Control

# Control with Intel Core i7-12700KF + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

This combination pairs a high-end 12th Gen Intel processor with an entry-level Pascal-era GPU, creating a stark imbalance that the benchmark data makes immediately apparent. The Intel Core i7-12700KF sits in the 85th percentile of all CPUs tested, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti languishes in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, and this gap defines every result in Control. The measured frames per second across all resolutions and settings are consistently low, with the GPU acting as the overwhelming bottleneck in nearly every scenario.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is severe but follows a predictable pattern that points squarely at the graphics card as the limiting component. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 46 FPS at 1920x1080 to 34 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 23 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 26% reduction moving from 1080p to 1440p, followed by another 32% reduction moving to 4K. The scaling is roughly proportional to the pixel count increase, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario.

The High settings curve tells a similar story but from a lower starting point. At 1920x1080, High averages 29 FPS; at 2560x1440, it drops to 22 FPS; and at 3840x2160, it bottoms out at 15 FPS. The percentage drops are 24% and then 32%, nearly identical to the Low settings scaling. This consistency across quality presets strongly indicates that the GTX 1050 Ti's compute and memory throughput are saturated at every resolution, and the CPU's considerable headroom is never meaningfully exercised.

At Medium settings, the only preset with min and max FPS data, the 1920x1080 result averages 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 37. At 2560x1440, Medium averages 24 FPS (min 21, max 28), and at 3840x2160, it averages 17 FPS (min 14, max 19). The frame time consistency, as evidenced by the narrow min-max ranges, suggests that the GPU is delivering steady, unremarkable performance rather than spiking or stuttering. The Ultra preset follows the same downward trajectory: 25 FPS at 1080p, 19 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K.

The data shows that even the most demanding 4K Ultra configuration only reduces performance by roughly half compared to 1080p Low, which is a modest penalty given the fourfold increase in pixel count. This occurs because the GTX 1050 Ti is already so far below the performance ceiling that additional resolution pressure has diminishing relative impact. In practical terms, no resolution or settings combination in this dataset achieves a consistently playable frame rate, which reinforces the conclusion that the GPU is the sole limiter.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific pairing of the Intel Core i7-12700KF with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti ranks 3670 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. That places it in the bottom 1.3% of all system configurations, which is an exceptionally poor result for a processor that individually outperforms 85% of all CPUs in the benchmark database. The ranking is driven almost entirely by the GPU's weak standing, as the GTX 1050 Ti's average benchmark score of 4193 puts it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD Radeon R5 M330, which scores 4170 (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at 4151 (1% behind). On the other side, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241 (1.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4268 (1.8% ahead). These deltas are all within roughly two percentage points, meaning the GTX 1050 Ti is clustered with some of the weakest graphics solutions in the database. No amount of CPU power can compensate for this level of GPU limitation in a graphically intensive title like Control.

The CPU, by contrast, sits in a much more competitive position. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700T (average score 35403, 0.1% behind), the Intel Core i5-13600T (35305, 0.2% ahead), the Intel Core 5 213PE (35428, 0.2% behind), and the Intel Core i7-12700K (35287, 0.2% ahead). These are all top-tier processors with virtually identical average benchmark scores, confirming that the i7-12700KF is not the issue in this configuration. The combination rank of 3670 out of 3720 is a clear indictment of the GPU's inability to keep pace with the CPU's potential.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-12700KF brings substantial processing resources to this pairing, with 12 cores and 20 threads based on the Alder Lake architecture. Its base clock of 3.60 GHz can boost up to 5.00 GHz, and the 25 MB of shared L3 cache provides ample capacity for game data. Benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 28838, while the single-core score is 4071. PassMark multithread results hit 34092, and the 3DMark 16-thread test scores 9282, with a max-thread score of 9983.

However, none of this processing capability translates into meaningful frame rates in Control when paired with the GTX 1050 Ti. The game's measured performance is uniformly low across all settings, and the FPS scaling with resolution follows a pixel-bound pattern rather than a CPU-bound one. If the processor were the limiting factor, we would expect to see larger FPS differences between Low and Ultra settings at the same resolution, as the CPU would struggle to feed the GPU with draw calls. Instead, the data shows that Ultra at 1080p (25 FPS) is just 46% slower than Low at 1080p (46 FPS), which is a modest gap for such a large quality difference.

The CPU's single-thread performance, as measured by Cinebench R15 at 410 and Geekbench single-core at 2255, is more than adequate for Control's engine. The 3DMark 2-thread score of 2065 and 4-thread score of 4011 further demonstrate that even lightly threaded workloads are handled with ease. In any scenario where the GPU were more capable, this processor would likely deliver strong results. But with the GTX 1050 Ti's 768 shading units and 112.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth, the CPU simply waits at idle while the GPU struggles to render each frame.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the GTX 1050 Ti produces its best results but still falls short of smooth gameplay. Low settings average 46 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that approaches playability. Medium settings drop to 32 FPS (min 27, max 37), High settings average 29 FPS, and Ultra settings average 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 21 FPS, or roughly 46%, indicating that the GPU has some headroom to trade quality for performance at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance ceiling lowers considerably. Low settings average 34 FPS, a 26% drop from the 1080p result. Medium settings average 24 FPS (min 21, max 28), High settings average 22 FPS, and Ultra settings average 19 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra narrows to 15 FPS, showing that the GPU is becoming more saturated as pixel count rises. At 1440p, no settings preset achieves even 35 FPS on average.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings average 23 FPS, Medium settings average 17 FPS (min 14, max 19), High settings average 15 FPS, and Ultra settings average 13 FPS. The difference between the best and worst presets at 4K is only 10 FPS, confirming that the GPU is fully maxed out regardless of quality settings. The minimum FPS of 14 at 4K Medium indicates that frame drops can push the experience below 15 FPS, which is borderline unplayable for any action game.

The measured data includes only average FPS for most configurations, but the Medium preset at each resolution includes min and max values. At 1080p Medium, frames range from 27 to 37; at 1440p Medium, from 21 to 28; and at 4K Medium, from 14 to 19. These ranges are consistently narrow, suggesting stable frame pacing rather than erratic spikes. The overall picture is one of a GPU that delivers exactly what its modest specifications suggest, with no surprises in either direction.

FAQ

Q: Is this combination capable of running Control at 1080p?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, where the average FPS is 46. Medium settings drop to 32 FPS, and High and Ultra fall to 29 and 25 FPS respectively, all of which are below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the best resolution for this pairing?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 provides the highest frame rates across all settings. At 2560x1440, performance drops by roughly 24-26%, and at 3840x2160, it falls by another 30-35%, making 1080p the only viable option.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 4193 places it 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170) and 1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151), but 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241) and 1.8% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268).

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-12700KF the bottleneck in this system?

A: No. The CPU ranks in the 85th percentile of all processors, and its nearest rivals all have average benchmark scores within 0.2% of its 35365. The GPU's 25th percentile ranking and the FPS scaling patterns clearly identify the GTX 1050 Ti as the limiting component.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 4K with this setup?

A: At 3840x2160, Low settings average 23 FPS, Medium averages 17 FPS (min 14, max 19), High averages 15 FPS, and Ultra averages 13 FPS. None of these are playable for a fast-paced action game.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations for Control?

A: It ranks 3670 out of 3720 combinations, placing it in the bottom 1.3% of all systems tested. This is primarily due to the GPU's weak performance, as the CPU is a top-tier processor.

Settings Recommendations

The benchmark data supports only one practical choice for this configuration: 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the sole combination that achieves an average FPS above 40, at 46 FPS, which is the minimum threshold for acceptable playability in an action-adventure title like Control. The 1080p Low preset also leaves a small amount of headroom for frame drops, though the data does not include min FPS for this configuration.

For users willing to accept lower frame rates in exchange for better visuals, 1080p Medium at 32 FPS (min 27, max 37) is the next best option. The min FPS of 27 suggests that the experience will remain above 25 FPS most of the time, which may be tolerable for less action-heavy sections of the game. However, the jump from Low to Medium costs 14 FPS on average, a 30% performance penalty that is difficult to justify given the modest visual improvement on a 4 GB GPU.

High and Ultra settings at 1080p, at 29 and 25 FPS respectively, are not recommended. The frame rates dip into territory where combat encounters and rapid camera movements will feel sluggish. At 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, no settings preset achieves even 35 FPS, making those resolutions impractical for this combination. The data is unambiguous: this system is limited to 1080p Low for a functional Control experience, and every other configuration is a compromise that sacrifices too much performance for too little visual gain.