Control

# Control with Intel Core i5-14600KF + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070

The Intel Core i5-14600KF paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 delivers a compelling experience in Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title. Measured FPS data across resolutions and settings reveals a system that comfortably handles the game at high frame rates, though the balance between CPU and GPU load shifts dramatically as resolution increases. The data shows a 14-core, 20-thread processor with a 5.30 GHz boost clock working alongside a 12 GB GDDR6X GPU with a 2475 MHz boost clock, and the combination ranks 904th out of 3720 tested combos in this game.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how Control scales across resolutions, and the pattern is telling about which component limits performance at each setting level. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 193 FPS average, but dropping to 1440p Low reduces that to 146 FPS, and 4K Low lands at 98 FPS. This is a substantial drop-off: moving from 1080p to 1440p loses 47 FPS (about 24%), and moving from 1440p to 4K loses another 48 FPS (about 33%). The scaling is nearly linear, suggesting that the GPU is the primary constraint even at Low settings.

The High settings tell a similar story. At 1080p High, the average is 122 FPS; at 1440p High, it drops to 92 FPS; at 4K High, it falls to 62 FPS. The percentage drops are consistent: roughly 25% from 1080p to 1440p, and another 33% from 1440p to 4K. This consistency across settings levels indicates that resolution scaling in Control is dominated by pixel throughput rather than by any sudden bottleneck appearing at specific resolutions.

Ultra settings reveal the most dramatic scaling. The system manages 106 FPS at 1080p Ultra, 80 FPS at 1440p Ultra, and 54 FPS at 4K Ultra. The 4K Ultra result is notable because it drops below the 60 FPS threshold, meaning the system cannot maintain a smooth experience at maximum quality and maximum resolution. The gap between 1080p Ultra and 4K Ultra is 52 FPS, nearly half the 1080p value, which strongly suggests the RTX 4070's 12 GB memory and 504.2 GB/s bandwidth are being pushed to their limits at 4K.

What does this scaling imply about the limiting component? At 1080p, the CPU's high single-core performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4594) appears sufficient, as the system reaches 193 FPS at Low settings — likely near the game's engine ceiling for such scenes. But as resolution climbs, the GPU's workload grows quadratically with pixel count, and the RTX 4070's raw compute (29.15 TFLOPS FP32) becomes the decisive factor. The data shows no evidence of a CPU bottleneck at any resolution: the frame rate drops are smooth and proportional to pixel count, which is the signature of a GPU-limited scenario.

FAQ

Q: Can this system maintain 60 FPS at 4K in Control?

A: Yes, but not at the highest quality settings. The 4K High preset averages 62 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS bar, but 4K Ultra drops to 54 FPS average. The 4K Medium preset averages 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS, offering a more consistent experience above 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for competitive play or high refresh rates?

A: At 1080p, every settings level exceeds 100 FPS average, with Low hitting 193 FPS and High reaching 122 FPS. Even at 1440p, Low averages 146 FPS and High averages 92 FPS, so players with 144 Hz monitors could target 1440p Low or 1080p High for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the RTX 4070 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in raw benchmarks?

A: The RTX 4070 has an average benchmark score of 37648, placing it in the 81st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla P4, scores 37628 (0.1% lower), while the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 scores 37507 (0.4% lower). The RTX 4080 Mobile is 1.3% higher at 38135.

Q: Does the CPU hold back the GPU in this game?

A: The data suggests no. The i5-14600KF ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 49394, and its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, scores 49228 (0.3% lower). At 1080p Low, the system hits 193 FPS, which indicates the CPU can feed the GPU sufficiently at high frame rates.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution?

A: At 1080p, the gap is 87 FPS (193 Low vs 106 Ultra). At 1440p, the gap is 66 FPS (146 Low vs 80 Ultra). At 4K, the gap is 44 FPS (98 Low vs 54 Ultra). The shrinking gap at higher resolutions indicates the GPU becomes more constrained by pixel count than by settings complexity.

Q: Is the 12 GB VRAM sufficient for Control at 4K?

A: The measured data shows playable performance at 4K High (62 FPS) and 4K Medium (70 FPS), which suggests 12 GB is adequate for this game. However, the drop to 54 FPS at 4K Ultra hints that memory bandwidth (504.2 GB/s) or capacity may be limiting at maximum settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 serves as the primary driver of Control's performance at higher resolutions, and the measured FPS data confirms its capabilities. The GPU features 5888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines, with a base clock of 1920 MHz and a boost clock of 2475 MHz. Its memory subsystem consists of 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus, delivering 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth. These specifications translate into a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3854 and a Passmark G3D score of 26927.

The GPU's benchmark positioning is interesting: its average score of 37648 places it in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, yet its nearest rivals are a mix of professional and older gaming cards. The Tesla P4 (0.1% lower score) and Radeon RX Vega 56 (0.4% lower) are close, while the RTX 4080 Mobile is 1.3% higher. This suggests the desktop RTX 4070 sits in a competitive mid-high tier, which aligns with its measured performance in Control.

Looking at the game data, the RTX 4070's role becomes clearer when comparing settings at the same resolution. At 1080p, the jump from Low (193 FPS) to Ultra (106 FPS) represents a 45% performance loss, indicating that the GPU's compute resources are heavily taxed by the game's visual effects. At 4K, the same settings comparison shows only a 45% loss as well (98 to 54 FPS), but the absolute numbers are much lower because pixel throughput dominates.

The VRAM situation deserves scrutiny. With 12 GB of GDDR6X and 504.2 GB/s bandwidth, the card handles Control's textures and effects without obvious stuttering — the minimum FPS at 1440p Medium is 88 and at 4K Medium is 59. However, the 4K Ultra result of 54 FPS average suggests that either the memory capacity or the bandwidth is insufficient for maximum settings at 4K, as the card's compute power (29.15 TFLOPS FP32) should theoretically support higher frame rates if memory were not a factor.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear hierarchy for optimizing the experience in Control, and the choice of settings depends heavily on the target resolution and refresh rate. For players using 1080p displays, the data shows that High settings (122 FPS) offer the best balance: the visual uplift over Medium (137 FPS) is likely significant, while the 15 FPS penalty is acceptable for most users. Ultra at 1080p (106 FPS) is still playable, but the additional quality over High may not justify the 13% performance drop.

For 1440p displays, the recommendation shifts. High settings (92 FPS) provide a smooth experience on 60 Hz and 100 Hz monitors, while Medium (104 FPS) gives more headroom for 120 Hz panels. The Ultra preset at 80 FPS remains above 60 FPS, so players prioritizing visual fidelity could use it, but the data shows Medium offers a 24 FPS advantage over Ultra — a substantial margin for a modest visual sacrifice. Low at 146 FPS is the choice for competitive play, though it likely sacrifices too much visual quality for most single-player experiences.

At 4K, the situation narrows considerably. Medium settings (70 FPS average, 59 FPS minimum) is the only preset that consistently stays above 60 FPS, making it the safest recommendation for 4K displays. High (62 FPS) is technically above 60 FPS on average but has no minimum FPS data, so the experience could dip below that threshold. Ultra (54 FPS) is not recommended for 4K unless the player accepts sub-60 FPS performance. Low at 98 FPS is viable for players who prioritize frame rate over visuals, but the quality trade-off is severe.

The overall best experience per the measured rows is 1080p High (122 FPS) for high-refresh monitors, 1440p Medium (104 FPS) for balanced quality and speed, and 4K Medium (70 FPS) for the only consistent 4K experience above 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-14600KF + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 combination ranks 904th out of 3720 tested combos in Control, which places it in the top 24.3% of all systems tested for this game. This ranking is respectable but not elite, and it reflects the mid-high positioning of both components. The CPU's 90th percentile standing (average benchmark score 49394) and the GPU's 81st percentile standing (average benchmark score 37648) suggest that the combo should perform better than the median system, but the 904th rank indicates that many other configurations — likely those with higher-end GPUs — achieve better results in Control.

The rank data becomes more meaningful when considering the combo's measured performance. At 1080p Ultra, the system hits 106 FPS, which is a strong result for a game from 2019. At 4K Ultra, the 54 FPS average is below the 60 FPS threshold, which likely explains why the combo doesn't rank higher — many systems with more powerful GPUs can maintain 60+ FPS at 4K Ultra. The CPU's 90th percentile performance (with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32544) ensures that it is not the limiting factor, so the rank is almost certainly determined by the GPU's 81st percentile positioning.

The gap between the CPU and GPU percentiles is worth noting. The i5-14600KF outperforms 90% of all CPUs, while the RTX 4070 outperforms only 81% of all GPUs. This imbalance suggests that the system is CPU-heavy relative to its GPU, which could be a deliberate pairing for users who expect to upgrade the GPU later. In Control specifically, the data confirms that the GPU is the bottleneck at higher resolutions, so the 904th rank reflects the GPU's mid-high tier status rather than any CPU limitation.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers 12 distinct configurations — four settings levels across three resolutions — and each provides insight into the system's behavior in Control. At 1080p, the results are as follows: Low averages 193 FPS, Medium averages 137 FPS (with a minimum of 116 and maximum of 157), High averages 122 FPS, and Ultra averages 106 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 87 FPS, and even the minimum FPS at Medium (116) exceeds the Ultra average, indicating that settings have a profound impact at this resolution.

Moving to 1440p, the numbers decrease proportionally: Low averages 146 FPS, Medium averages 104 FPS (minimum 88, maximum 119), High averages 92 FPS, and Ultra averages 80 FPS. The gap from Low to Ultra narrows to 66 FPS, and the Medium minimum of 88 FPS remains above the Ultra average of 80 FPS. This pattern mirrors the 1080p results, confirming that settings scaling is consistent across resolutions.

At 4K, the data shows a system under strain: Low averages 98 FPS, Medium averages 70 FPS (minimum 59, maximum 80), High averages 62 FPS, and Ultra averages 54 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra gap shrinks further to 44 FPS, and notably, the Medium minimum (59) barely clears 60 FPS, while High and Ultra both fall below the 60 FPS average threshold. The 4K Medium row is the only 4K configuration with both an average above 60 FPS and a minimum above 59 FPS, making it the most reliable 4K option.

Looking at the settings scaling within each resolution, the percentage drops are consistent. From Low to Medium, the loss is 29% at 1080p (193 to 137), 29% at 1440p (146 to 104), and 29% at 4K (98 to 70). From Medium to High, the loss is 11% at 1080p (137 to 122), 12% at 1440p (104 to 92), and 11% at 4K (70 to 62). From High to Ultra, the loss is 13% at 1080p (122 to 106), 13% at 1440p (92 to 80), and 13% at 4K (62 to 54). This consistency suggests that Control's settings have a uniform multiplicative effect on performance, independent of resolution.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600KF plays a supporting role in Control, and the data indicates it is never the limiting factor. This 14-core, 20-thread processor from the Core 14th Gen series features a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores are impressive: Cinebench R23 multi-core hits 32544 and single-core reaches 4594, while Geekbench multi-core scores 17085 and single-core 2445. The Passmark multi-thread score of 38697 and single-thread score of 4273 further confirm its strength.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 90th among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 49394, places it in the top decile of processors. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.3% lower score), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (0.4% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 (0.8% lower), while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is 0.8% higher. This tight clustering around the 49394 average suggests the i5-14600KF is competitive with many high-end CPUs, though not the absolute fastest.

In Control specifically, the CPU's role is best understood by examining the 1080p Low result of 193 FPS. This high frame rate indicates that the CPU can process game logic and draw calls quickly enough to feed the GPU at very high FPS. If the CPU were a bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates plateau around some value regardless of settings, but the data shows a clear settings-dependent scaling even at 1080p (193 Low vs 106 Ultra). This scaling is driven by the GPU's workload, not the CPU's.

The processor's 20 threads and 5.30 GHz boost clock are more than sufficient for a 2019 title like Control, which was designed for systems with fewer cores. The 14-core configuration (likely 6 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores) provides ample parallel processing headroom, and the 24 MB L3 cache helps with game data locality. The Passmark physics score of 2449 and floating-point math score of 93048 indicate strong computational capabilities that would benefit any game's physics and AI systems, though Control's measured performance suggests these are not stretched by the game's demands.

The CPU's memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5, with dual-channel configuration, gives it flexibility, and its Intel Socket 1700 compatibility ensures broad motherboard options. With a TDP of 125 W and a launch MSRP of $294, it represents a high-performance desktop processor, though pricing is not a factor in this analysis. The 10 nm process node and Raptor Lake architecture, with a die size of 257 mm², round out the technical picture. In Control, the data shows the i5-14600KF provides a stable foundation that allows the RTX 4070 to perform at its measured levels, with no evidence of CPU-induced frame drops or stutters across any of the 12 tested configurations.