Control

# Control with Intel Core i7-13700K + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090

This combination of the Intel Core i7-13700K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 places at rank 121 out of 3,720 tested combos for Control, putting it in the top 3.3% of all configurations. The pairing of a 16-core Raptor Lake CPU with NVIDIA's flagship Ada Lovelace GPU produces frame rates that range from 76 FPS at 4K Ultra to 272 FPS at 1080p Low, demonstrating that this system is built to handle Control's demanding physics and particle effects at virtually any settings combination.

How This Combo Ranks

The rank of 121 out of 3,720 combos (top 3.3%) tells a clear story: this is an elite configuration for Control. The CPU sits at the 89th percentile against all processors, while the GPU holds the 88th percentile against all graphics cards, yet their combined performance in this specific title lands them even higher than either component's individual standing suggests. This synergy indicates that the i7-13700K provides enough processing headroom to avoid bottlenecking the RTX 4090 in most scenarios. The data shows the combo outperforms its component percentiles, which is notable because Control is known for heavy physics computations that stress CPUs. The 16 cores and 24 threads of the i7-13700K, combined with the 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on the RTX 4090, create a configuration that handles both the game's AI-driven environments and its GPU-intensive visual effects without a clear weak point. Comparing to the nearest CPU rivals, the i7-13700K's average benchmark score of 46,881 is within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX and Intel Xeon w3-2535, and roughly 0.2-0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 5900 and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 — these differences are negligible. On the GPU side, the RTX 4090's 60,347 average score sits just 0.3% above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 and 2.9% above the AMD Radeon PRO V710, though those comparisons involve very different card classes. The ranking shows that while individual components have close rivals on paper, the combination as a whole lands in rarified air for Control specifically.

GPU Role

The RTX 4090 brings 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is critical for Control at higher resolutions, where the game's detailed textures and volumetric effects can consume substantial VRAM. The card's 16,384 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 176 ROPs provide the raw compute throughput needed to maintain high frame rates, while the 128 RT cores handle ray tracing workloads that Control can optionally enable. Clock speeds run at 2235 MHz base and 2520 MHz boost, with memory operating at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective). The 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance gives this card an enormous advantage in traditional rasterization, which is Control's primary rendering path. The data reveals how the GPU's capabilities scale across settings: at 4K, moving from Low (139 FPS) to Medium (99 FPS) costs 40 FPS, while Ultra (76 FPS) costs another 23 FPS from Medium. This 45% drop from Low to Ultra at 4K shows the GPU is heavily loaded by the game's highest presets. At 1080p, the same Low-to-Ultra transition drops from 272 FPS to 149 FPS, a 45% reduction that mirrors the 4K pattern — indicating the GPU is the consistent limiting factor across all resolutions in this title. The 24 GB frame buffer means VRAM capacity is never a constraint, even at 4K Ultra with ray tracing enabled, so the performance differences come purely from compute load rather than memory overflow.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-13700K features 16 cores (8 performance plus 8 efficiency) and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.40 GHz. This Raptor Lake-S processor, built on Intel's 10 nm process, includes 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. For Control, the CPU's role is substantial because the game engine simulates physics-heavy destructible environments and complex AI pathfinding. The benchmark scores illustrate strong multi-threaded capability: Cinebench R23 multi-core hits 30,745, while single-core reaches 2,116. PassMark multi-thread score is 45,887 with single-thread at 4,333. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 10,717 versus max-thread score of 12,412 shows good scaling beyond 16 threads, which matters for Control's ability to spread physics calculations across cores. The data suggests the CPU is well-matched to the GPU in this game. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 272 FPS, which is high enough that CPU overhead could become a factor, yet the frame rates remain consistently above 270. The 89th percentile ranking versus all CPUs confirms this is a top-tier processor, though its nearest rivals are within 0.5% in average score, meaning the i7-13700K doesn't have a meaningful CPU advantage over similarly priced competitors. However, for Control specifically, the combination of high single-thread performance (for game logic) and robust multi-thread capability (for physics) makes this an ideal match. The CPU's 125 W TDP and support for DDR4/DDR5 memory provide flexibility, though the data doesn't indicate which memory type was used in these measurements.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achievable with this combo?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 272 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 206 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it reaches 139 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank compared to other tested configurations?

A: This combo ranks 121st out of 3,720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the top 3.3% of all configurations. The CPU is at the 89th percentile, and the GPU is at the 88th percentile.

Q: What is the lowest average frame rate recorded?

A: The lowest average is 76 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. The next lowest is 88 FPS at 4K High, followed by 99 FPS at 4K Medium.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: At 1080p Low, the system produces 272 FPS, which is so high that CPU overhead becomes relevant, but the frame rate remains excellent. The GPU still shows a clear influence, as dropping from Low to Ultra reduces FPS from 272 to 149, a 45% decrease.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: At Low settings, 4K delivers 139 FPS versus 272 FPS at 1080p, a 49% reduction. At Ultra settings, 4K delivers 76 FPS versus 149 FPS at 1080p, a 49% reduction. The consistent 49% drop suggests resolution scaling is proportional.

Q: What settings provide the most balanced experience at 4K?

A: Medium settings at 4K provide 99 FPS average with 84 FPS minimum and 114 FPS maximum, which is the only settings level at 4K with all three metrics recorded. This offers a smoother experience than High (88 FPS) or Ultra (76 FPS).

Resolution Scaling

The measured data shows a consistent pattern when scaling from 1080p to 4K across all settings levels. At Low settings, 1080p delivers 272 FPS, 1440p delivers 206 FPS, and 4K delivers 139 FPS — representing a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p, then a 33% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total reduction from 1080p to 4K is 49%. At Medium settings, the progression is 194 FPS → 146 FPS → 99 FPS, which is a 25% drop then 32% drop, totaling 49%. High settings show 172 FPS → 130 FPS → 88 FPS, a 24% then 32% reduction, again totaling 49%. Ultra settings follow the same trajectory: 149 FPS → 113 FPS → 76 FPS, with 24% and 33% drops respectively, for a 49% total reduction. This remarkable consistency — every settings level loses exactly 49% of FPS when going from 1080p to 4K — indicates that the rendering load scales uniformly with pixel count, and neither the CPU nor GPU introduces a disproportionate bottleneck at any resolution. The CPU maintains sufficient frame delivery even at 1080p Low where the GPU is producing 272 FPS, suggesting the i7-13700K has headroom beyond this measurement. Meanwhile, the GPU's performance scales almost perfectly with pixel count, confirming that Control's rendering pipeline is computationally bound rather than memory-bandwidth bound (since the 1.01 TB/s bandwidth is more than sufficient). The data implies that users with 1440p monitors get 206 FPS at Low (well beyond any display's refresh rate), while 4K users must choose between 139 FPS at Low or 76 FPS at Ultra — a tradeoff that favors Low or Medium for competitive play.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimal settings at each resolution. At 3840x2160, Medium settings offer the best balance: 99 FPS average with a minimum of 84 FPS and maximum of 114 FPS. This is the only 4K preset with full min/max data, and the 84 FPS minimum ensures smooth gameplay without drops below typical 60 Hz display refresh rates. High settings at 4K (88 FPS) and Ultra (76 FPS) are playable but offer less headroom for demanding scenes. At 2560x1440, Medium settings again provide the sweet spot: 146 FPS average with 124 FPS minimum and 168 FPS maximum. The 124 FPS floor exceeds 120 Hz display capabilities, making this ideal for high-refresh monitors. High settings at 1440p (130 FPS) are also excellent, while Ultra (113 FPS) remains above 100 FPS. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers 194 FPS average with 165 FPS minimum and 223 FPS maximum — the 165 FPS minimum matches the refresh rate of many 165 Hz gaming monitors. High settings (172 FPS) provide strong performance, while Ultra (149 FPS) still exceeds 144 Hz. For all resolutions, Medium settings appear to provide the best experience because they maintain minimum FPS well above the next tier down, while the visual difference between Medium and High is typically modest in Control. Users with 4K 120 Hz displays should note that no 4K preset reaches 120 FPS, so they must either lower resolution or accept the 99 FPS Medium ceiling. The data suggests Ultra settings are only recommended for users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate smoothness, as the transition from High to Ultra costs 12-14% performance at every resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system achieves 272 FPS average at Low settings, 194 FPS at Medium (with 165 FPS minimum and 223 FPS maximum), 172 FPS at High, and 149 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset is the only 1080p setting with complete min/max data, showing a 58 FPS spread between minimum and maximum. At 2560x1440, Low delivers 206 FPS, Medium delivers 146 FPS (with 124 FPS minimum and 168 FPS maximum), High delivers 130 FPS, and Ultra delivers 113 FPS. The 1440p Medium spread is 44 FPS, narrower than at 1080p, suggesting more consistent frame pacing at higher resolution. At 3840x2160, Low produces 139 FPS, Medium produces 99 FPS (with 84 FPS minimum and 114 FPS maximum), High produces 88 FPS, and Ultra produces 76 FPS. The 4K Medium spread is 30 FPS, the tightest of all resolutions, indicating that the GPU's load at 4K creates more stable frame times. Comparing settings tiers across resolutions: Low to Medium costs 78 FPS at 1080p (29% reduction), 60 FPS at 1440p (29%), and 40 FPS at 4K (29%). Medium to High costs 22 FPS at 1080p (11%), 16 FPS at 1440p (11%), and 11 FPS at 4K (11%). High to Ultra costs 23 FPS at 1080p (13%), 17 FPS at 1440p (13%), and 12 FPS at 4K (14%). The consistency of these percentage reductions across resolutions reinforces that the GPU is the dominant performance factor at every settings level. The minimum FPS values at Medium settings scale proportionally: 165 at 1080p, 124 at 1440p, and 84 at 4K — representing 85%, 85%, and 85% of their respective averages, which indicates the game maintains similar frame time consistency regardless of resolution.