Control

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

The Intel Core i7-14700K is a 20-core, 28-thread processor built on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. This is a desktop part with a 125 W TDP, and it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. Its large 33 MB shared L3 cache, combined with 2 MB L2 per core, provides substantial on-die storage for game assets and instructions. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 44,534 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 6,287 in single-core, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 70,074 sits within a tight cluster of rivals: the Core i7-14700KF scores 70,104 (a 0% delta), the AMD EPYC 9115 scores 69,887 (0.3% higher), the Ryzen 9 9950X scores 70,420 (0.5% lower), and the Xeon Platinum 8270 scores 71,056 (1.4% lower). The data shows this CPU is effectively tied with its nearest competitors in raw compute, meaning any performance differences in Control are unlikely to stem from CPU headroom.

For a game like Control, which is an Action Adventure title with heavy physics and particle effects, the CPU's high single-thread performance (6,287 in Cinebench R23 single-core) is critical for maintaining frame pacing. The 20 cores are more than sufficient for the game's threaded workloads, which typically scale to 8-16 threads. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 148.5 FPS average, indicating the CPU is feeding the GPU effectively without leaving performance on the table. The PassMark physics score of 2,964 further corroborates strong computational throughput for game logic. However, as resolution increases, the role shifts — the CPU's job becomes ensuring consistent minimum frame times, and the measured data shows no signs of CPU-induced stutter across any resolution or settings combination.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is a RDNA 2.0 architecture GPU built on a 7 nm process, featuring 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. Its base clock is 2150 MHz, with a boost clock of 2600 MHz and a game clock of 2495 MHz. The memory runs at an effective 18 Gbps. With 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, the GPU delivers 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. It includes 40 ray accelerator cores, which are relevant for Control's optional ray-traced reflections, though the measured FPS data does not include ray tracing settings. The GPU holds a 79th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35,327. Its nearest rivals show a tight grouping: the RX 5600M scores 35,264 (0.2% higher), the RTX 5070 Ti Mobile scores 35,435 (0.3% lower), the Radeon 880M scores 35,646 (0.9% lower), and the RTX 3080 scores 35,787 (1.3% lower).

The 12 GB VRAM is a decisive factor in Control at higher settings. The game's textures and post-processing effects can consume significant memory, but the capacity is adequate for 4K Ultra without spillover into system RAM. The GPU's 166.4 GPixel/s pixel rate and 416.0 GTexel/s texture rate directly influence how quickly frames are rendered. At 1080p Ultra, the combo hits 80.7 FPS, but at 4K Ultra it drops to 39.1 FPS — a clear sign that the GPU becomes the limiting component as resolution climbs. The RDNA 2 architecture's efficiency is evident in the scaling: at 1440p High, the GPU still delivers 68.8 FPS, which is playable, but the 4K High figure of 48.3 FPS suggests users should target 1440p for consistent smoothness. The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) ensures full feature compatibility with Control's rendering pipeline.

FAQ

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival, the Core i7-14700KF?

A: The two processors are statistically identical. The i7-14700K scores 70,074 on average, while the i7-14700KF scores 70,104, representing a 0% delta. This means no meaningful performance difference exists between them in any workload.

Q: What is the GPU's memory bandwidth, and why does it matter for Control?

A: The RX 6750 XT has 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth across a 192-bit bus with 12 GB GDDR6. This bandwidth is sufficient for 1440p High settings (68.8 FPS) but becomes strained at 4K Ultra, where the average drops to 39.1 FPS due to increased memory pressure and shader complexity.

Q: Which resolution and settings combo yields the best balance of quality and frame rate?

A: The data shows 1440p Medium at 80.6 FPS or 1080p High at 93.1 FPS. Both provide smooth gameplay, with 1080p High offering a 15.5% higher frame rate than 1440p Medium, while 1440p Medium provides a 17% resolution increase at only a 13.5% FPS cost.

Q: How does the GPU's ray tracing performance compare to its raster performance?

A: The GPU has 40 ray accelerator cores, but the measured FPS data does not include ray tracing benchmarks. The 13.31 TFLOPS FP32 performance is the primary indicator for rasterized workloads, and the 79th percentile ranking reflects overall GPU capability.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to bottleneck in this combo?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the bottleneck at higher resolutions. From 1080p to 4K, the FPS drops by 47.7% at High settings, while the CPU's 96th percentile ranking suggests it has ample headroom. At 1080p Low (148.5 FPS), the CPU is still not limiting, as the GPU is capable of higher output.

Q: How does the combo's rank of 802 out of 1,636 tested combinations interpret?

A: This places the combo in the 51st percentile of all tested CPU-GPU pairings. The mid-pack ranking reflects the GPU's 79th percentile position, which is dragged down by stronger CPU-GPU combinations in the database, while the CPU's 96th percentile performance is not fully utilized at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core i7-14700K and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT ranks 802nd out of 1,636 tested combinations in Control. This places it almost exactly at the median of all tested systems, which is noteworthy given the individual component rankings. The CPU sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU sits in the 79th percentile of all GPUs. The gap between these percentiles explains the mid-pack overall ranking: the CPU's high compute potential is not fully realized because the GPU cannot keep pace at higher resolutions.

In practical terms, this ranking means the combo will outperform systems with similarly-priced GPUs but weaker CPUs, while losing to systems that pair the same GPU with faster processors (though the CPU's nearest rivals show no meaningful delta). The 802nd rank also indicates that many tested combos use more powerful GPUs, which dominate the upper half of the ranking. At 1080p, the combo punches above its overall rank — the 148.5 FPS Low result and 93.1 FPS High result are competitive with higher-ranked systems. At 4K, the GPU's limitations pull the combo down, consistent with the 39.1 FPS Ultra result. This suggests the ranking is heavily weighted toward 4K performance, where the GPU's 12 GB VRAM and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth are stressed.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling across resolutions. At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 93.1 FPS at 1080p to 68.8 FPS at 1440p (a 26.1% decrease), then to 48.3 FPS at 4K (a 29.8% further decrease). This scaling is not linear — the 4K drop is larger than the 1440p drop, indicating that the GPU's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth become increasingly strained as resolution increases.

At Low settings, the scaling is more dramatic: 148.5 FPS at 1080p falls to 110.4 FPS at 1440p (a 25.7% drop) and then to 78.0 FPS at 4K (a 29.3% drop). The 4K Low result is still above 60 FPS, suggesting the GPU can handle 4K when graphical effects are minimized. However, the gap between Low and Ultra widens with resolution: at 1080p, the Ultra-to-Low difference is 67.8 FPS (80.7 vs 148.5), while at 4K, the same comparison shows only a 38.9 FPS difference (39.1 vs 78.0). This compression at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is the limiting component — when pixel count rises, the impact of graphics settings diminishes because the GPU is already at its rendering ceiling.

The data points to the GPU as the primary constraint at 4K, while at 1080p, the CPU's strong single-thread performance (6,287 Cinebench R23 single-core) ensures the GPU is fully utilized. The 432.0 GB/s bandwidth becomes a bottleneck at 4K Ultra, where the high texture detail and post-processing effects demand more memory throughput than the 192-bit bus can deliver efficiently.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1080p:

• Low: 148.5 FPS average
• Medium: 106.7 FPS average
• High: 93.1 FPS average
• Ultra: 80.7 FPS average

At 1080p, the combo delivers smooth gameplay across all settings. The jump from Low to Medium costs 41.8 FPS (a 28.2% drop), while the High-to-Ultra transition costs only 12.4 FPS (a 13.3% drop). This indicates that Ultra settings at 1080p are not prohibitively expensive, and the GPU's 13.31 TFLOPS is sufficient for high-refresh monitors.

1440p:

• Low: 110.4 FPS average
• Medium: 80.6 FPS average
• High: 68.8 FPS average
• Ultra: 60.4 FPS average

The 1440p results show a tighter cluster, with Ultra just barely maintaining 60 FPS. The Low-to-Medium drop is 29.8 FPS (a 27.0% decrease), while the High-to-Ultra drop is 8.4 FPS (a 12.2% decrease). This resolution is the sweet spot for the combo: even Ultra stays above 60 FPS, and the 12 GB VRAM is adequate for high-resolution textures.

4K:

• Low: 78.0 FPS average
• Medium: 56.4 FPS average
• High: 48.3 FPS average
• Ultra: 39.1 FPS average

At 4K, the GPU's limitations become evident. Only Low settings break 60 FPS, and Ultra dips below 40 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 38.9 FPS drop (a 49.9% decrease), meaning Ultra settings nearly halve performance. The 48.3 FPS High result and 56.4 FPS Medium result are playable but not smooth for fast-paced action sequences. The 39.1 FPS Ultra result is below the threshold for comfortable gameplay, and users targeting 4K should stick to Medium or High settings. The data shows that this combo is best suited for 1440p gaming, where it maintains 60+ FPS at Ultra and delivers 80+ FPS at Medium.