Control

# Control with Intel Core i7-13700K + AMD Radeon RX 7600

The Intel Core i7-13700K paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 lands at rank 1113 out of 1636 tested combos in Control, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. This is a 16-core, 24-thread Raptor Lake CPU with a 5.40 GHz boost clock and a 30 MB shared L3 cache, driving an 8 GB GDDR6 GPU with a 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The combination is not a top-tier performer in this title, but the data reveals a system that can deliver playable framerates at 1080p and 1440p with the right settings, while 4K remains a stretch.

How This Combo Ranks

At rank 1113 of 1636, this combo sits in the 32nd percentile of all tested pairings in Control. That places it firmly behind the majority of configurations, but the ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU's 63rd percentile standing among all GPUs, whereas the CPU ranks in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The bottleneck is clearly the graphics card.

The i7-13700K's nearest rivals in CPU benchmark scores include the Intel Core i7-13700KF at 47334 (delta -0.1%), the AMD EPYC 4364P at 47131 (delta 0.3%), and the Intel Core i9-12900F at 47081 (delta 0.4%). These tiny deltas mean the CPU is essentially interchangeable with its closest competitors for this game. The GPU, meanwhile, sits within 1.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (20146, delta 0.6%), the AMD Radeon RX 460 (20088, delta 0.8%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, delta -1.3%), and the Intel Arc B570 (20556, delta -1.5%). The RX 7600's 20258 average benchmark score is competitive within its immediate class, but that class is not a high one.

The practical takeaway: this combo's rank is a GPU-limited result. The CPU has headroom to spare, and swapping the RX 7600 for a stronger card would likely move this combo up the rankings substantially. The data shows that in Control, this pairing is about what the GPU can deliver, not what the CPU is holding back.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 is an 8 GB GDDR6 card built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with a 204 mm² die and 13,300 million transistors on a 6 nm TSMC process. Its boost clock reaches 2655 MHz with a game clock of 2250 MHz, and memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The 128-bit memory bus yields 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by current standards but adequate for a card in this class.

In Control, the GPU's 8 GB frame buffer is the critical constraint. The game at 4K Ultra demands more memory and bandwidth than this card can comfortably supply, which is reflected in the 35.8 FPS average at that setting. The GPU's pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s and texture rate of 339.8 GTexel/s are respectable, but the 21.75 TFLOPS FP32 compute is not enough to push high framerates at 4K in a title like Control.

The GPU's 63rd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with a passmark G3D score of 16634, indicates it performs in line with mid-range expectations. The 32 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support mean ray tracing is technically available, but the data here does not show ray tracing performance—the measured FPS values are for standard rasterization at various settings. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p and most 1440p scenarios, but it becomes a limiting factor at 4K, where the game's texture and geometry demands exceed what the buffer can efficiently handle.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 117.9 at 1080p to 92.8 at 1440p (a 21.3% drop) and then to 59.6 at 4K (a 35.8% drop from 1440p). At High settings, the progression is 75.6 at 1080p to 55 at 1440p (27.2% drop) to 39.9 at 4K (27.5% drop). At Ultra, it goes from 67.5 at 1080p to 48.1 at 1440p (28.7% drop) to 35.8 at 4K (25.6% drop).

This pattern indicates a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. The CPU, with its 3dmark max threads score of 12412 and Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39000, is not the limiting factor here—it can feed the GPU at any resolution. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is roughly linear with pixel count, which is typical for a GPU-limited workload. The 4K results show less percentage drop from 1440p than the 1440p drop from 1080p, suggesting the GPU is hitting a memory bandwidth wall where additional pixels cost less relative performance.

The 4K numbers hover around 35-60 FPS depending on settings, which is playable but not smooth for a fast-paced action game. The 1440p results are more promising, with Low hitting 92.8 FPS and Medium reaching 65 FPS, both of which are acceptable for most players. At 1080p, the card delivers 117.9 FPS at Low and 86.8 FPS at Medium, showing that this combo is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming rather than 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are: Low 117.9, Medium 86.8, High 75.6, and Ultra 67.5. The gap between Low and Ultra is 50.4 FPS, representing a 42.8% performance penalty for the highest settings. The step from Low to Medium costs 31.1 FPS (26.4% drop), while Medium to High costs 11.2 FPS (12.9% drop), and High to Ultra costs 8.1 FPS (10.7% drop). This diminishing returns curve suggests that Medium offers the best balance of visual quality and performance at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low 92.8, Medium 65, High 55, and Ultra 48.1. The Low to Medium drop is 27.8 FPS (30% loss), which is steeper than at 1080p. High to Ultra costs 6.9 FPS (12.5% drop), indicating that Ultra is not disproportionately expensive at this resolution. The 1440p Medium result of 65 FPS is smooth for most gameplay, while High at 55 FPS is borderline but playable for less demanding scenes.

At 3840x2160, the numbers fall to: Low 59.6, Medium 40.4, High 39.9, and Ultra 35.8. The Low setting is the only one that breaks 60 FPS, and even that is marginal. Medium and High are nearly identical (40.4 vs 39.9), suggesting a bottleneck other than raw pixel count—likely the 8 GB VRAM filling up. Ultra drops to 35.8 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable action gameplay.

The data shows that this combo's sweet spot is 1080p Medium to High, or 1440p Low to Medium. At 4K, only Low settings are viable, and even then the 59.6 FPS average is not ideal for a game that rewards responsiveness.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the best experience is at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, delivering 86.8 FPS average. This is 14.9% faster than High (75.6 FPS) and 28.1% faster than Ultra (67.5 FPS), while the visual difference between Medium and High in Control is typically modest. The 86.8 FPS figure comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS threshold for smooth play, and the 117.9 FPS at Low is available if competitive framerates are the priority, though Low sacrifices significant visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, Medium at 65 FPS is the recommended setting. It provides a playable framerate with better image clarity than 1080p, and it is 18.2% faster than High (55 FPS) and 35.1% faster than Ultra (48.1 FPS). The 65 FPS average is sufficient for most players, though those sensitive to frame pacing may prefer Low at 92.8 FPS, which offers a 42.8% performance headroom.

At 3840x2160, the data suggests avoiding this resolution entirely unless Low settings are acceptable. The 59.6 FPS at Low is the only 4K result above 60 FPS, and it is barely there. Medium at 40.4 FPS and High at 39.9 FPS are nearly identical, which indicates a VRAM or bandwidth limitation that settings tweaks cannot overcome. For 4K, the recommendation is to drop to 1440p Medium for a much better experience, as the 65 FPS result is 61% higher than the 4K Medium figure.

The best overall experience per the data is 1080p Medium, which balances framerate, visual quality, and consistency. For players with 1440p monitors, Medium is the pragmatic choice. Ultra settings are only worth it at 1080p if the player prioritizes visuals over framerate, but the 67.5 FPS result is still acceptable.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the strongest resolution, with Medium delivering 86.8 FPS and High hitting 75.6 FPS. At 1440p, Medium drops to 65 FPS, and at 4K, only Low (59.6 FPS) approaches playable levels.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Control?

A: Not well. The only 4K result above 60 FPS is Low at 59.6 FPS, which is marginal. Medium (40.4 FPS), High (39.9 FPS), and Ultra (35.8 FPS) are all below the smooth-play threshold, indicating the 8 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are limiting factors.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this pairing?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The i7-13700K ranks in the 93rd percentile among CPUs, while the RX 7600 sits in the 63rd percentile among GPUs. The FPS scaling across resolutions follows a GPU-bound pattern, and the CPU's nearest rivals show nearly identical scores (deltas under 0.5%).

Q: How much FPS do I lose going from Low to Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low averages 117.9 FPS and Ultra averages 67.5 FPS, a difference of 50.4 FPS (42.8% loss). Medium (86.8 FPS) and High (75.6 FPS) sit in between, with Medium offering the best trade-off.

Q: Is there a big difference between Medium and High at 1440p?

A: Yes, the data shows a 10 FPS drop from Medium (65 FPS) to High (55 FPS), which is a 15.4% penalty. The visual improvement from Medium to High in Control is not proportional to that performance cost, so Medium is the recommended setting.

Q: How does this combo compare to the RX 7600 XT in overall GPU performance?

A: The RX 7600 has an average benchmark score of 20258, while the RX 7600 XT scores 20146, a delta of 0.6%. This means the two are statistically equivalent in raw performance, so the 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus are the real differentiators, not raw compute.