Control

Control is an action-adventure title from 2019 that leans heavily on physics-driven combat and complex environmental destruction. In this analysis, the combination of the Intel Core i7-14700F and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 produces a system that is firmly capable of delivering a smooth experience at 1080p and 1440p, but the data shows a clear shift in performance dynamics at 4K. Benchmark results indicate that the CPU provides ample headroom for this game, while the GPU becomes the definitive limiting factor as resolution scales, making settings management crucial for maintaining frame rates in the 60 FPS range. The system ranks at position 1632 out of 2888 tested combos for this title, placing it in the upper-middle tier of potential configurations.

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

The Intel Core i7-14700F is a 20-core, 28-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. For a game like Control, which was released in 2019, this represents a significant amount of processing power. The CPU's benchmark scores support this notion; its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35122 and single-core score of 4958 are strong indicators of its ability to handle both the heavily threaded background tasks of the game engine and the primary game logic that relies on single-thread performance. The processor sits in the 91st percentile against all CPUs, showcasing that its overall compute capability is well above the average for the market.

When compared to its nearest rivals, the data shows a tight cluster of performance. The i7-14700F has an average benchmark score of 53620, which is only 0.2% lower than the Intel Xeon 6505P and 0.3% higher than the Intel Xeon Phi 7290. It also edges out the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X by 0.6% and the AMD EPYC 7313P by 0.8%. This indicates that in synthetic multi-threaded workloads, the i7-14700F is essentially on par with these high-end server and desktop parts. However, for gaming, the high boost clock of 5.40 GHz is often more relevant than raw multi-core scores. The Passmark single-thread score of 4257 confirms that the processor has excellent per-core performance, which is crucial for ensuring that the game's main thread does not become a bottleneck.

In the context of the measured FPS data, the CPU's role is evident in the scaling of performance at lower resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 130 FPS, which is a high frame rate that suggests the CPU is feeding the GPU sufficient data. Even at 1440p Low, the system still manages 98 FPS. The fact that performance drops significantly when moving to higher graphical presets at the same resolution indicates that the CPU is not the primary constraint in this pairing. The game's physics simulations, which are a hallmark of Control, do utilize multiple cores, and the 28 threads of the i7-14700F provide plenty of capacity to prevent stutters or hitches during intense combat scenarios with debris flying around. The data suggests that the CPU is a robust foundation that will not hold back the GPU at 1080p and 1440p, and it only becomes less relevant as the GPU workload increases at higher resolutions.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 44 chip. It features a boost clock of 2990 MHz and a game clock of 2400 MHz, with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's benchmark performance places it in the 59th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 16014. This positions it as a solid mid-range performer. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, has a slightly higher average score of 16129, making the RX 9060 about 0.7% slower. It is also roughly 1% faster than the AMD Radeon R9 370X and the AMD Radeon RX 7700, showing that it sits in a competitive mid-range bracket.

For Control, the GPU's role is paramount, especially given the game's reliance on real-time rendering and visual effects. The 8 GB of VRAM is a key specification to consider. At 1080p and 1440p, the measured FPS data shows that the GPU handles the game well, but the jump to 4K reveals a significant performance penalty. The GPU's raw compute power, measured at 21.43 TFLOPS for FP32, is substantial, but the memory bus width of 128-bit and the 8 GB VRAM capacity become potential bottlenecks at higher resolutions. The data shows a stark difference between settings at 4K, with the average FPS dropping from 66 at Low to 42 at High, indicating that the GPU is struggling to maintain frame rates as the rendering load increases.

The Passmark G3D score of 17631 and the DirectX 12 score of 44 provide a baseline for its gaming capability. The GPU's performance in Control at 1440p High (62 FPS average) and 1080p High (82 FPS average) suggests that it is well-matched for a 60 FPS target at these resolutions with High settings. However, the 4K results show that the RX 9060 is not a 4K-capable card for this title at high detail levels. The drop from 66 FPS at 4K Low to 36 FPS at 4K Ultra demonstrates that while the GPU can technically render at 4K, it requires significant reductions in graphical fidelity to achieve playable frame rates. The data indicates that the GPU is the primary component limiting performance, particularly at 4K, where its VRAM capacity and bus width likely contribute to the steep performance cliff.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how the system scales across resolutions. At 1080p, the system shows strong performance across all settings, with averages ranging from 71 FPS at Ultra to 130 FPS at Low. Moving to 1440p, there is a noticeable but manageable drop in performance. The High preset falls from 82 FPS at 1080p to 62 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 24%. The Low preset sees a similar proportional drop, from 130 FPS to 98 FPS, a 25% decrease. This scaling pattern indicates that the system is still primarily GPU-limited at 1440p, but the CPU has enough headroom to maintain high frame rates.

The transition to 4K (3840x2160) is where the performance scaling becomes severe. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 62 at 1440p to 42 at 4K, a 32% reduction. At Low settings, the drop is from 98 FPS to 66 FPS, a 33% reduction. This consistent ~33% drop from 1440p to 4K across settings suggests that the GPU is the sole limiting factor. The pixel count increases by 2.25 times from 1440p to 4K, and the frame rate drops by roughly one-third, which is a typical response when a GPU is fully saturated. The CPU, with its high single-thread performance, is not showing signs of bottlenecking, as the frame rate drops are directly proportional to the increased rendering load.

Looking at the data more closely, the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (130 FPS) and Ultra (71 FPS) is 59 FPS. At 1440p, this gap is 44 FPS (98 FPS vs 54 FPS). At 4K, the gap narrows to 30 FPS (66 FPS vs 36 FPS). This narrowing gap is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. When the GPU is already at its limit at 4K, changing settings has a smaller relative impact on frame rate because the bottleneck is the raw pixel throughput and memory bandwidth, not the shader complexity. The data conclusively shows that the limiting component at 4K is the AMD Radeon RX 9060, while the Intel Core i7-14700F provides sufficient performance headroom even at lower resolutions where the CPU load is highest.

FAQ

Q: Is this system capable of running Control at a smooth 60 FPS at 1080p?

A: Yes, benchmark results indicate that at 1920x1080, the system achieves over 60 FPS average on all tested presets. Specifically, the High preset averages 82 FPS, and even the Ultra preset averages 71 FPS, providing a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the system perform at 1440p for a high-refresh-rate monitor?

A: At 2560x1440, the system can hit high frame rates with lower settings. The Low preset averages 98 FPS, and the Medium preset averages 70 FPS. For a 60 Hz monitor, the High preset (62 FPS) is sufficient, but for 144 Hz displays, dropping to Medium or Low is recommended.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this hardware configuration?

A: The data shows that 4K is only viable with significant settings reductions. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the system averages 66 FPS, which is playable. However, at Medium settings, the average drops to 47 FPS, and at High, it falls to 42 FPS, which is below the ideal 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck when playing Control at 4K?

A: The benchmark data indicates that the AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the limiting component at 4K. This is evident from the consistent frame rate drops across all settings when scaling from 1440p to 4K, as well as the narrowing performance gap between Low and Ultra presets at higher resolutions.

Q: How does the Intel Core i7-14700F compare to its direct rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i7-14700F has an average benchmark score of 53620. This places it 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon 6505P, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Xeon Phi 7290, 0.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X, and 0.8% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7313P, showing they are all within a 1% performance delta.

Q: What is the recommended resolution for the best balance of visual quality and performance?

A: Based on the measured FPS data, 2560x1440 with High settings appears to be the sweet spot. It provides an average of 62 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS target, while delivering significantly better visual fidelity than the Low or Medium presets at that resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this system in Control is as follows, broken down by resolution and settings:

At 1920x1080, the performance is consistently high. With Low settings, the system achieves an average of 130 FPS. Moving to Medium settings, the average FPS is 92, with a minimum of 78 and a maximum of 106. The High preset sees a drop to 82 FPS average. The Ultra preset, which is the most demanding, still maintains an average of 71 FPS. This shows that the system has excellent performance headroom at 1080p, capable of driving high refresh rate monitors even on the highest settings.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains strong but begins to show the GPU's limitations. Low settings provide an average of 98 FPS, which is still excellent for competitive play. Medium settings average 70 FPS, with a minimum of 59 and a maximum of 80, putting it right at the edge of the 60 FPS target. High settings reduce the average to 62 FPS, which is playable but does not leave much margin for demanding scenes. Ultra settings bring the average down to 54 FPS, which may result in noticeable stutter in busy combat scenarios.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly, highlighting the GPU as the bottleneck. Low settings produce an average of 66 FPS, which is the only preset at 4K that comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings average 47 FPS, with a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 54, indicating a less stable experience. High settings average 42 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to an average of 36 FPS. The data shows that 4K gaming is only really viable with Low settings, and even then, the frame rate is not consistently above 60 FPS for the most demanding scenes.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on the optimal settings for different priorities. For players targeting a locked 60 FPS experience, the best choice is 2560x1440 with High settings. This combination yields an average of 62 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay in most situations. While the Medium preset at 1440p also averages 70 FPS, the High preset offers a better visual experience with a minimal risk of dropping below 60 FPS, as the margin is thin but present.

For those with a 1080p monitor who want the absolute best visual quality, the Ultra preset is the way to go. The system averages 71 FPS at 1080p Ultra, which is well above the 60 FPS target and provides the highest level of graphical detail. Even with the most demanding scenes, the high average FPS suggests that dips below 60 FPS will be rare, making this a safe and visually impressive choice.

At 4K, the recommendations are more constrained. The only preset that delivers a playable experience is Low, which averages 66 FPS. This should be considered the baseline for 4K gaming with this hardware. Medium settings at 4K average 47 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target and may feel less fluid. For a more stable 4K experience, users should stick with Low settings and accept the reduced visual fidelity. Alternatively, if visual quality is paramount, playing at 1440p with Ultra settings (54 FPS) provides a better balance than 4K with Medium settings (47 FPS), as the resolution difference is less impactful than the settings change for overall image quality. The data strongly suggests that the optimal experience for this system is 1440p High, offering a superior combination of frame rate and visual detail compared to the other tested configurations.