Control

The Intel Core i5-14600KF paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 presents a stark imbalance in Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title. The benchmark data indicates that the GTX 1650 is the definitive bottleneck, with the CPU’s substantial processing headroom largely untapped. Measured results show that this combination is only viable at the lowest settings and even then, only at 1080p, where it achieves a playable average of 57.9 FPS. Every other configuration falls below the 60 FPS threshold, making the Low preset at 1920x1080 the only sensible choice for a smooth experience.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this hardware combination is the Low preset at 1920x1080, which yields an average of 57.9 FPS. This is the only tested configuration that approaches a stable 60 FPS target, providing a playable frame rate. While the Medium preset at 1080p offers higher visual fidelity, its average of 38.7 FPS represents a 33% performance drop compared to Low, which is a significant sacrifice for responsiveness in a game that relies on precise aiming and environmental awareness.

At 1440p, the Low preset delivers 40.7 FPS, but this is below the 60 FPS target and would result in noticeable input latency and visual stuttering during intense combat sequences. The High preset at 1080p produces 35.5 FPS, which is only marginally better than the Medium preset but comes with a higher rendering load; the data suggests that the GPU struggles to maintain consistent frame pacing at these settings. The Ultra preset at 1080p, with an average of 32.9 FPS, is the least advisable choice, as it offers diminishing visual returns over High while further compromising frame rate.

For users prioritizing a stable frame rate over visual quality, the Low preset at 1080p is the clear recommendation. If a user has a variable refresh rate monitor and can tolerate frame rates in the 30-40 FPS range, the Medium preset at 1080p may be acceptable for slower, narrative-driven sections, but the data indicates that combat scenarios will likely suffer from frame drops. The 4K resolution is not viable, with even the Low preset averaging only 27.8 FPS, making it unsuitable for any form of gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks

The benchmark database ranks this specific combination at 1593 out of 1636 tested combos for Control, placing it in the bottom 3% of all configurations. This low ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU’s limited performance ceiling, as the GTX 1650 sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the i5-14600KF is in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The data suggests that this pairing is exceptionally poorly suited for this title, with the GPU unable to leverage the CPU’s capabilities.

The CPU’s benchmark scores confirm its high-end status, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32889 and a single-core score of 4643, and an average benchmark score of 49367. In contrast, the GTX 1650’s PassMark G3D score of 7880 and average score of 8713 highlight its entry-level positioning. The combo’s rank is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU, as the CPU’s nearest rivals—the Intel Core i5-14600K (0.4% delta), AMD EPYC 4345P (-0.5% delta), and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (0.6% delta)—are all closely matched in performance, indicating that the processor is not a limiting factor. Conversely, the GPU’s nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (-0.4% delta) and AMD Radeon 550X (-0.4% delta), are similarly constrained, confirming that the GTX 1650 is the performance anchor.

This rank suggests that users with this hardware should not expect competitive performance in Control. The data indicates that the system is over-provisioned on the CPU side, wasting the potential of the 14-core, 20-thread processor, which has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The bottleneck is so severe that even the CPU’s 24 MB of shared L3 cache cannot compensate for the GPU’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, which are insufficient for the game’s texture and geometry demands at higher settings.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Control at 4K resolution?*

A: No. The measured data shows that even at the Low preset, the average FPS at 3840x2160 is 27.8, which is far below the 60 FPS target. The High preset at this resolution drops to 16.3 FPS, making any 4K configuration unplayable.

Q: What is the best preset for 1080p gaming?

A: The Low preset is the best option, achieving an average of 57.9 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 38.7 FPS, and the High preset to 35.5 FPS, both of which are below the ideal threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: Why is the performance so poor despite having a high-end CPU?

A: The GPU is the limiting component. The GTX 1650 has a PassMark G3D score of 7880 and sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the i5-14600KF is in the 93rd percentile. The benchmark results indicate that the GPU cannot keep up with the CPU’s processing power, creating a severe bottleneck.

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

A: It ranks 1593 out of 1636 tested combos for Control, placing it in the bottom 3%. This is primarily due to the GPU’s low performance ceiling, as the CPU’s nearest rivals show only minor score differences (0.4% to 1.4%), indicating the CPU is not the issue.

Q: Is the Ultra preset viable at any resolution?

A: No. The Ultra preset yields an average of 32.9 FPS at 1080p, 20.5 FPS at 1440p, and 19.0 FPS at 4K. These frame rates are far below playable levels, confirming that the GPU lacks the necessary fill rate and memory bandwidth for this settings tier.

Q: What does the FPS data suggest about the system’s upgrade path?

A: The data strongly suggests that the GPU is the primary bottleneck. Upgrading the graphics card would yield a significant performance increase, while the CPU’s high benchmark scores (e.g., Cinebench R23 multi-core of 32889) indicate it has ample headroom for a more powerful GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution and settings increase. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 57.9 FPS, which is the highest recorded for this combination. The Medium preset drops to 38.7 FPS, a 33% reduction, while High falls to 35.5 FPS. The Ultra preset bottoms out at 32.9 FPS, showing that the GPU’s limited 896 shading units and 32 ROPs are overwhelmed by the game’s visual effects.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset produces 40.7 FPS, which is a 30% drop from the 1080p Low result. The High preset averages 30.1 FPS, Medium at 27.4 FPS, and Ultra at 20.5 FPS. These numbers indicate that the 4 GB memory buffer and 128-bit memory bus are insufficient for 1440p rendering, causing significant bandwidth constraints. The performance gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 50%, showing that the GPU’s compute resources are the limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes critically low. The Low preset averages 27.8 FPS, Medium at 19.2 FPS, Ultra at 19.0 FPS, and High at 16.3 FPS. The difference between Low and High at 4K is only 41%, suggesting that the GPU is so saturated that settings changes have a diminished impact. The pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are clearly insufficient for 4K, resulting in sub-30 FPS performance across all presets.

The data shows that the GTX 1650’s 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is simply not enough for Control’s demanding rendering pipeline. The transition from 1080p Low to 1440p Low results in a 30% FPS loss, while the transition from 1440p Low to 4K Low results in a 32% FPS loss, indicating a consistent scaling pattern that reflects the GPU’s inability to handle increased pixel counts.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data reveals a consistent and steep performance drop as the pixel count increases. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at the Low preset reduces the average FPS from 57.9 to 40.7, a decrease of 29.7%. Moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 at the same preset further reduces the average to 27.8 FPS, a 31.7% drop from the 1440p result. This pattern indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component, as the frame rate scales almost linearly with the number of pixels being rendered.

This behavior is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario. The i5-14600KF, with its 14 cores and 20 threads, has a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32889, which is more than sufficient to feed the GTX 1650. The CPU’s single-core score of 4643 also ensures that the game’s main thread is not a bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see a more pronounced FPS drop at lower resolutions where the CPU has more work to do per frame, but the data shows the opposite: the FPS drops are proportional to the resolution increase.

The GTX 1650’s memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s is a critical constraint. At 4K, the demand for texture data increases exponentially, and the 4 GB GDDR5 buffer is likely to overflow, causing the GPU to rely on slower system memory. This explains why the difference between Low and High settings at 4K is only 41%, as the GPU is already starved for data. The 1080p results, where the GPU has more bandwidth headroom, show a larger spread between presets (43% between Low and Ultra), indicating that the GPU’s compute units are the limiting factor at lower resolutions.

The data strongly suggests that the system is severely GPU-limited in Control. The CPU’s performance percentile of 93 versus the GPU’s 43 percentile highlights this imbalance. For any meaningful improvement in frame rates, a GPU upgrade is necessary; the CPU has ample performance headroom to support a significantly more powerful graphics card. The scaling pattern confirms that the GTX 1650 is the sole constraint, and the i5-14600KF is effectively idle waiting for the GPU to complete its rendering tasks.