Control

Control pairs the Intel Core i7-13700K with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, producing a combination that ranks 1568th out of 1636 tested combos in this title. The benchmark data shows a system heavily constrained by its graphics card, where even a strong 16-core processor cannot compensate for the GPU's limited 4 GB VRAM and modest compute throughput. The measured frame rates across resolutions confirm that this pairing is best suited for 1080p gaming at lower settings, with a 53.5 FPS average at Low settings being the only configuration that approaches smooth playability. The following analysis breaks down the specific roles of each component and the measurable outcomes.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average frame rate achievable with this combo in Control?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 53.5, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only tested configuration where the system exceeds 50 FPS average, indicating that the graphics card is the primary limiting factor.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-threaded performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i7-13700K has an average benchmark score of 47282, placing it 0.1% behind the Intel Core i7-13700KF (47334) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4364P (47131). It also leads the Intel Core i9-12900F (47081) by 0.4%.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all tested graphics cards?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 8713 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, 0.4% slower) and the AMD Radeon 550X (8749, 0.4% slower), while it edges out the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8671) by 0.5%.

Q: How does the combo's overall ranking break down in percentage terms?

A: The combo ranks 1568th out of 1636 total combinations, placing it in the bottom 4% of all tested pairings. This indicates that the graphics card's performance ceiling severely limits the overall system capability in this game.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 2560x1440?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 45.1 FPS average, while Ultra settings drop to 22.1 FPS average. This represents a 23 FPS difference, or roughly a 51% reduction in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

Q: Does the CPU show any signs of bottlenecking in this configuration?

A: No. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39000 and single-core score of 5505 are far beyond what Control requires, and the frame rates scale consistently with GPU load across resolutions. The data shows the GTX 1650 is the definitive bottleneck.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the decisive component in this pairing, and its specifications explain the measured performance ceiling. The GPU features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, operating at a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a critical constraint for Control's asset streaming at higher resolutions and settings. The chip's FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s are modest figures that directly correlate with the frame rates observed.

The GPU's 43rd percentile ranking among all tested graphics cards places it in the lower half of the performance distribution. Its average benchmark score of 8713 is within 0.5% of several rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746) and AMD Radeon 550X (8749), confirming that this is a mid-to-low-tier part in the current landscape. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is particularly problematic for Control at 4K, where the Ultra preset yields only 19 FPS average, and even Low settings struggle to reach 27.3 FPS.

The memory clock of 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) combined with the 128-bit bus creates a bandwidth ceiling that becomes apparent in resolution scaling. At 1920x1080, the GPU can maintain 39.1 FPS on High settings, but moving to 2560x1440 drops that to 25.6 FPS, and 3840x2160 falls to 17.8 FPS. This pattern indicates that memory bandwidth and capacity, rather than raw compute, are the primary constraints at higher resolutions. The GPU's DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility allow it to run the game's modern rendering paths, but the hardware simply lacks the resources to deliver smooth performance above 1080p.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination ranks 1568th out of 1636 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 4.2% of all configurations evaluated in Control. This ranking reflects the severe imbalance between the CPU and GPU: the Core i7-13700K is a top-tier processor (93rd percentile among all CPUs) while the GTX 1650 is a mid-to-low-tier graphics card (43rd percentile). The data indicates that this pairing is fundamentally GPU-limited, and the CPU's capabilities are largely wasted in this context.

Compared to other tested combos, the 1568th rank means that only 68 combinations perform worse. This places the system in a performance tier where playability is marginal at best, with only the 1080p Low setting (53.5 FPS) approaching a smooth experience. The ranking also implies that most other pairings, even those with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs, would deliver better frame rates in Control. The CPU's percentileVsAllCpus of 93% does not translate into gaming advantage here because the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and 2.984 TFLOPS compute capacity become the hard limit.

The delta between the CPU's high percentile and the combo's low rank underscores a critical insight: for this game, the graphics card determines the outcome. The 16-core, 24-thread processor with a 5.40 GHz boost clock could easily drive much higher frame rates, but the GPU cannot keep pace. The 1568th rank is a direct consequence of the GTX 1650's placement in the 43rd percentile, and any upgrade path would require addressing the GPU first.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best results. Low settings produce 53.5 FPS average, which is the only configuration above 50 FPS. Medium settings drop to 39.3 FPS, High settings to 39.1 FPS, and Ultra settings to 33.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 19.7 FPS, or approximately 37%, showing that the GPU's limited resources are heavily taxed by higher quality presets even at the lowest resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance decline is significant. Low settings still manage 45.1 FPS, but Medium falls to 31.9 FPS, High to 25.6 FPS, and Ultra to 22.1 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings represents a 15.7% drop, while at Ultra settings the drop is 34.6%, indicating that the higher resolution amplifies the GPU's memory bandwidth constraints. The 4 GB VRAM capacity likely causes asset thrashing at this resolution with higher settings.

At 3840x2160, the system becomes largely unplayable. Low settings yield 27.3 FPS, Medium 19.7 FPS, Ultra 19 FPS, and High 17.8 FPS. Interestingly, Ultra performs slightly better than High at 4K (19 vs 17.8 FPS), which may reflect different rendering paths or driver optimizations, but all values are well below playable thresholds. The jump from 1440p to 4K at Low settings involves a 39.5% drop, and the overall pattern confirms that this GPU is not viable for 4K gaming in Control.

The resolution scaling data reveals a consistent pattern: the GTX 1650's performance degrades roughly linearly with pixel count, but the degradation is steeper at higher settings. This suggests that the 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is the primary bottleneck, as higher resolutions and settings both increase memory pressure. The 53.5 FPS at 1080p Low represents the only viable gaming configuration, and even that falls short of a locked 60 FPS experience.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-13700K is a 16-core, 24-thread processor based on Raptor Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. It features a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3 cache. This configuration delivers exceptional multi-threaded performance, as evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39000 and a single-core score of 5505.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is largely supportive rather than performance-determining. The game's engine does not heavily utilize the 24 threads, and the measured frame rates show no signs of CPU bottlenecking. The processor's 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 47282, places it just 0.1% behind the Core i7-13700KF (47334) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4364P (47131). This level of compute capability far exceeds what Control requires, especially given the GTX 1650's constraints.

The CPU's single-thread performance, measured at 2850 in Geekbench single-core and 4333 in Passmark single-thread, is more than adequate for the game's main thread. However, the data shows that even with this strong processor, frame rates remain low due to GPU limitations. The 3dmark_max_threads score of 12412 and 3dmark_16_threads score of 10717 demonstrate that the CPU can handle heavy multi-threaded workloads, but Control does not present such a workload. The processor's 30 MB shared L3 cache and DDR4/DDR5 memory support provide a solid foundation, but they cannot overcome the GPU's 4 GB VRAM ceiling. In this pairing, the CPU is effectively underutilized, and its performance headroom is irrelevant to the final frame rates.