Control

Control pairs the Intel Core i5-14600K with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER in a combination that proves remarkably balanced across resolutions, though the scaling patterns reveal a system that shifts from GPU-bound at 4K to increasingly CPU-bound at 1080p. The measured frames per second across the four quality presets and three resolutions tell a clear story: this is a high-refresh-rate 1440p machine that can still deliver playable 4K, with the RTX 4080 SUPER’s substantial memory bandwidth and the i5-14600K’s strong single-thread performance working in concert. Benchmark results indicate that the combo ranks 283rd out of 3,720 tested combinations for this title, placing it in the top 7.6% of all pairings, a position driven by the GPU’s 86th percentile standing among all graphics cards and the CPU’s 90th percentile among all processors.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep but predictable, with the most telling gap appearing at the Low preset. At 1920x1080 Low, the combo produces 245 FPS, which falls to 185 FPS at 2560x1440 — a 24.5% reduction — and then to 125 FPS at 3840x2160, a further 32.4% decline. This progressive falloff indicates that at 1080p Low, the system is heavily CPU-limited, as the RTX 4080 SUPER has ample headroom to render far more frames than the i5-14600K can feed it. The 60 FPS difference between 1080p and 1440p at Low is larger than the 60 FPS difference between 1440p and 4K at the same preset, which is counterintuitive given that 4K has over twice the pixel count of 1440p; this inversion confirms that the CPU is the bottleneck at the lowest settings.

Moving to the High preset, the scaling becomes more uniform: 155 FPS at 1080p, 117 FPS at 1440p (a 24.5% drop), and 79 FPS at 4K (a 32.5% drop from 1440p). The percentage losses are nearly identical to Low, suggesting that even at High, the CPU still constrains performance at 1080p, preventing the GPU from stretching its legs. At Ultra settings, the pattern shifts: 134 FPS at 1080p drops to 102 FPS at 1440p (23.9% less) and then to 69 FPS at 4K (32.4% less). The consistency across presets — roughly 24% for the first step and 32% for the second — indicates that the limiting component changes character only at the extremes, with 4K Ultra being the only configuration where the GPU is unquestionably the primary constraint.

The Medium preset, which includes minimum and maximum frame data, offers additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the average is 174 FPS with a minimum of 148 FPS and maximum of 200 FPS; at 1440p Medium, the average falls to 132 FPS with a 112 FPS minimum and 152 FPS maximum; at 4K Medium, the average drops to 89 FPS with a 76 FPS minimum and 102 FPS maximum. The spread between minimum and maximum frames grows from 52 FPS at 1080p to 40 FPS at 1440p and then to 26 FPS at 4K, showing that lower resolutions introduce more frame-time variance, a hallmark of CPU-limited scenarios where draw-call processing and physics calculations become inconsistent.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 283rd out of 3,720 tested combinations for Control, a position that places it comfortably in the top tier of all pairings. This ranking reflects the synergy between a CPU that sits in the 90th percentile of all processors and a GPU in the 86th percentile of all graphics cards; neither component is the absolute fastest, but their combined output for this title exceeds what either could achieve with a weaker partner. The data shows that the i5-14600K’s average benchmark score of 48,618 places it within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48,698) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4345P (48,470), while the RTX 4080 SUPER’s average score of 54,209 trails the RTX 4080 by just 0.1% (54,247) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X by 1.1% (54,828).

These near-identical rival scores mean that the combo’s rank is not driven by outlier performance from either component but rather by the balanced nature of the pairing. The i5-14600K outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX by 0.7% and lags the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 by 0.8%, while the GPU sits 2.7% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB and 2.8% behind the AMD Radeon 8060S in aggregate benchmarks. For Control specifically, the measured FPS figures show that this combo delivers frame rates that would be competitive with any pairing in its immediate neighborhood, and the 283rd rank out of 3,720 means over 3,400 tested combinations produce lower performance in this game.

GPU Role

The RTX 4080 SUPER brings 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 736.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which proves ample for Control’s demands across all tested resolutions and settings. The GPU’s boost clock of 2550 MHz, built on TSMC’s 5 nm process with 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, allows it to reach 52.22 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. These specifications translate directly to the measured results: at 4K Ultra, the combo still produces 69 FPS average, which is playable, while at 4K High it rises to 79 FPS rings. The 16 GB frame buffer is never a limiting factor in this game, as even the most demanding preset at 4K does not show signs of memory capacity pressure — the performance drops from High to Ultra at 4K (79 to 69 FPS) are consistent with increased shading and texture work rather than paging.

The GPU’s aggregate benchmark scores reinforce its position: a PassMark G3D score of 34,245 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 260,075 indicate strong DirectX 12 and Vulkan performance, which Control utilizes through its modern rendering pipeline. The 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores are present but not heavily exercised in this title, as Control’s ray-tracing effects are optional and the measured data does not isolate them. The GPU’s 86th percentile ranking among all graphics cards means it outperforms roughly 86% of the field, and its nearest rival, the RTX 4080, scores only 0.1% higher on average, suggesting that the SUPER variant’s additional cores and clocks (10,240 shading units versus fewer on the non-SUPER) provide marginal but measurable gains in compute-heavy scenarios.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its highest frame rates across all presets. Low settings produce 245 FPS average, Medium 174 FPS (with a 148 FPS minimum and 200 FPS maximum), High 155 FPS, and Ultra 134 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 111 FPS, indicating that the CPU can push over 240 frames only when the GPU has minimal work, but the more realistic High and Ultra presets still exceed 130 FPS, comfortably above the 120 Hz refresh threshold for most monitors. The Medium preset’s minimum of 148 FPS at 1080p is higher than the average at 4K High (79 FPS), showing just how resolution-dependent this pairing is.

At 2560x1440, the results scale predictably downward. Low produces 185 FPS, Medium 132 FPS (112 minimum, 152 maximum), High 117 FPS, and Ultra 102 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p ranges from 24.5% at Low to 23.9% at Ultra, a remarkably consistent reduction that suggests the GPU is becoming the primary limiter at this resolution, though the CPU still contributes to the ceiling. The 1440p Ultra result of 102 FPS is particularly strong, as it exceeds the 100 FPS mark that many users consider the threshold for smooth high-refresh gameplay, and the 1440p High result of 117 FPS approaches the 120 FPS mark.

At 3840x2160, the combo shows its limits. Low yields 125 FPS, Medium 89 FPS (76 minimum, 102 maximum), High 79 FPS, and Ultra 69 FPS. The 4K Low result of 125 FPS is impressive, showing that the GPU still has headroom when settings are reduced, but the more demanding presets drop below the 90 FPS threshold. The 4K Medium minimum of 76 FPS ensures that even frame-time spikes stay within the VRR range of most G-Sync and FreeSync monitors, while the 4K Ultra average of 69 FPS is playable but not ideal for competitive play. The progression from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a 44.8% performance penalty, slightly steeper than at 1080p (45.3%) but consistent with the GPU becoming the sole bottleneck.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600K features 14 cores and 20 threads with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, built on Intel’s 10 nm process with a 125 W TDP. Its Raptor Lake architecture includes 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, along with 80 KB of L1 per core, which provides the low-latency data access that Control’s physics and AI systems require. The CPU’s benchmark scores are telling: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24,491 and single-core score of 2,064, a Geekbench multi-core of 16,673 and single-core of 2,491, and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,270. These figures place it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48,618 that rivals server-class Xeon and EPYC parts.

In Control, the CPU’s role is most evident at 1080p Low, where the combo hits 245 FPS — a figure that is only 54% higher than the 1440p Low result of 185 FPS, despite the resolution having 1.78 times more pixels. This compression indicates that the CPU is not the bottleneck at 1440p Low, but at 1080p Low, the frame rate is capped by the processor’s ability to issue draw calls and update game state. The 5.30 GHz boost clock is crucial here, as Control’s single-threaded performance benefits directly from high clock speeds; the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,064 and Geekbench single-core of 2,491 demonstrate that the chip excels in the lightly-threaded workloads that dominate this title’s CPU usage. The 14 cores and 20 threads are more than sufficient for Control’s multi-threaded background tasks, but the game’s main thread likely uses one or two cores, making the boost clock the primary driver of CPU-side performance.

Settings Recommendations

For users targeting 1080p, the Ultra preset at 134 FPS is the clear choice, as it delivers the highest visual quality while still exceeding the 120 FPS refresh rate of most high-end monitors. The drop from High to Ultra costs 21 FPS (155 to 134), but the increased detail in textures and effects is worth the trade-off for users with 120 Hz or 144 Hz displays. If the monitor supports 240 Hz, the Low preset at 245 FPS is the only way to approach that refresh ceiling, but the visual sacrifice is substantial; Medium at 174 FPS offers a middle ground with a 148 FPS minimum that stays above most high-refresh thresholds.

At 1440p, the High preset at 117 FPS is the sweet spot for quality-focused users, as it approaches the 120 FPS threshold while keeping the average above 115 FPS. The Ultra preset at 102 FPS is also viable, but the 15 FPS penalty over High may not justify the marginal visual improvements in a fast-paced action game. Users prioritizing frame rate over quality should select Medium at 132 FPS, which provides a 112 FPS minimum that remains smooth even during intense combat sequences. The Low preset at 185 FPS is excessive for most 1440p monitors, which typically cap at 165 Hz or 180 Hz, so it is only recommended for competitive play on 240 Hz panels.

At 4K, the Medium preset at 89 FPS is the recommended balance, as it provides a 76 FPS minimum that stays within VRR ranges and an average that exceeds 60 FPS by a comfortable margin. The High preset at 79 FPS is playable but leaves less headroom for frame-time spikes, while the Ultra preset at 69 FPS is only suitable for users who prioritize visual fidelity over smoothness and have VRR enabled. The Low preset at 125 FPS is the choice for users with 120 Hz 4K displays, though the visual degradation from Low to Medium (a 36 FPS difference at 4K) is significant enough that most users will prefer Medium. Across all resolutions, the data indicates that this combo never drops below 69 FPS at any preset, meaning every configuration is playable; the question is simply whether users prefer higher frame rates or higher visual quality, and the measured rows show that Medium at 4K and High at 1440p offer the best compromise between the two.