Control

Control is an action-adventure title that stresses both the CPU and GPU, and the Intel Core i7-12700K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER produces a specific performance profile across resolutions and settings. The measured data places this combination at rank 1453 out of 1636 tested combos, indicating that while the hardware is competent, it sits in the lower quartile of configurations for this title. The 12-core, 20-thread i7-12700K with a 5.00 GHz boost clock provides substantial processing headroom, but the GTX 1660 SUPER, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 1785 MHz boost clock, becomes the primary constraint as resolution and settings increase. Benchmark results show a clear pattern: the CPU's multi-threaded strength, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 29241, is more than sufficient for Control's demands, yet the GPU's 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance limits frame rates at higher workloads.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The i7-12700K's core configuration—12 cores and 20 threads—combined with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, delivers strong synthetic performance. Its 3DMark max-threads score of 9979 and single-thread score of 1043 suggest that both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads are handled with ease. In Control, which typically relies on a mix of physics calculations and AI routines, this CPU's 25 MB of shared L3 cache and 20 threads provide ample bandwidth for game logic. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 29241 places it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 35684 is within 0.7% of rivals like the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 and the Intel Core i5-14500HX, which score 35802 and 35940 respectively. This near-parity indicates that the CPU is not the bottleneck in most scenarios.

The data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 88.4 FPS, which is the highest measured result across the entire grid. This suggests that even at lower settings, where the GPU has less work, the CPU is capable of pushing frame rates well above playable thresholds. However, as settings rise to Ultra at 1080p, the frame rate drops to 52.4 FPS, a 40.7% reduction from Low. This decline is primarily GPU-driven, as the CPU's performance headroom remains constant. The Passmark multi-thread score of 34404 and single-thread score of 4013 further confirm that the processor can sustain high instruction throughput, but Control's rendering pipeline does not appear to scale with additional CPU headroom beyond what is already available. The CPU's role here is to avoid being a limiting factor, and the data confirms it succeeds—the variance in FPS across settings is almost entirely attributable to GPU load.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Examining the measured FPS rows, the most balanced experience at each resolution is the Medium preset, which offers a meaningful improvement over High without the steep cost of Ultra. At 1080p, Medium delivers 63.6 FPS, while High provides 58.5 FPS and Ultra drops to 52.4 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is 25.1 FPS, from 88.4 to 63.6, which is a significant quality gain for a 24.8 FPS loss. For players targeting a consistent 60 FPS baseline, 1080p Medium is the optimal choice, as it stays above the 60 FPS threshold while offering visual improvements over Low. At 1440p, Medium yields 50.2 FPS, which is below 60 FPS but still playable; High at 45.7 FPS and Ultra at 37.7 FPS show diminishing returns. The 1440p Low setting at 67.9 FPS is the only way to maintain high frame rates at this resolution, but it sacrifices visual fidelity.

At 4K, no preset achieves a playable 60 FPS. Medium at 31.6 FPS and High at 27.3 FPS are both sub-30, while Low at 47.5 FPS is the best option but still under 50 FPS. The Ultra preset at 26.9 FPS is the worst performer, and the data suggests that 4K is not viable for this combo beyond Low settings. The recommendation is to prioritize 1080p Medium for the best combination of smoothness and visual quality, or 1440p Low if higher resolution is preferred. The measured rows show that the step from Medium to High costs 5.1 FPS at 1080p, while the step from High to Ultra costs 6.1 FPS, indicating that Ultra offers minimal benefit for the performance hit. The data supports Medium as the sweet spot, as it provides 20.9% more FPS than High at 1080p and 33.1% more FPS than Ultra.

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

The FPS progression from 1080p to 4K clearly identifies the GPU as the limiting component. At High settings, 1080p yields 58.5 FPS, 1440p drops to 45.7 FPS (a 21.9% reduction), and 4K falls to 27.3 FPS (a 53.3% reduction from 1080p). This scaling pattern is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, where the number of pixels rendered doubles or quadruples, directly impacting the GTX 1660 SUPER's fill rate and memory bandwidth. The GPU's 192-bit memory bus and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for 4K workloads, as evidenced by the steep drop at 3840x2160. In contrast, the CPU's performance does not change with resolution, so the i7-12700K's 3DMark 16-thread score of 9276 remains constant, but the GPU's pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s becomes saturated.

At Low settings, the scaling is more forgiving: 1080p produces 88.4 FPS, 1440p produces 67.9 FPS (23.2% lower), and 4K produces 47.5 FPS (46.3% lower). This indicates that even at minimal settings, the GPU is still the primary bottleneck, as the CPU can easily handle the lower draw calls. The 4K Low result of 47.5 FPS is the only 4K figure above 40 FPS, suggesting that the GPU's 6 GB VRAM is not the limiting factor at Low settings, but rather the raw compute throughput. The difference between 1080p Ultra (52.4 FPS) and 4K Ultra (26.9 FPS) is a 48.7% drop, which aligns with the pixel count increase from 2.07 million to 8.29 million pixels. This scaling behavior confirms that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the sole constraint, as the CPU's performance metrics—such as the Geekbench multi-core score of 13892—show no signs of saturation at any resolution.

FAQ

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

A: Based on the measured data, 1080p is the only resolution where the system consistently exceeds 52 FPS across all settings. At 1440p, only Low settings break 60 FPS (67.9 FPS), while 4K never reaches 50 FPS even at Low (47.5 FPS).

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from High to Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, High produces 58.5 FPS, while Ultra produces 52.4 FPS, a drop of 6.1 FPS or 10.4%. This is the smallest relative penalty among all resolutions, but Ultra still fails to hit the 60 FPS target.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the FPS differences between settings?

A: The GPU is responsible. The CPU's performance is consistent, with a Passmark multi-thread score of 34404, but the FPS drops by up to 40.7% between Low and Ultra at 1080p, which correlates with the GPU's 5.027 TFLOPS limit.

Q: Can this system achieve 60 FPS at 1440p in Control?

A: Only at Low settings, which yields 67.9 FPS. Medium settings drop to 50.2 FPS, and High falls to 45.7 FPS, so 60 FPS is not achievable at higher presets.

Q: What does the 4K Low setting's 47.5 FPS indicate about VRAM usage?

A: The 6 GB VRAM is not a limiting factor at Low settings, as the frame rate is still below 50 FPS, suggesting that the GPU's compute capacity, not memory capacity, is the bottleneck. At 4K High (27.3 FPS), the VRAM may be stressed, but the data shows a consistent GPU-bound pattern.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested configurations?

A: It ranks 1453 out of 1636 combos, placing it in the bottom 11%. This is consistent with the GPU's 55th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the CPU is in the 89th percentile.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The GTX 1660 SUPER's specifications—6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth—are the defining factors in Control's performance. The GPU's boost clock of 1785 MHz and base clock of 1530 MHz provide a moderate compute throughput of 5.027 TFLOPS, which is the primary constraint in this title. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1278 and Passmark G3D score of 12699 place it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14286. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14389) and the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14315), show deltaPct values of -0.7% and -0.2%, respectively, indicating that the GTX 1660 SUPER is statistically tied with these competitors in synthetic benchmarks.

In Control, the GPU's 48 ROPs and 88 TMUs determine the fill rate, and the measured FPS data shows that these resources are exhausted at higher settings. At 1080p Ultra, the GPU produces 52.4 FPS, which is just above the 50 FPS mark, but at 1440p Ultra, it drops to 37.7 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 26.9 FPS is below the 30 FPS playability threshold, illustrating that the GPU's 6 GB VRAM and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth cannot sustain the texture and shader workloads at 8.29 million pixels. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 62664 and Vulkan score of 59933 suggest that the GPU is capable of handling compute tasks, but Control's rendering engine appears to demand more than the 1408 shading units can deliver at high resolutions. The Passmark DirectX 12 score of 50 is notably low, which may explain the poor performance at Ultra settings, where DX12 features are likely utilized.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

1920x1080: The lowest resolution provides the most headroom. Low settings deliver 88.4 FPS, which is the single highest measured result. Medium settings produce 63.6 FPS, a 24.8 FPS drop from Low. High settings yield 58.5 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 52.4 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 36.0 FPS, with each settings tier costing approximately 5-25 FPS. The data shows that 1080p is the only resolution where all presets exceed 50 FPS, making it the most versatile option for this combo.

2560x1440: At 1440p, the performance gap widens. Low settings achieve 67.9 FPS, which is the only preset above 60 FPS. Medium settings drop to 50.2 FPS, a 17.7 FPS reduction. High settings produce 45.7 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 37.7 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 30.2 FPS, indicating a steeper curve than at 1080p. The 1440p High setting of 45.7 FPS is the closest to a 45 FPS baseline, but it is still below the 60 FPS target.

3840x2160: 4K performance is severely limited. Low settings produce 47.5 FPS, which is the only 4K result above 40 FPS. Medium settings drop to 31.6 FPS, a 15.9 FPS reduction. High settings yield 27.3 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 26.9 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 20.6 FPS, but the absolute values are all below 50 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 26.9 FPS is the lowest measured value across the entire grid, confirming that this resolution is not viable for smooth gameplay with this hardware. The data indicates that the GPU's resources are exhausted at 4K, regardless of settings, with the difference between Low and Ultra being only 20.6 FPS, compared to 36.0 FPS at 1080p.