Control

Control, Remedy’s 2019 action-adventure, presents a fascinating stress test for the Intel Core i7-12700KF paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX. The benchmark data reveals a system with immense headroom, particularly at lower resolutions, but one whose performance curve is heavily dictated by the graphics settings and the resolution chosen. This analysis examines the measured FPS across all presets to understand where the bottleneck lies and how this specific combo ranks against the broader database.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable decline as resolution increases, but the rate of that decline is more telling than the raw numbers. At the "Low" settings preset, the system delivers 225 FPS at 1920x1080, which drops to 170 FPS at 2560x1440, and further to 115 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 49% reduction in performance from 1080p to 4K. This is a significant drop, indicating that even at the lowest graphical fidelity, the GPU is being pushed substantially harder at higher pixel counts.

However, the scaling pattern shifts dramatically when moving to the "Ultra" settings preset. At 1080p, the system produces 123 FPS, which falls to 93 FPS at 1440p, and bottoms out at 63 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K here is roughly 49% as well, but the absolute difference is much smaller (60 FPS vs. 110 FPS). This suggests that at Ultra settings, the load is more balanced, but the GPU is still the primary limiting factor as the resolution climbs.

The "Medium" settings preset offers the most granular data with min and max FPS values. At 1080p, the average is 160 FPS with a minimum of 136 FPS. Moving to 1440p, the average drops to 121 FPS with a minimum of 103 FPS. At 4K, the average is 82 FPS with a minimum of 69 FPS. The frame time consistency appears to hold up well, as the difference between average and minimum FPS stays relatively proportional across resolutions. The data indicates that the RX 7900 XTX is capable of maintaining high frame rates even when pixel count quadruples, but the scaling is not linear, underscoring the GPU's workload.

The most compelling insight from the scaling is the difference between 1080p and 1440p. At "High" settings, the system drops from 142 FPS to 107 FPS, a 25% decrease. This is a substantial hit for a 78% increase in pixel count, suggesting that the GPU's raw throughput is being taxed heavily. The fact that the 1080p "Low" preset hits 225 FPS while the 4K "Ultra" preset only manages 63 FPS highlights that this combination is far more capable at lower resolutions, where the CPU's strong single-thread performance can keep up with the GPU's frame generation.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is the undisputed workhorse in this pairing, and its specifications explain the performance ceiling. With 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, it offers 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is critical for a game like Control, which features complex textures and physics-based effects. The "Medium" preset at 4K shows a 69 FPS minimum, and the GPU's 24 GB frame buffer is likely why it avoids severe stutters or texture pop-in, even at high resolutions.

The GPU's clock speeds are also a factor. The boost clock of 2498 MHz and a game clock of 2365 MHz allow for substantial computational throughput. This is reflected in the 1080p "Low" result of 225 FPS, which is a scenario likely to be primarily CPU-bound. The fact that the frame rate doesn't scale linearly with resolution from 1440p to 4K (170 to 115 FPS at Low settings) points to the GPU's fill-rate and shading capabilities becoming the limiting factor. The 61.39 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is being heavily utilized at 4K, especially with the "Ultra" preset's 63 FPS average.

The GPU's benchmark percentile of 64 versus all GPUs is notable, but its nearest rivals in the database are older cards like the NVIDIA TITAN Xp (which it beats by 1.2%) and the Quadro K5200 (which it beats by 1%). This is a strange comparison group, suggesting that the database's matching algorithm may place it alongside cards with similar average benchmark scores, even if their architectures and feature sets are entirely different. In practice, the RX 7900 XTX's 24 GB VRAM and modern RDNA 3.0 architecture are what enable the high frame rates seen here, particularly at 4K "High" (72 FPS) and "Ultra" (63 FPS).

The VRAM capacity is a crucial detail. In a game like Control, which can be demanding on memory, having 24 GB ensures that the GPU never has to fall back on system memory, which would cause severe frame drops. The data supports this, as even the 4K "Medium" preset maintains a minimum of 69 FPS. This suggests that the GPU's memory subsystem is not a bottleneck, and the performance is instead dictated by the core compute and rasterization units.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-12700KF provides the foundation for these high frame rates, and its architecture is key to understanding its role. With 12 cores and 20 threads, it offers substantial multi-threaded capability, but its performance in this game is more likely tied to its single-core speed. The boost clock of 5.00 GHz is a significant asset. At 1080p with "Low" settings, the system hits 225 FPS, a scenario that is almost certainly CPU-bound. The CPU's ability to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic at that speed is the only way to achieve such a high frame rate.

The CPU's benchmark scores reflect its balanced nature. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28838 is strong, but the single-core score of 4071 is equally important for gaming. This combination of high multi-core and single-core performance allows the i7-12700KF to avoid becoming a bottleneck in most scenarios. However, the data also shows where the CPU might start to limit the GPU. At 1080p "Ultra" (123 FPS) versus 1080p "High" (142 FPS), the frame rate drops as the GPU works harder, but it's not until you compare 1080p "Low" (225 FPS) to 1440p "Low" (170 FPS) that you see a pure GPU-bound scaling.

The CPU's 25 MB of shared L3 cache is another factor. This large cache helps keep frequently accessed data close to the cores, reducing latency. This is particularly beneficial in a fast-paced action game where the CPU is constantly processing player inputs, enemy AI, and physics calculations. The 3dmark single-thread score of 1043 and the passmark single-thread score of 3984 both indicate that the CPU's single-threaded capabilities are more than adequate for the demands of Control.

In terms of its standing among rivals, the i7-12700KF has an average benchmark score of 35365, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-12700K, is only 0.2% behind, which shows that the "F" variant (without integrated graphics) offers nearly identical performance. The data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in most of the measured resolutions, except perhaps at the very high frame rates seen at 1080p "Low," where it is likely the primary driver.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Core i7-12700KF and the Radeon RX 7900 XTX ranks at 536 out of 3720 tested combos in Control, placing it in the top 14% of all systems. This is a strong showing, but it is not at the very top, which suggests that other combinations—likely those with even stronger CPUs or more specialized GPUs—can achieve higher frame rates. The rank of 536 indicates that this system is well above average but leaves some performance on the table.

This ranking is somewhat inconsistent when considering the individual components' percentiles. The CPU is in the 85th percentile, while the GPU is only in the 64th percentile. This mismatch suggests that the GPU's relative standing in the synthetic benchmarks drags down the combo's overall rank in a real game. The GPU's nearest rivals, such as the GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (which is 0.4% ahead) and the TITAN Xp (which is 1.2% behind), are much older cards, which is an odd statistical artifact. In practice, the RX 7900 XTX's modern features and 24 GB VRAM make it far more capable in a game like Control than those older cards.

The combo rank of 536 out of 3720 is a useful metric, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The measured FPS data shows that this system is capable of excellent performance in absolute terms, particularly at 1440p and 1080p. The ranking is likely pulled down by the GPU's mediocre percentile score, which may be based on a wide range of synthetic benchmarks that don't reflect real-world gaming performance. The data indicates that in this specific game, the combo is a high performer, even if its statistical rank isn't in the top 100.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following data is drawn directly from the measured FPS rows, providing a comprehensive look at performance across all resolutions and settings.

At 1920x1080:

• Low: 225 FPS average
• Medium: 160 FPS average, with a minimum of 136 FPS and a maximum of 184 FPS
• High: 142 FPS average
• Ultra: 123 FPS average

At 2560x1440:

• Low: 170 FPS average
• Medium: 121 FPS average, with a minimum of 103 FPS and a maximum of 139 FPS
• High: 107 FPS average
• Ultra: 93 FPS average

At 3840x2160:

• Low: 115 FPS average
• Medium: 82 FPS average, with a minimum of 69 FPS and a maximum of 94 FPS
• High: 72 FPS average
• Ultra: 63 FPS average

The "Medium" preset is the only one with complete min/max data, which allows for a closer look at frame pacing. At 1080p, the gap between average and minimum is 24 FPS, which is about 15% of the average. At 1440p, the gap is 18 FPS (about 15% of the average), and at 4K, the gap is 13 FPS (also about 15% of the average). This consistency indicates that the system handles the increased load of higher resolutions without introducing additional frame time variance, which is a sign of a well-balanced component pairing.

The scaling from "Low" to "Ultra" at each resolution is also informative. At 1080p, the drop from 225 to 123 FPS is a 45% reduction. At 1440p, the drop from 170 to 93 FPS is a 45% reduction. At 4K, the drop from 115 to 63 FPS is a 45% reduction. This consistent percentage drop across resolutions suggests that the GPU's performance scales predictably with the increase in graphical fidelity, regardless of the pixel count.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the best experience depends heavily on the target resolution and refresh rate of the user's display.

For 1080p users with a high refresh rate monitor (144Hz or above), the "High" preset at 142 FPS is the sweet spot. It offers a significant visual upgrade over "Medium" (160 FPS) for a relatively small cost in average frame rate (18 FPS). The "Ultra" preset at 123 FPS is still playable, but the 13% drop from "High" may not be worth the marginal visual gains, especially if the display is 144Hz, as it may dip below the refresh rate in demanding scenes.

For 1440p users, the "High" preset at 107 FPS is the recommended starting point. It provides a smooth experience on a 144Hz monitor, though it won't max out the refresh rate. For those with a 60Hz display, the "Ultra" preset at 93 FPS offers the best image quality without any risk of dropping below the display's native refresh rate. The "Medium" preset at 121 FPS is a strong alternative for those who prioritize frame rate over absolute visual fidelity, as it stays above 100 FPS consistently.

For 4K users, the data suggests that "High" settings at 72 FPS is the most balanced option, providing a playable experience on a 60Hz display with solid visual quality. The "Ultra" preset at 63 FPS is also viable for a 60Hz display, but it leaves less headroom for demanding scenes. The "Medium" preset at 82 FPS is the best choice for those who want to ensure a stable frame rate above 70 FPS, but it sacrifices some visual polish. The "Low" preset at 115 FPS is overkill for a 60Hz display but would be ideal for a 120Hz 4K monitor, though the visual compromises are steep.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to achieve 100+ FPS?

A: At 1080p, the "Ultra" preset achieves 123 FPS, and at 1440p, the "Medium" preset achieves 121 FPS. For a guaranteed 100+ FPS experience, 1080p "High" (142 FPS) or 1440p "Medium" (121 FPS) are the recommended settings.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming?

A: Yes, the measured data shows that at 4K, the "High" preset averages 72 FPS and the "Ultra" preset averages 63 FPS, which is playable on a 60Hz monitor. The "Medium" preset at 82 FPS is also a solid option for higher refresh rates.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck at 1080p?

A: The data at 1080p "Low" (225 FPS) suggests the CPU is capable of very high frame rates. However, the consistent scaling from "Low" to "Ultra" (225 to 123 FPS) indicates the GPU becomes the limiting factor as settings increase, typical for a modern title.

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

A: In Control, this combo ranks 536 out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the top 14% of all systems in the database.

Q: Does the GPU's 24 GB of VRAM make a difference?

A: The 24 GB of VRAM ensures that the GPU has ample memory for high-resolution textures and effects. The stable minimum frame rates, such as 69 FPS at 4K "Medium," suggest that memory capacity is not a bottleneck in this game.

Q: Is there a significant difference between the "Medium" and "High" presets?

A: Yes, the performance cost is notable. At 1080p, moving from "Medium" (160 FPS) to "High" (142 FPS) costs 18 FPS. At 1440p, it costs 14 FPS (121 to 107), and at 4K, it costs 10 FPS (82 to 72). The visual upgrade is typically worth it, but the data shows a clear performance trade-off at every resolution.