Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title that stresses both processor and graphics hardware, and the combination of the Intel Core i7-14700F with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 produces a distinct performance profile. The benchmark data shows a system that is firmly capable of 1080p play at high settings, yet it encounters significant challenges when pushed to 4K resolution with maximum quality presets. The measured frame rates indicate that while the CPU provides ample headroom for this game, the GPU becomes the primary constraint at higher resolutions, leading to a predictable scaling pattern that users should understand before committing to this pairing.

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 built on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. This is a high-end desktop chip that sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs tested, indicating that its processing power is well above the median for gaming workloads. In Control, which is known for its physics-heavy environments and complex real-time destruction, the CPU’s multi-threaded capability is relevant, but the data shows that its impact on the measured FPS is secondary to the GPU.

The processor’s benchmark scores reflect its strength: it achieves 35,122 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 14,751 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 3,540 in Cinebench R15 multi-core. Single-thread performance is also robust, with scores of 4,958 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 2,429 in Geekbench single-core. These numbers place the i7-14700F in close competition with other high-end parts; its average benchmark score of 53,620 is nearly identical to the Intel Xeon 6505P at 53,701 (a 0.2% difference) and slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 53,288 (a 0.6% advantage). The processor’s 33 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache provide substantial memory buffering, which helps maintain consistent frame delivery in CPU-bound scenarios.

For Control specifically, the CPU’s role is evident when examining the 1080p results. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 124 FPS average, while at Ultra settings it drops to 68 FPS. This 56 FPS gap between the lowest and highest quality presets at the same resolution indicates that the game’s settings are heavily influencing the rendering load, but the CPU is not the limiting factor here—the GPU handles the bulk of the graphical work. The i7-14700F’s 20 cores and 28 threads are more than sufficient for Control’s threaded workloads, as evidenced by the fact that even at 1080p Ultra, the system maintains 68 FPS, which is a playable level for most users.

The processor’s memory support for DDR4 and DDR5, along with a dual-channel memory bus, means that it can pair with a wide range of system configurations without creating a bottleneck. The data does not show any frame rate anomalies that would suggest CPU stutter or thread saturation in Control. Rather, the benchmark results indicate that the i7-14700F provides a stable foundation, allowing the GPU to operate at its full potential until resolution scaling begins to overwhelm it. The CPU’s percentile ranking of 91% versus all CPUs reinforces that this is not the component holding back performance in this game.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 is a Blackwell 2.0 architecture GPU built on a 5 nm process, featuring 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 320.0 GB/s. Its base clock is 2317 MHz, boosting to 2572 MHz, and it contains 2,560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The GPU’s 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores suggest it is designed for modern rendering features, but Control’s benchmark results show that raw rasterization performance is the key factor in this title.

The RTX 5050’s benchmark scores place it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 21,035. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL at 21,153 (a 0.6% higher score), the AMD Radeon HD 8970M at 21,237 (a 1% higher score), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT at 20,713 (a 1.6% lower score). These deltas are small, indicating that the RTX 5050 sits in a tight performance band around its competitors. In DirectX 12 testing, the GPU scores 66 in Passmark, while in DirectX 11 it scores 150, which reflects the game’s API utilization—Control uses DirectX 12, so the lower score in that specific test is not directly indicative of in-game performance.

The GPU’s 8 GB of VRAM is sufficient for Control at 1080p and 1440p, as evidenced by the measured frame rates, but it may become a limitation at 4K with higher settings. The data shows that at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 35, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. This is likely a combination of VRAM capacity and raw compute power, as the GPU’s 13.17 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is modest for 4K rendering in a demanding title. The memory clock of 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) provides decent bandwidth, but the 128-bit bus width constrains how much data can be moved simultaneously, which becomes more critical at higher resolutions.

The RTX 5050’s power requirements are modest—a 130 W TDP with a suggested 300 W power supply—but this does not translate into exceptional performance per watt in Control. The GPU’s performance is adequate for 1080p gaming, where it achieves 78 FPS at High settings and 88 FPS at Medium, but the scaling to 1440p and 4K reveals its limitations. At 2560x1440 High, the average FPS drops to 59, which is still playable, but at 3840x2160 High it falls to 40 FPS, indicating a steep performance cliff as resolution increases. This pattern suggests that the GPU is the limiting component in this pairing for higher resolutions, and users should target 1080p or 1440p for the best experience.

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

The measured frame rates across resolutions reveal a clear scaling pattern that identifies the GPU as the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. Starting at 1920x1080 with High settings, the system achieves 78 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440 High, the average drops to 59 FPS, a 24.4% decrease. At 3840x2160 High, the average falls to 40 FPS, another 32.2% drop from 1440p. This progressive decline is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios, where the rendering resolution directly impacts the pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth demands.

The Low settings data further illustrates this point. At 1080p Low, the system delivers 124 FPS average. At 1440p Low, it achieves 94 FPS, a 24.2% reduction. At 4K Low, it drops to 63 FPS, a 33.0% reduction from 1440p. The consistent percentage drops across different quality presets indicate that resolution is the dominant factor in performance scaling, rather than specific game settings. This is a strong signal that the CPU is not the limiting component, as a CPU bottleneck would typically show larger performance differences at lower resolutions where the GPU has less work to do.

The Medium settings data provides additional insight, as it includes minimum and maximum frame rates. At 1080p Medium, the average is 88 FPS with a minimum of 75 and maximum of 101. At 1440p Medium, the average is 67 FPS with a minimum of 57 and maximum of 77. At 4K Medium, the average is 45 FPS with a minimum of 38 and maximum of 52. The minimum frame rates at 4K (38 FPS) are close to the average (45 FPS), suggesting that the GPU is consistently stressed rather than experiencing intermittent spikes. The frame time consistency at 1080p, where the minimum is 85% of the average, indicates a stable experience, but at 4K this ratio drops to 84%, showing slight degradation in frame pacing.

The Ultra settings data shows the steepest declines. At 1080p Ultra, the system achieves 68 FPS average. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 52 FPS, a 23.5% reduction. At 4K Ultra, it falls to 35 FPS, a 32.7% reduction from 1440p. This scaling pattern is nearly identical to the High and Low settings, confirming that the GPU’s compute and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors. The RTX 5050’s 8 GB VRAM and 320.0 GB/s bandwidth are simply not sufficient for 4K Ultra in Control, where the game’s advanced rendering techniques demand more resources than the GPU can provide.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i7-14700F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 ranks 1756 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the 39.2nd percentile of all tested combinations, meaning that roughly 61% of the tested combos perform better, while 39% perform worse. This ranking reflects the GPU’s mid-tier positioning, as the CPU is clearly high-end but the graphics card holds the overall combo back.

In the context of the nearest rival GPUs, the RTX 5050’s performance is closely matched with the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL and AMD Radeon HD 8970M, which have average benchmark scores within 1% of the RTX 5050. This suggests that in Control, the combo’s ranking is driven by the GPU’s 66th percentile position, not the CPU’s 91st percentile. The CPU’s strong multi-threaded performance does not translate into a higher combo rank because the game’s FPS is ultimately limited by the GPU at most settings.

The combo rank of 1756 out of 2888 indicates that this is a mid-pack configuration for Control. It is not a top-tier setup, nor is it among the lowest performers. Users who pair this CPU with a more powerful GPU would likely see a significantly higher rank, as the i7-14700F has the headroom to support faster graphics cards. Conversely, pairing this GPU with a weaker CPU might result in a similar rank, since the GPU is the limiting factor in most scenarios. The data shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it achieves playable frame rates across all settings, and 1440p gaming at Medium to High settings.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the optimal resolution, with average FPS ranging from 68 at Ultra settings to 124 at Low settings. At 2560x1440, the system achieves 52 to 94 FPS depending on settings, while 3840x2160 only reaches 35 to 63 FPS, making 4K unsuitable for high-refresh-rate play.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this game?

A: No, the benchmark results indicate the GPU is the limiting component. The consistent percentage drops in FPS from 1080p to 1440p to 4K (approximately 24% and then 32%) follow a resolution-dependent pattern that is characteristic of GPU-bound performance, not CPU limitations.

Q: How does the RTX 5050 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 5050’s average benchmark score is 21,035, which is 0.6% lower than the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (21,153), 1.0% lower than the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21,237), and 1.6% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20,713). These differences are minimal, indicating similar performance levels.

Q: Is 8 GB of VRAM sufficient for Control?

A: The measured data shows 8 GB is adequate for 1080p and 1440p, where the system achieves playable frame rates. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 35, which suggests VRAM capacity and bandwidth limitations become apparent at that resolution.

Q: What are the minimum frame rates at Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the minimum FPS is 75. At 2560x1440 Medium, it is 57. At 3840x2160 Medium, it is 38. These minimums are consistently about 84-85% of the average FPS, indicating stable frame pacing.

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

A: The combo ranks 1756 out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle range. This ranking is primarily due to the GPU’s mid-tier performance, as the CPU is in the 91st percentile of all processors.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data for the Intel Core i7-14700F with NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 in Control is as follows:

3840x2160 (4K):

• High: 40 FPS average
• Low: 63 FPS average
• Medium: 45 FPS average, with a minimum of 38 FPS and maximum of 52 FPS
• Ultra: 35 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• High: 59 FPS average
• Low: 94 FPS average
• Medium: 67 FPS average, with a minimum of 57 FPS and maximum of 77 FPS
• Ultra: 52 FPS average

1920x1080 (1080p):

• High: 78 FPS average
• Low: 124 FPS average
• Medium: 88 FPS average, with a minimum of 75 FPS and maximum of 101 FPS
• Ultra: 68 FPS average

The 1080p data shows that the system is comfortable at all settings, with even Ultra settings maintaining a 68 FPS average. The 1440p data reveals a step down, where High and Ultra settings drop below 60 FPS, making Medium (67 FPS) the recommended setting for smooth gameplay. The 4K data is largely below playable thresholds, with only Low settings (63 FPS) achieving a smooth experience; Medium (45 FPS), High (40 FPS), and Ultra (35 FPS) all fall short of the 60 FPS target. The minimum FPS data at Medium settings across all resolutions—75 at 1080p, 57 at 1440p, and 38 at 4K—shows that the system maintains consistent frame delivery without severe dips, but the overall averages decrease as resolution increases. This breakdown confirms that the combo is best utilized at 1080p or 1440p with adjusted settings, while 4K gaming requires Low settings to remain playable.