Control

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

The measured FPS rows for Control reveal a steep performance cliff as resolution climbs, and the shape of that cliff points squarely at the GPU as the primary constraint. At 1080p with Low settings, this combination produces an average of 81.3 FPS. Stepping up to 1440p at the same Low preset drops the average to 65.7 FPS, a reduction of roughly 19%. Moving further to 4K, the Low preset average falls to 45 FPS — a 45% loss relative to 1080p. This is the signature of a graphics-card-bound scenario: every additional pixel costs proportionally more, and the CPU has plenty of headroom to feed frames.

The scaling pattern is even more telling at higher settings. With High settings, the averages are 51.1 FPS at 1080p, 37.3 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 1440p here is 27%, while the gap from 1440p to 4K is another 20%. Ultra settings show the same trajectory: 46 FPS at 1080p, 33.1 FPS at 1440p, and 26.1 FPS at 4K. The consistent, near-linear degradation across all presets suggests that the RTX 3050 4 GB is running out of raw pixel throughput and memory bandwidth as resolution increases, rather than being bottlenecked by the processor.

What does this imply about the limiting component? The Intel Core i5-14600K is a 14-core, 20-thread processor with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, and its benchmark scores are strong — for instance, a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32881 and a single-core score of 4642. No CPU with that kind of compute headroom would cause frame rates to halve from 1080p to 4K. Instead, the data suggests that the GPU's 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, is the limiting factor. At 4K, the frame buffer demand outstrips what this card can deliver, especially on Ultra where the average dips below 30 FPS.

The fact that Low settings at 4K (45 FPS) nearly match High settings at 1440p (37.3 FPS) further emphasizes the GPU's role. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect similar frame rates regardless of resolution at the same settings — that is not what the data shows. Every resolution increase exacts a toll, which is a textbook indication of a graphics-limited workload.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database, this pairing of the Intel Core i5-14600K with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB ranks 1474 out of 1636 tested combinations for Control. That places it in the bottom 10% of all combos tested, which is a sobering result for a game from 2019. The CPU itself is a high performer — it sits in the 93rd percentile against all CPUs in general benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 49166. The GPU, however, is far more modest, sitting at the 50th percentile against all GPUs.

The rank disparity between the CPU's strength and the overall combo's weakness tells a clear story. A top-tier processor is being paired with a budget-oriented graphics card, and in Control — a game that stresses the GPU heavily, especially at higher resolutions — the pairing's overall rank suffers. For context, the CPU's nearest rivals in general benchmarks include the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (average score 49062, deltaPct 0.2) and the Intel Core i5-14600KF (average score 49367, deltaPct -0.4). These are all high-end processors with similar compute capabilities. Yet none of that compute power can rescue the combo's rank in Control when the GPU is the limiting factor.

This rank implies that for gamers targeting Control specifically, the RTX 3050 4 GB is the weak link in the chain. The data suggests that a less powerful CPU paired with a stronger GPU would likely achieve a better combo rank in this game, because the workload is primarily graphics-bound. The 1474th position out of 1636 combos is a clear signal that this configuration is not optimized for Control's demands.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is built on the Ampere architecture with a GA107 chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It has 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. The card's base clock is 1545 MHz with a boost clock of 1740 MHz, and it includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. Its memory configuration is where the limitations become apparent: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Control is a game known for its physics-heavy environments and real-time ray tracing options, but the data here does not include ray tracing measurements. What the data does show is how the GPU's modest memory capacity and bandwidth affect frame rates. The 4 GB frame buffer is likely a significant constraint at 4K, where the Ultra preset averages just 26.1 FPS. Even at 1080p, the Ultra preset only manages 46 FPS, suggesting that the card's compute throughput — 7.127 TFLOPS FP32 — is insufficient for maxed-out settings in this title.

The GPU's pixel rate is 55.68 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s, which are respectable figures for a card in this class, but they are not enough to drive Control at high frame rates with high settings. The FP32 performance of 7.127 TFLOPS is the same for FP16 (1:1 ratio), indicating that the card does not have a dedicated boost path for half-precision workloads. In practice, this means the card must work hard for every frame at higher resolutions.

Interestingly, the GPU's production status is listed as "End-of-life," and its release date was January 2022, with a launch MSRP of 199 USD. The card's 90 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest it is meant for compact, power-efficient builds, but that efficiency comes at the cost of raw performance. The data indicates that for Control, this GPU is the primary determinant of the measured FPS, and its 4 GB memory capacity is likely the reason why 4K performance is so poor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture across three resolutions and four settings levels. At 1920x1080, the averages are 81.3 FPS on Low, 60.8 FPS on Medium, 51.1 FPS on High, and 46 FPS on Ultra. The spread from Low to Ultra is 35.3 FPS, which shows that settings have a substantial impact even at the lowest resolution. At 1080p, the Low preset is the only one that exceeds 60 FPS, which is notable for a game of Control's visual complexity.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop to 65.7 FPS on Low, 43.3 FPS on Medium, 37.3 FPS on High, and 33.1 FPS on Ultra. The Low preset at 1440p still manages to stay above 60 FPS, but every other preset falls below that threshold. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 32.6 FPS, similar to the 1080p spread, but the absolute numbers are lower across the board.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 45 FPS on Low, 32.4 FPS on Medium, 30 FPS on High, and 26.1 FPS on Ultra. This is the first resolution where even the Low preset fails to reach 60 FPS, and the Ultra preset dips below 30 FPS, which is generally considered the minimum for playable frame rates. The drop from Low to Ultra at 4K is 18.9 FPS, a smaller absolute gap than at lower resolutions, but the percentages are similar — Ultra is 42% slower than Low.

These numbers show that the RTX 3050 4 GB is capable of playable frame rates at 1080p with medium to high settings, but users targeting 1440p will need to stick with Low or Medium settings to maintain smooth gameplay. At 4K, the card is only viable on Low settings, and even then, the average of 45 FPS is not ideal for fast-paced action. The data suggests that this GPU is best suited for 1080p gaming in Control, with 1440p as a stretch goal for those willing to compromise on settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600K is a 14-core, 20-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel. It has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, and it has PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes.

In terms of raw compute, the i5-14600K's benchmark scores are impressive. It achieves 3314 in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 467 in single-core, 13810 in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 1949 in single-core, and 32881 in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 4642 in single-core. Its Geekbench scores are 15846 multi-core and 2803 single-core. Passmark results show 38682 in multi-thread and 4270 in single-thread. These numbers place the CPU in the 93rd percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 49166.

Given this compute power, the CPU is clearly not the bottleneck in Control. The measured FPS data shows that frame rates scale almost entirely with resolution and settings, which are GPU-dependent variables. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions at the same settings — but that is not the case. For instance, at High settings, the FPS drops from 51.1 at 1080p to 37.3 at 1440p to 30 at 4K, a clear GPU-driven decline.

The CPU's high single-thread performance is relevant for Control, which relies heavily on physics calculations. The game's engine benefits from strong single-core performance, and the i5-14600K's 4642 Cinebench R23 single-core score is more than adequate. The 14 cores and 20 threads also provide ample multi-threaded headroom for background tasks and game logic. However, the data indicates that this CPU's capabilities are largely untapped in this configuration, because the GPU cannot deliver frames fast enough to stress the processor.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Control with this combo?

A: The data shows that 1080p is the only resolution where the average FPS exceeds 60 on any preset. At 1080p Low, the average is 81.3 FPS, and at 1080p Medium, it is 60.8 FPS. For a smoother experience, 1080p is the recommended resolution.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Control?

A: At 4K, the highest average FPS is 45 on Low settings. Medium averages 32.4 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 26.1 FPS. While 4K is technically playable on Low, the frame rates are marginal for a game with fast-paced combat.

Q: How much impact does the Ultra preset have compared to Low?

A: At 1080p, Ultra averages 46 FPS versus 81.3 FPS on Low, a difference of 35.3 FPS. At 1440p, the difference is 32.6 FPS (33.1 vs 65.7), and at 4K, it is 18.9 FPS (26.1 vs 45). The Ultra preset consistently costs roughly 40-50% of the Low preset's frame rate.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. As resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, frame rates drop substantially at every settings level, which is a sign of graphics-bound performance. The CPU's benchmark scores are high, but they do not translate to higher FPS in this game because the GPU cannot keep up.

Q: What settings should I use for a stable 60 FPS experience?

A: At 1080p, the Medium preset averages 60.8 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS threshold. The Low preset at 1440p averages 65.7 FPS, so it is also an option for 1440p users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested configurations?

A: This combo ranks 1474 out of 1636 tested combinations for Control, placing it in the bottom 10% of all tested combos. This low rank is primarily due to the GPU's performance, as the CPU ranks in the 93rd percentile against all CPUs.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on the user's target resolution and frame rate preference. For 1080p gaming, the Medium preset offers the best balance, averaging 60.8 FPS — just above the 60 FPS mark that many consider the baseline for smooth gameplay. The High preset at 1080p averages 51.1 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced action sequences. The Ultra preset at 1080p averages 46 FPS, which may be acceptable for users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate.

For 1440p users, the Low preset is the only option that maintains a high frame rate, averaging 65.7 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p drops to 43.3 FPS, which is borderline for smooth gameplay. If a user must play at 1440p and wants better visuals, Medium is the best compromise, but they should be prepared for occasional frame rate dips below 40 FPS.

For 4K, the Low preset is the only viable choice, averaging 45 FPS. All other presets at 4K average below 33 FPS, which is likely to feel sluggish. The data suggests that 4K gaming with this combo is only feasible on the lowest settings, and even then, the experience may not be satisfying for a game like Control that features intense combat and physics-based interactions.

In summary, the best experience per the measured rows is 1080p with Medium settings, which delivers an average of 60.8 FPS. This configuration provides a playable frame rate while still offering decent visual quality. Users with 1440p monitors should consider the Low preset for the smoothest experience, while 4K should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, as the frame rates are marginal at best.