Control

Resolution Scaling

The measured frames per second for this Intel Core i7-14700F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination in Control show a clear and consistent pattern of decline as resolution increases. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 57.7 FPS. Moving to 1440p at the same Low preset drops the average to 42.4 FPS, and at 4K Low the frame rate falls further to 28.8 FPS. This represents a substantial scaling penalty, with the 1440p result sitting roughly 26% below the 1080p figure and the 4K result another 33% lower than that.

The High preset tells a similar story but from a lower starting point. At 1080p High, the system manages 38.9 FPS; at 1440p High, it drops to 26.5 FPS; and at 4K High, it bottoms out at 17.3 FPS. The delta between 1080p and 1440p here is about 32%, while the jump from 1440p to 4K is roughly 35%. The Ultra preset follows the same trajectory: 31.1 FPS at 1080p, 23.5 FPS at 1440p, and 17.4 FPS at 4K.

What these numbers indicate is that the GTX 1650 is the primary limiting factor across every resolution tier. The i7-14700F, with its 20 cores and 28 threads, is not the bottleneck in this pairing—the GPU simply cannot sustain playable frame rates once pixel count rises. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 11.4 FPS (28.8 versus 17.4), which is a narrow range that suggests the GPU is saturated regardless of settings at that resolution. At 1080p, the spread between Low and Ultra is wider (57.7 versus 31.1), indicating that settings changes have more headroom to affect performance when the resolution is lower.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture using the TU117 chip, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It carries 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost of 1665 MHz, and its memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). These specifications place it in the lower tier of discrete graphics solutions, and the benchmark data confirms this positioning.

The GPU's PassMark G3D score is 7880, which puts it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark scores include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8746 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon 550X at 8749 (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 at 8671 (0.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 at 8761 (0.5% higher). These are extremely tight deltas, all within a single percentage point, indicating that the GTX 1650 sits in a very crowded performance band.

In Control, the 4 GB VRAM capacity is a notable constraint. At 4K resolution, the frame rates collapse to 17.3 FPS on High and 17.4 FPS on Ultra, which are effectively identical—suggesting that the game is not just compute-bound but likely hitting memory capacity limits. The DirectX 12 benchmark score of 35 and DirectX 11 score of 58 from PassMark reinforce the GPU's modest capabilities in modern API workloads. The GPU's 896 shading units and 32 ROPs are simply not enough to drive a demanding action-adventure title at high resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the i7-14700F and GTX 1650 ranks 1561st out of 1636 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 4.6% of all configurations, which is a remarkably low position for a system pairing a 94th-percentile CPU with a 43rd-percentile GPU. The rankings data reveal a significant mismatch: the processor is far more capable than the graphics card, and the overall combo ranking is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU's limitations.

This ranking makes sense when examining the individual component benchmarks. The i7-14700F achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35443 and a single-core score of 5003, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in CPU performance include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X (0.6% higher average score), the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D (1.1% higher), the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (1.2% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7313P (1.7% lower). In stark contrast, the GTX 1650's PassMark G3D score of 7880 is only in the 43rd percentile, with its nearest rivals all within 0.5% of its score.

The practical implication is that this combo is severely GPU-limited in Control. Even at 1080p Low, the system only achieves 57.7 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold many players consider the minimum for smooth gameplay. The CPU has ample headroom to feed the GPU, but the graphics card cannot translate that into higher frame rates. This is a textbook case of a bottleneck where the weakest link determines the system's overall performance.

Settings Recommendations

Examining the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend entirely on the target resolution. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 57.7 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches a playable frame rate. The Medium preset drops to 38.9 FPS—the same as High at this resolution—while Ultra falls to 31.1 FPS. The data shows no benefit from choosing Medium over High at 1080p, as both produce identical averages, so if visual quality is a priority, High is the better choice of those two.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more constrained. Low settings yield 42.4 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a fast-paced action game. Medium drops to 31.6 FPS, High to 26.5 FPS, and Ultra to 23.5 FPS. None of these are comfortable for sustained gameplay, so the recommendation would be to stick with Low at this resolution if 1440p is required, or drop to 1080p for better performance.

At 4K, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings produce 28.8 FPS, Medium 21.5 FPS, High 17.3 FPS, and Ultra 17.4 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is negligible (0.1 FPS), which means there is no reason to choose High over Ultra if the visual upgrade is desired—the performance cost is essentially zero. However, no 4K setting here provides a playable experience, so the data suggests that 4K is not a viable option for this combo in Control.

The best experience per the measured rows is therefore 1080p Low at 57.7 FPS, which is the only configuration that clears the 50 FPS mark. For players who prefer higher visual fidelity, 1080p High or Medium at 38.9 FPS represents a reasonable trade-off, but the data indicates that this system is best suited for 1080p gaming with modest settings.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control?*

A: Based on the measured data, 1080p is the only resolution where the system achieves playable frame rates. Low settings at 1080p produce 57.7 FPS, while 1440p Low drops to 42.4 FPS and 4K Low falls to 28.8 FPS.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 4K?

A: The Ultra preset at 4K averages 17.4 FPS, while High averages 17.3 FPS—a difference of only 0.1 FPS. This indicates the GPU is fully saturated at 4K, and the visual upgrade from High to Ultra costs essentially no performance.

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

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The i7-14700F ranks in the 94th percentile of CPUs with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35443, while the GTX 1650 ranks in the 43rd percentile of GPUs with a PassMark G3D score of 7880. The frame rate data confirms this, as even at low settings the GPU cannot sustain high FPS.

Q: What is the difference between Medium and High settings at 1080p?

A: There is no measurable difference in this data. Both Medium and High at 1080p produce an average of 38.9 FPS, meaning players can choose High for better visual quality without any performance penalty.

*Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations in Control?*

A: It ranks 1561st out of 1636 total combos, placing it in the bottom 4.6% of all tested systems. This low ranking is primarily due to the GPU's performance limitations.

*Q: Can this system handle 1440p gaming in Control?*

A: Only with significant compromises. The Low preset at 1440p averages 42.4 FPS, which is borderline playable, but Medium drops to 31.6 FPS and High to 26.5 FPS. The data suggests 1080p is the more appropriate resolution for this GPU.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700F is a 20-core, 28-thread processor from the Raptor Lake-R architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, with a 33 MB shared L3 cache. The CPU's benchmark scores are impressive: Cinebench R23 multi-core reaches 35443, single-core reaches 5003, and Geekbench multi-core hits 16571 with a single-core score of 2711. These results place it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, and the PassMark multithread score of 41765 further confirms its strong multi-threaded performance.

In Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. Given the game's action-adventure nature, the CPU's 20 cores and 28 threads provide substantial headroom. However, the measured FPS data shows that this headroom is largely unused in practice. At 1080p Low, the system only achieves 57.7 FPS, and the frame rate scales down consistently with resolution increases—a pattern that indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, not the CPU.

The CPU's nearest rivals in aggregate performance all sit within 1.7% of its average benchmark score: the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X is 0.6% higher, the Ryzen 9 9900X3D is 1.1% higher, the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 is 1.2% lower, and the AMD EPYC 7313P is 1.7% lower. This places the i7-14700F in a tightly contested performance tier where small differences separate top-tier processors. The boost clock of 5.40 GHz is particularly relevant for gaming, as single-threaded performance often dictates frame pacing in CPU-bound scenarios.

The data suggests that if the GPU were upgraded to a more capable model, this CPU would have plenty of performance in reserve. The 33 MB L3 cache and 5.40 GHz boost clock are well-suited for modern game engines, and the 94th-percentile ranking indicates that the i7-14700F is not the component holding this combo back in Control. The bottleneck is squarely on the GTX 1650, and the CPU's role in this configuration is to provide stable, high-quality frame delivery—which it does, but only up to the limits imposed by the graphics card.