering in Control, regardless of the preset chosen.

The limiting component is unambiguously the GPU. The i5-14600K’s benchmark scores—such as 32881 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4642 in single-core—are far beyond what this game requires at these resolutions. The CPU’s percentile ranking of 93 versus the GPU’s 55 confirms that the processor is not the bottleneck. At 1080p, where the CPU has more influence, the frame rates are still respectable but not exceptional, reinforcing that the graphics card is the ceiling for this combo.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600K brings 14 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This is a Raptor Lake-R architecture part on a 10 nm process, and its benchmark results demonstrate strong multi-threaded and single-threaded performance. In Cinebench R23, it scores 32881 multi-core and 4642 single-core, while Geekbench shows 15846 multi-core and 2803 single-core. These figures place it 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in average benchmark score, though it trails the Intel Core i5-14600KF by 0.4%.

For Control, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations, and the data shows it does so without issue. At 1080p Low, the system hits 90 FPS, which is a strong result and suggests the CPU is not holding back the GPU at lower resolutions. Even at 1080p Ultra, the 52.6 FPS average is more than playable, and the CPU’s high single-thread score of 467 in Cinebench R15 indicates it can handle the game’s logic threads efficiently. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support (DDR4 or DDR5) provide adequate bandwidth for the GTX 1660 SUPER.

The i5-14600K is overqualified for this pairing. Its 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs means it outperforms the vast majority of processors, yet the GPU’s 55th percentile limits overall system performance. In practice, the CPU will never be the reason for low frame rates in Control; any stutter or frame drop is attributable to the graphics card’s inability to render at higher settings and resolutions.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is a Turing-architecture card on a 12 nm process, with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock is 1785 MHz, and it has 1408 shading units. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 12699 in Passmark G3D and 1278 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it at the 55th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are close: the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 is 0.2% slower, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 0.2% slower, and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT is 0.7% slower.

The GPU’s limitations are evident in the measured FPS. At 4K, the best result is 48.3 FPS on Low settings, but that drops to 25.5 FPS on Ultra—a 47.2% reduction from Low to Ultra. At 1440p, the range is 72.2 FPS (Low) to 37.8 FPS (Ultra), and at 1080p, it spans from 90 FPS (Low) to 52.6 FPS (Ultra). The 6 GB VRAM is likely a constraint at 4K Ultra, where texture and geometry demands exceed the card’s capacity, causing the frame rate to crater. The 125 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU indicate this is a power-efficient card, but that efficiency does not translate into high-end performance.

The GTX 1660 SUPER is a capable 1080p card, but it is not suited for 4K gaming. The data shows that even at Low settings, 4K performance is marginal at 48.3 FPS, and any higher preset pushes it below playable thresholds. For this combo, the GPU is the definitive limiting factor, and users should target 1080p or 1440p with lower settings to achieve smooth gameplay.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo in Control?

A: The data shows 1080p is the only resolution where all presets remain playable, with averages ranging from 52.6 FPS (Ultra) to 90 FPS (Low). At 1440p, only Low settings exceed 60 FPS with 72.2 FPS, while 4K is not recommended, as even Low settings only reach 48.3 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals in this game?

A: The GPU’s average benchmark score is 14286, with the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 and Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics both being 0.2% slower, and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT being 0.7% slower. These differences are negligible, so performance in Control will be similar across these cards.

Q: Is the i5-14600K powerful enough for this game?

A: Yes, the CPU is far more capable than needed. With a 93rd percentile ranking and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32881, it provides ample headroom. The bottleneck is the GPU, not the processor.

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

A: At 1440p, Low settings average 72.2 FPS, while Ultra averages 37.8 FPS. This is a 47.6% reduction, indicating that the GPU cannot handle the increased graphical load at higher presets.

Q: Does the game run smoothly at 4K on this system?

A: No. The highest average at 4K is 48.3 FPS on Low, and Ultra drops to 25.5 FPS. These are below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay, making 4K unsuitable for this combo.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER’s VRAM affect performance?

A: The 6 GB VRAM is a limiting factor at 4K and high presets. The frame rate drops significantly from Medium (31.3 FPS) to Ultra (25.5 FPS) at 4K, suggesting that memory capacity or bandwidth is insufficient for the game’s demands at that resolution.

Settings Recommendations

For a balanced experience, the data suggests using 1080p with High settings, which yields an average of 58 FPS. This provides a good visual quality without sacrificing frame rate. If you prefer higher fidelity, 1080p Ultra averages 52.6 FPS, which is still playable but close to the edge of smoothness. At 1440p, Low settings are the only option that clears 60 FPS with 72.2 FPS, but this sacrifices visual quality significantly. Medium at 1440p drops to 52 FPS, which may be acceptable for slower-paced action, but High at 42.8 FPS is borderline.

At 4K, no settings preset is recommended, as even Low averages only 48.3 FPS. The best compromise is 1080p Medium at 65.1 FPS, which balances visual fidelity and performance. For those who prioritize frame rate, 1080p Low at 90 FPS is the clear winner, but it looks noticeably worse. Given the GPU’s limitations, the practical sweet spot is 1080p High, offering a 58 FPS average that is smooth enough for most players while preserving graphical detail.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best performance. Low settings average 90 FPS, Medium averages 65.1 FPS, High averages 58 FPS, and Ultra averages 52.6 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 37.4 FPS, showing that the GPU has enough headroom at this resolution to handle a wide range of presets. This is the only resolution where all settings exceed 50 FPS, making it the optimal choice for this combo.

At 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably. Low settings average 72.2 FPS, Medium averages 52 FPS, High averages 42.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 37.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 34.4 FPS, and only Low remains above 60 FPS. Medium is borderline, but High and Ultra are below the smoothness threshold for most players.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmed. Low settings average 48.3 FPS, Medium averages 31.3 FPS, High averages 28.2 FPS, and Ultra averages 25.5 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 22.8 FPS, and no preset reaches 60 FPS. Even Low is marginal, and the higher presets are effectively unplayable for a smooth experience. The data confirms that this CPU-GPU pairing is best suited for 1080p gaming, with 1440p viable only at lower settings.