Control

This analysis examines the measured performance of the Intel Core i7-14700F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Control, based on the supplied benchmark data. The data reveals a system where the graphics card is the overwhelming bottleneck, resulting in a very low overall ranking. The following sections break down the resolution scaling, provide a FAQ, and detail the specific roles of the CPU and GPU.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for this combination shows a clear and predictable pattern: performance degrades sharply as resolution increases, but the magnitude of that drop reveals the fundamental imbalance of this pairing. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 48.1 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same settings drops that to 32.0 FPS, a reduction of roughly one-third. Pushing further to 3840x2160 yields only 21.4 FPS, which is less than half of the 1080p figure.

This scaling behavior indicates that the GTX 1050 Ti is the primary limiting component. When resolution increases, the pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth demands rise, and the GTX 1050 Ti's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 112.1 GB/s bandwidth are quickly saturated. The CPU, a 20-core, 28-thread Intel Core i7-14700F with a 5.40 GHz boost clock, is far more capable than what this GPU can feed. The data shows that even at the highest settings and lowest resolution, the frame rate is poor, confirming that the GPU is working near its absolute limit.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution also underscores the GPU's limitations. At 1080p, the spread from Low to Ultra is 22.4 FPS (from 48.1 down to 25.7). At 1440p, the spread narrows to 13.9 FPS (from 32.0 down to 18.1). At 4K, the spread compresses to just 7.4 FPS (from 21.4 down to 14.0). This compression is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck: as resolution scales up, the cost of each frame increases so much that the relative cost of turning up visual quality settings diminishes. The GPU is so overwhelmed by the pixel workload that it has little headroom left to handle the additional shader complexity of higher settings.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Control?*

A: The highest measured average FPS is 48.1, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

*Q: How does this combination rank against all other tested combos in Control?*

A: The combination ranks 1633 out of 1636 total tested combos, placing it in the bottom percentile of all systems.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The benchmark results indicate the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU is a high-end 20-core part, while the GPU is a low-end 4 GB model, and the frame rates are low across all resolutions, which is characteristic of a graphics-bound scenario.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS drops from 48.1 on Low settings to 25.7 on Ultra settings, a difference of 22.4 FPS.

Q: Does increasing resolution to 4K make the game unplayable?

A: Yes, at 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 21.4 on Low settings to 14.0 on Ultra settings. These frame rates are well below the threshold for smooth, playable performance.

Q: What is the GPU's memory size and bus width?

A: The GPU features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank in Control is 1633 out of 1636 tested combinations. This places it in the 0.2nd percentile of all systems tested, meaning it outperforms only about 0.2% of other configurations. This is an exceptionally poor result, driven almost entirely by the GPU. The data shows that this pairing is one of the slowest possible for this title.

To contextualize this, the GPU's own benchmark score (passmark_g3d) is 6340, and its percentile vs all GPUs is 30. This means it is slower than 70% of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score are the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (deltaPct 0), the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (deltaPct 0.4), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (deltaPct 0.7). These are all entry-level or mobile-class GPUs, confirming that the GTX 1050 Ti is at the very bottom of the desktop performance stack.

The CPU, by contrast, is a high performer. Its percentile vs all CPUs is 94, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X (deltaPct -0.6) and the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D (deltaPct -1.1). This indicates that the i7-14700F is near the top of the CPU performance charts. The massive gap between the CPU's high percentile and the GPU's low percentile, combined with the final combo rank of 1633, shows a severe bottleneck where the CPU's potential is almost entirely wasted.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across resolutions and settings.

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, performance is still sub-optimal for smooth gameplay. The average FPS at Low settings is 48.1. This is the only configuration that approaches a playable frame rate. Medium settings yield an average of 31.2 FPS, High settings drop to 28.2 FPS, and Ultra settings produce the lowest result at 25.7 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the demands on the GPU increase significantly. The average FPS at Low settings falls to 32.0. Medium settings yield 23.2 FPS, High settings result in 21.9 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to just 18.1 FPS. None of these results are suitable for a smooth experience.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution, performance is critically low. The average FPS at Low settings is 21.4. Medium settings yield 15.3 FPS, High settings result in 15.7 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 14.0 FPS. These frame rates are essentially a slideshow, demonstrating that this GPU is completely out of its depth at 4K.

The data shows a clear trend: at every resolution, Low settings provide the highest frame rate, while Ultra provides the lowest. The performance delta between settings is consistent, but the overall level is too low for a positive experience.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the definitive bottleneck in this configuration. The data shows that its performance is insufficient for Control at any resolution or setting. The GPU’s specifications explain why. It has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s. This is a very small memory pool and a narrow bus for a 2019 title like Control, which is known for its demanding rendering.

The GPU's clock speeds are a base of 1291 MHz and a boost of 1392 MHz. These clocks are low by modern standards, and the GPU's compute power (2.138 TFLOPS FP32) is minimal. The benchmark results reflect this, with a passmark_g3d score of 6340. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M, and AMD Radeon R7 240, all of which are entry-level parts.

The measured FPS data confirms this analysis. The fact that the frame rate at 4K Low (21.4 FPS) is only slightly higher than the frame rate at 1080p Ultra (25.7 FPS) shows that the GPU is saturated even at the lowest settings. The 4 GB VRAM is also likely a limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings, as the game's textures would exceed this capacity, leading to performance drops.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700F plays a minimal role in limiting performance in this specific pairing. The data shows that the CPU is vastly more powerful than the GPU. It features 20 cores and 28 threads, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its L3 cache is 33 MB shared. These are high-end specifications.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU scores a 35443 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5003 in single-core. Its average benchmark score is 54097, which places it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X (deltaPct -0.6) and the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D (deltaPct -1.1), indicating that it trades blows with top-tier desktop processors.

Given that the GPU is producing such low frame rates, the CPU is likely idle most of the time, waiting for the GPU to finish rendering each frame. The CPU's high core count and clock speed are irrelevant when the GPU is unable to deliver frames at a reasonable rate. In this scenario, the CPU's role is simply to feed the GPU with draw calls, which it can do with ease, leaving the system firmly GPU-bound. The data suggests that a much weaker CPU could be paired with the GTX 1050 Ti without any noticeable performance difference in Control.