Control

# Control with Intel Core i5-14600KF + AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT

The Intel Core i5-14600KF paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT delivers a playable but uneven experience in Control, with frame rates that swing dramatically based on resolution and quality preset. At 1440p High, the combo lands at 59.6 FPS, essentially the threshold for smooth action gameplay, while 4K Ultra drops to 35.9 FPS, revealing a system that is heavily constrained by graphics load rather than CPU throughput. The data shows a 14-core, 20-thread processor working alongside a 16 GB GPU with a 128-bit memory bus, a combination that produces predictable scaling patterns across the three tested resolutions and four settings tiers.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across every settings tier, indicating that the Radeon RX 7600 XT becomes the limiting component as pixel count rises. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 121.7 FPS at 1920x1080 to 93.2 FPS at 2560x1440, then plummets to 62.6 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 48.6% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low, a substantial loss that points to memory bandwidth constraints. The GPU's 288.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus is the likely culprit—at 4K, the 16 GB frame buffer is ample, but the data throughput needed to feed those pixels strains the interface.

Medium settings show a similar pattern: 86.5 FPS at 1080p, 64.4 FPS at 1440p, and 43.3 FPS at 4K. The 4K figure is a 50% drop from 1080p, again reinforcing that resolution scaling is the dominant factor. High settings follow the trend with 76.9, 59.6, and 39 FPS across the three resolutions. Ultra settings exhibit the most severe scaling: 68.4 FPS at 1080p, 51.6 FPS at 1440p, and 35.9 FPS at 4K—a 47.5% decline from the lowest to highest resolution.

What does this imply about the limiting component? The CPU's benchmark scores—32889 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 4643 in single-core—suggest substantial headroom, while the GPU's 22.57 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 176.3 GPixel/s pixel rate are moderate for 2024 hardware. The scaling pattern suggests that at 1080p, the CPU can feed frames efficiently, but as resolution climbs, the GPU's texture rate of 352.6 GTexel/s and pixel throughput become bottlenecks. The 4K Low result of 62.6 FPS versus 4K Ultra at 35.9 FPS indicates that even at the lowest settings, the GPU cannot overcome the resolution burden.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 7600 XT's specifications tell a story of a card designed for 1080p and entry-level 1440p, not 4K. The 16 GB GDDR6 memory is generous for this class, but the 128-bit bus width and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth limit how quickly data can move. In Control, a game that uses textures and particle effects heavily, this bandwidth constraint becomes apparent in the 4K numbers. The boost clock of 2755 MHz and game clock of 2470 MHz are respectable for RDNA 3.0 architecture, yet the 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs are modest counts that struggle with high pixel counts.

The GPU's benchmark percentile of 63 versus all GPUs places it in the middle of the pack, with an average benchmark score of 20146. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7600, scores 20258 with a deltaPct of -0.6, meaning the 7600 XT is marginally slower in synthetic tests despite having double the memory. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER at 19774 with a +1.9 deltaPct and the RTX 3070 Mobile at 20534 with a -1.9 deltaPct bracket this card closely. In Control, the 7600 XT's 4K High result of 39 FPS suggests that the extra VRAM beyond 8 GB does not translate to higher frame rates when bandwidth is the limiting factor.

The PassMark G3D score of 17132 and DirectX 12 score of 65 are moderate, reflecting a card that handles modern APIs but lacks the raw throughput of higher-tier options. The 190 W TDP and suggested 450 W PSU indicate a power-efficient design, but efficiency does not compensate for the bandwidth deficit at 4K. The data implies that the GPU's role in Control is to provide a smooth 1080p experience and an acceptable 1440p one, with 4K reserved for lower settings or reduced expectations.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600KF is a formidable processor that is unlikely to bottleneck Control at any resolution. With 14 cores (likely a mix of performance and efficiency cores) and 20 threads, the CPU offers massive multi-threading capability, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32889. The boost clock of 5.30 GHz and base clock of 3.50 GHz provide strong single-thread performance, reflected in the 4643 single-core score. The 24 MB shared L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache are ample for game logic and physics calculations.

The CPU's percentile of 93 versus all CPUs places it in the top 7% of processors, with an average benchmark score of 49367. Its nearest rivals highlight its positioning: the Intel Core i5-14600K scores 49166 with a deltaPct of 0.4, meaning the KF variant is essentially identical in synthetic performance. The AMD EPYC 4345P at 49595 (-0.5 deltaPct) and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X at 49062 (+0.6 deltaPct) are also close, showing that this CPU competes with high-end workstation and previous-generation flagship parts.

In Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and handle the game's physics and AI. The measured FPS at 1080p Low of 121.7 FPS suggests the CPU can push beyond 120 FPS, but the GPU limits higher settings. The fact that 1080p Ultra yields 68.4 FPS versus 1080p Low at 121.7 FPS indicates that the GPU is the primary constraint even at the lowest resolution. The CPU's 125 W TDP and Intel Socket 1700 compatibility make it a desktop-focused part that pairs logically with mid-range GPUs like the RX 7600 XT, though the data suggests the CPU could support a stronger GPU without becoming a bottleneck.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 2560x1440 at Medium settings produces 64.4 FPS, which is the most balanced result for visual quality and smoothness. At 1080p, all settings exceed 68 FPS, while 4K only reaches 62.6 FPS at Low settings.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Radeon RX 7600 XT scores 20146 on average, which is 0.6% lower than the RX 7600 (20258) and 1.9% higher than the RTX 2060 SUPER (19774). The RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534, 1.9% higher than this card.

Q: Is the CPU strong enough for this game?

A: Yes, the Core i5-14600KF ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32889 and single-core score of 4643. The measured FPS indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, not the CPU.

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

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings average 93.2 FPS, while Ultra settings average 51.6 FPS, a difference of 41.6 FPS. Medium (64.4 FPS) and High (59.6 FPS) sit between these extremes.

Q: Does 16 GB of VRAM help at 4K?

A: The 4K results suggest it does not overcome bandwidth limits. At 4K High, the combo averages 39 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, 35.9 FPS, indicating that the 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are more critical than the 16 GB capacity.

Q: How does this combo rank among tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 1074 out of 1636 tested combos for Control, placing it in the lower third of all configurations tested for this game.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1074 out of 1636 tested combos places this system in the 34th percentile for Control performance. This ranking reflects the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions, despite the CPU's strong synthetic scores. The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking versus all CPUs contrasts sharply with the GPU's 63rd percentile, creating an imbalance where the processor is significantly more capable than the graphics card. This pairing is likely held back by the RX 7600 XT's bandwidth constraints in a game that demands high pixel throughput.

The rank suggests that among the 1636 combos tested, 562 perform better in Control, likely featuring stronger GPUs or more balanced pairings. The data implies that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can achieve over 68 FPS at all settings, or 1440p with medium-to-high settings for a 60 FPS experience. The 4K results are marginal, with only Low settings exceeding 60 FPS. Users seeking higher rankings would need a GPU with greater bandwidth, as the CPU clearly has headroom to support more demanding graphics hardware.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, Ultra settings provide 68.4 FPS, which is smooth and visually rich—this is the best experience for players with 1080p monitors, as the frame rate remains above 60 FPS. For 1440p, Medium settings at 64.4 FPS offer the best balance, as High drops to 59.6 FPS and Ultra to 51.6 FPS. The 1440p Medium preset likely retains enough visual fidelity while maintaining a playable frame rate. At 4K, the data shows that only Low settings (62.6 FPS) achieve a smooth experience; Medium (43.3 FPS) and High (39 FPS) are borderline, and Ultra (35.9 FPS) is not recommended for action gameplay.

The 1080p Low result of 121.7 FPS indicates this combo can drive high-refresh-rate monitors at the lowest settings, but the visual trade-offs are significant. The 1440p High result of 59.6 FPS is just below the 60 FPS threshold, suggesting that a slight reduction to Medium or minor settings tweaks could yield a stable experience. For players prioritizing frame rate over visuals, 1080p Ultra at 68.4 FPS is the strongest choice, as it delivers both high detail and smoothness.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo produces the following average frame rates: Low settings deliver 121.7 FPS, Medium settings achieve 86.5 FPS, High settings reach 76.9 FPS, and Ultra settings cap at 68.4 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra is a 43.8% reduction, showing that quality presets have a significant impact at this resolution. At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops to 93.2 for Low, 64.4 for Medium, 59.6 for High, and 51.6 for Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 41.6 FPS, or a 44.6% reduction. At 3840x2160, the results are 62.6 FPS for Low, 43.3 FPS for Medium, 39.0 FPS for High, and 35.9 FPS for Ultra.

The data reveals that the percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is consistent across settings: Low falls by 48.6%, Medium by 50.0%, High by 49.3%, and Ultra by 47.5%. This uniformity suggests that the GPU's bandwidth limitation is the primary factor, independent of the quality preset. The 1440p results show a gentler decline from 1080p, with Low dropping by 23.4%, Medium by 25.6%, High by 22.5%, and Ultra by 24.6%. The 4K results are the most constrained, with all settings except Low falling below 45 FPS, reinforcing that this combo is not designed for 4K gaming. The measured data indicates a system that excels at 1080p, performs adequately at 1440p with tuned settings, and struggles at 4K regardless of quality level.