Control

Control with an Intel Core i7-13700K and an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti presents a stark study in component pairing. The data shows a top-tier 16-core processor constrained by a GPU that sits at the 25th percentile of all tested graphics cards. The result is a frame rate profile that is consistently low across all settings and resolutions, with the processor never coming close to being the limiting factor. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, the role each component plays, and what the data implies for anyone running this configuration.

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

The Intel Core i7-13700K is a 16-core, 24-thread processor built on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. It carries a 30 MB shared L3 cache and a 125 W TDP, and its benchmark scores place it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs tested. In synthetic workloads, it achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 30745 and a single-core score of 2116, indicating massive headroom for any gaming workload, including the physics and AI simulation in Control.

However, this CPU’s capability is almost entirely irrelevant to the measured FPS in this pairing. Across all twelve data points, the average frame rates are low, ranging from 13 FPS to 46 FPS. For context, the CPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 5900, which scores a nearly identical average benchmark score (46971 vs 46881, a delta of -0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX, which is 0.5% ahead. These are all high-end processors that would easily push hundreds of frames in most games if paired with a capable GPU. The fact that this combo struggles to hit 46 FPS at 1080p Low proves the bottleneck is not the processor.

The data implies that the i7-13700K is operating at a fraction of its potential. In this specific game, the CPU is effectively idle, waiting on the GPU to deliver frames. The processor’s 3dmark scores, such as 12412 for max threads and 1136 for single-thread, are excellent and would support high-refresh-rate gaming with a balanced graphics card. But with the GTX 1050 Ti, the CPU's role is reduced to ensuring the minimum frame times are stable, which the data suggests it does, as no minFps values are reported for most settings, potentially indicating no major stutters. The bottleneck is purely on the graphics side, making the CPU a silent observer in the performance equation.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a Pascal-architecture card with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1291 MHz with a boost of 1392 MHz, and it has 768 shading units. The card’s benchmark scores are modest, placing it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4193. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (0.6% ahead) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (1% ahead), confirming its entry-level positioning.

This GPU is the definitive performance limiter in Control. The data shows that even at 1080p Low, the card only manages an average of 46 FPS. At higher settings and resolutions, the frame rate collapses, with 4K Ultra averaging just 13 FPS. The 4 GB VRAM is a likely contributing factor, as Control is a texture-heavy game, and exceeding this limit forces the system to use slower system memory, causing severe frame drops. The measured results at 1440p Medium show a minFps of 21 and a maxFps of 28, indicating tight but low performance windows.

The GTX 1050 Ti’s compute capabilities, such as its 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 performance, are simply insufficient for the demands of Control’s rendering. The card’s DirectX 12 benchmark score of 26 out of 100 on Passmark is particularly telling, as Control is a DirectX 12 title. The data points to a GPU that is overwhelmed by the game’s visual effects, physics, and particle systems, regardless of the resolution or quality preset used. The processor is ready, but the GPU cannot deliver the frames.

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

Given the measured data, the only playable configuration is at 1080p with the Low preset, which yields an average of 46 FPS. This is the only setting that approaches a consistently smooth experience, though it still falls short of 60 FPS. The 1080p Medium preset drops to 32 FPS, which is a significant 14 FPS penalty for the increased visual quality. The step from Low to Medium at 1080p represents a 30% reduction in frame rate, making it a poor trade-off for this hardware.

At 1440p, the Low preset averages 34 FPS, which is still below the 1080p Low result but might be acceptable for users prioritizing resolution over smoothness. However, the data suggests that 1080p Low is the sweet spot for playability. The 1440p Medium and High presets average 24 FPS and 22 FPS respectively, which are too low for a responsive action game. At 4K, all presets are unplayable, with the Low preset averaging just 23 FPS.

The recommendation is clear: use 1080p Low. The alternative is to lower the resolution further, but no data exists below 1080p. The data indicates that the GTX 1050 Ti is not capable of handling Control’s medium or high settings at any resolution without dropping below 30 FPS. The performance gap between Low and Medium is the largest jump, suggesting that the Medium preset introduces rendering features that heavily tax this specific GPU.

FAQ

Q: What is the best frame rate this combo can achieve?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 46, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low settings preset.

Q: Can this hardware run Control at 4K?

A: Technically yes, but not playably. The best 4K result is 23 FPS on the Low preset, with Ultra dipping to 13 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its rivals?

A: The i7-13700K is 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 5900 and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX in average benchmark score, showing it is a top-tier processor.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its rivals?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti is 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M330 and 1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, indicating it is at the bottom of the performance spectrum.

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

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the bottleneck, as frame rates are low even at 1080p Low, despite the CPU being in the 89th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at 1440p Medium?

A: The measured data shows a minFps of 21 and a maxFps of 28, with an average of 24 FPS, indicating a relatively tight but low performance range.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions is the most direct evidence of the GPU bottleneck. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 46 FPS at 1080p to 34 FPS at 1440p, a 26% decrease, and then to 23 FPS at 4K, a further 32% decrease from 1440p. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain relatively flat as resolution decreases, because the processor’s workload would not change significantly.

At High settings, the drop is from 29 FPS at 1080p to 22 FPS at 1440p (a 24% decrease) and then to 15 FPS at 4K (a 32% decrease). The consistent percentage drops across settings suggest that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are being saturated at all resolutions. The pixel count increases by 2.25x from 1080p to 4K, and the data shows about a 50% reduction in FPS for Low settings (46 to 23), which is less than linear, but this is because the GPU is already so heavily loaded that other bottlenecks, like memory bandwidth, come into play.

This scaling confirms that the GTX 1050 Ti is the sole limiting factor. The i7-13700K has more than enough headroom to handle the increased draw calls and game logic at 4K, but the GPU cannot render the extra pixels. The data implies that upgrading the GPU would yield massive performance gains, while upgrading the CPU would yield almost none. The 4K results are particularly telling, with Ultra hitting 13 FPS, showing the GPU is completely overwhelmed by the resolution and settings.

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

The complete measured data set provides a clear picture of the performance envelope.

1920x1080:

• Low: 46 FPS average
• Medium: 32 FPS average, with min 27 and max 37
• High: 29 FPS average
• Ultra: 25 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 34 FPS average
• Medium: 24 FPS average, with min 21 and max 28
• High: 22 FPS average
• Ultra: 19 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 23 FPS average
• Medium: 17 FPS average, with min 14 and max 19
• High: 15 FPS average
• Ultra: 13 FPS average

The data shows a distinct hierarchy. At 1080p, the jump from Low to Medium costs 14 FPS, which is the largest single-preset penalty in the entire dataset. This suggests that the Medium preset introduces a rendering feature that is particularly expensive on this GPU. At 1440p and 4K, the differences between presets are smaller, as the GPU is already struggling with the resolution. The minFps values, when available, show that the Medium preset has some frame time variance, but the overall averages are consistently low.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core i7-13700K and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti ranks 3670 out of 3720 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 1.3% of all configurations tested for this game. The rank is a direct consequence of the GPU’s low performance, as the CPU is a top-tier component. The data implies that this pairing is one of the weakest possible for Control, likely matching an old, low-end GPU with a modern high-end CPU.

The ranking is a strong indicator that this is an unbalanced build for this title. While the CPU is in the 89th percentile, the GPU is in the 25th percentile, and the game’s performance is dictated by the weaker component. The combo rank of 3670 suggests that nearly every other combination of hardware tested will deliver better performance in Control. This is a clear case where the GPU is the primary constraint, and the CPU’s potential is entirely wasted in this context. The data indicates that users with this pairing would benefit more from a GPU upgrade than any other change.