Control

Control pairs a 20-core Intel Core i7-14700K with a 24 GB AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX, and the measured frames per second across three resolutions and four quality presets show a system that prioritizes raw throughput over subtle tuning. The benchmark data, drawn from 12 distinct test rows, reveals a consistent hierarchy where the GPU’s massive memory pool and the CPU’s high boost clock interact in predictable ways, though the limiting factor shifts depending on the resolution. This analysis walks through the optimal settings, the combo’s standing among 3,720 tested pairings, and the precise frame rates that define the experience.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows show that the Medium preset offers the most balanced experience, particularly at higher resolutions where the gap between visual fidelity and performance narrows. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers an average of 160 FPS with a minimum of 136 FPS and a maximum of 184 FPS, which sits comfortably above the 142 FPS High average and the 123 FPS Ultra average. The Low preset reaches 225 FPS, but that comes with reduced detail that undermines the game’s atmospheric design. Moving to 2560x1440, Medium again proves superior: 121 FPS average, 103 FPS minimum, and 139 FPS maximum, compared to 107 FPS on High and 93 FPS on Ultra. At 3840x2160, the pattern holds, with Medium producing 82 FPS average, 69 FPS minimum, and 94 FPS maximum, while High drops to 72 FPS and Ultra falls to 63 FPS.

For players targeting a specific refresh rate, the data suggests that Medium is the default choice because it maintains a playable frame rate at every resolution tested. The Low preset at 4K yields 115 FPS, which is the only 4K row exceeding 100 FPS, but the visual compromise is steep. Ultra at 1080p (123 FPS) and 1440p (93 FPS) are viable for those who prioritize image quality over smoothness, yet the minimum frame rates are not recorded for those rows, leaving potential stutter unquantified. The Medium rows are the only ones with full min/max data across all resolutions, which adds confidence in their consistency. Since the game’s genre is Action Adventure, where quick camera movements and particle effects dominate, the 69 FPS minimum at 4K Medium is acceptable, while the 103 FPS minimum at 1440p Medium is ideal for high-refresh displays.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Core i7-14700K and the Radeon RX 7900 XTX holds a rank of 536 out of 3,720 tested combos, placing it in the top 14.4% of all pairings in the database. This percentile position reflects the CPU’s strong synthetic benchmarks—its average benchmark score is 69,355, which sits 0.1% above the AMD EPYC 9115 and 0.2% below the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, according to nearest rival data. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 19,410, which is 0.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB and 1.2% above the NVIDIA TITAN Xp, though those rivals are from different performance tiers. The combo’s rank is driven by the CPU’s 94th percentile standing among all CPUs, while the GPU’s 64th percentile among all GPUs suggests the processor is the stronger component in this pairing.

Within the context of Control specifically, the measured FPS data shows that this combo does not hit the extreme highs seen in some other pairings, but it remains comfortably in the upper quartile. The 536th rank out of 3,720 means there are 535 combos that produce higher average frame rates in this game, likely featuring newer or higher-end GPUs. However, the data indicates that the RX 7900 XTX’s 24 GB VRAM and 960.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for all tested settings, as no row shows a memory-related bottleneck. The rank is competitive for a system built around a 2023 CPU and a 2022 GPU, and the measured FPS at 1080p Low (225 FPS) suggests the combo is well above the median for esports-style play, even if it does not lead the charts.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is the primary driver of frame rates in this benchmark, and its specifications explain the measured results. The GPU features 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than sufficient for Control’s textures and effects at any resolution. The boost clock of 2498 MHz and game clock of 2365 MHz, combined with 6144 shading units and 192 ROPs, deliver a pixel rate of 479.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 959.2 GTexel/s. These figures translate directly to the FPS deltas between settings: at 1080p, the difference between Low (225 FPS) and Ultra (123 FPS) is 102 FPS, a 45% drop that reflects the increased shading and texture work.

The GPU’s role becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions. At 4K, the Low preset (115 FPS) is only 43 FPS higher than Ultra (63 FPS), a 37% drop, whereas at 1080p the same settings gap is 45%. This narrowing suggests that at 4K, the GPU is nearing its fill-rate limits, but the 24 GB VRAM prevents any memory swapping. The measured FPS at 4K Medium (82 FPS) with a minimum of 69 FPS shows the GPU maintaining stability under load. The GPU’s 64th percentile ranking among all GPUs is lower than the CPU’s 94th percentile, indicating that in this combo, the graphics card is the more likely bottleneck when pushing Ultra settings at 4K. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support and 96 ray accelerators are present, but the data does not isolate ray tracing performance, so the measured FPS reflects standard rasterization.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows a clear progression: Low averages 225 FPS, Medium averages 160 FPS with a minimum of 136 FPS and maximum of 184 FPS, High averages 142 FPS, and Ultra averages 123 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 65 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs 18 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 19 FPS. The Medium row’s min/max range of 136-184 FPS spans 48 FPS, indicating variability that is typical for action sequences with physics-based destruction.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 170 FPS for Low, 121 FPS for Medium (min 103, max 139), 107 FPS for High, and 93 FPS for Ultra. The delta between Low and Medium is 49 FPS, Medium to High is 14 FPS, and High to Ultra is 14 FPS. The Medium min/max range of 103-139 FPS (36 FPS spread) is narrower than at 1080p, suggesting the GPU has more headroom to smooth out spikes.

At 3840x2160, the averages drop to 115 FPS for Low, 82 FPS for Medium (min 69, max 94), 72 FPS for High, and 63 FPS for Ultra. The Low-to-Medium gap is 33 FPS, Medium-to-High is 10 FPS, and High-to-Ultra is 9 FPS. The Medium min/max range of 69-94 FPS (25 FPS spread) is the tightest of all resolutions, indicating that at 4K, the GPU is consistently load-bound rather than spike-bound. The 4K Ultra average of 63 FPS is just below the 60 FPS threshold, making it borderline playable, while 4K High at 72 FPS is the minimum for smooth 60 Hz displays.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset for a 1440p monitor with this combo?

A: The Medium preset at 2560x1440 produces an average of 121 FPS with a minimum of 103 FPS, which is the best balance of visual quality and performance. High averages 107 FPS, and Ultra drops to 93 FPS, so Medium avoids the stutter risk of the lower minimums.

Q: Does the GPU’s 24 GB VRAM affect the measured FPS?

A: The data shows no memory-related degradation across any resolution or setting, and the 960.0 GB/s bandwidth supports all tested rows. The VRAM capacity is sufficient for Ultra at 4K, where the average FPS is 63, indicating the limit is compute, not memory.

Q: How does the combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: The combination ranks 536th out of 3,720 combos, placing it in the top 14.4%. This is driven by the CPU’s 94th percentile score, while the GPU’s 64th percentile shows the graphics card is the weaker link.

Q: Is the 4K Ultra preset playable?

A: The average FPS is 63, which meets the 60 FPS standard, but the minimum FPS is not recorded. Given that 4K Medium has a 69 FPS minimum, Ultra may dip below 60 FPS in heavy scenes, so High (72 FPS) is safer.

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

A: Low averages 225 FPS, while Ultra averages 123 FPS, a difference of 102 FPS. This 45% drop is the largest settings gap across all resolutions, reflecting the GPU’s ability to scale with reduced load.

Q: Why does the 4K Medium row have full min/max data?

A: The measured rows include min/max FPS only for Medium settings at each resolution. At 4K Medium, the range is 69-94 FPS, providing a 25 FPS spread, which is the tightest of any resolution, indicating consistent frame pacing.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700K contributes to the measured FPS through its 20 cores (28 threads) and boost clock of 5.60 GHz, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz. The CPU’s 33 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache help feed the GPU, particularly at lower resolutions where the frame rate is high. At 1080p Low, the 225 FPS average shows the CPU can generate enough draw calls to keep the GPU busy, and the 94th percentile ranking among CPUs supports this. The Raptor Lake architecture, built on Intel’s 10 nm process, delivers strong single-thread performance—Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2160 and Geekbench single-core score of 2569—which is critical for Control’s physics and AI logic.

The CPU’s role as a bottleneck becomes evident when comparing resolution scaling. At 1080p, the FPS drops from Low (225) to Ultra (123), a 102 FPS difference, which is primarily GPU-bound. However, at 4K, the same settings gap is only 52 FPS (115 to 63), indicating that the CPU has more headroom at higher resolutions. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 33440.5 and Passmark multithread score of 52392 show the CPU’s capacity for parallel tasks, but Control does not scale perfectly across 20 cores, so the single-thread performance (Cinebench R15 single-core score of 313.5) is more relevant. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X with a -0.2% delta, have similar average scores, confirming that the i7-14700K is not the limiting factor in this combo for most settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern of diminishing returns as resolution increases. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by roughly 24-28% across all settings: Low goes from 225 to 170 (24% drop), Medium from 160 to 121 (24%), High from 142 to 107 (25%), and Ultra from 123 to 93 (24%). This consistent percentage suggests that the GPU is scaling predictably with pixel count, and the CPU is not causing any unexpected stalls.

From 1440p to 4K, the drops are larger but less uniform: Low goes from 170 to 115 (32% drop), Medium from 121 to 82 (32%), High from 107 to 72 (33%), and Ultra from 93 to 63 (32%). The increase in the drop rate from ~24% to ~32% indicates that the GPU is nearing its limits at 4K, particularly for the higher settings. The 4K Medium row has a minimum of 69 FPS, which is 16% lower than the average of 82 FPS, showing that the GPU can still hit performance dips even in the mid-range setting.

The limiting component shifts clearly across resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU’s 5.60 GHz boost clock and 20 cores can feed the GPU enough to reach 225 FPS on Low, but the GPU’s 24 GB VRAM and 6144 shading units are not fully utilized until 4K. At 4K Ultra, the 63 FPS average is only 21% of the 1080p Low figure, indicating that the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The data shows that this combo is CPU-limited at 1080p and GPU-limited at 4K, with 1440p serving as the balanced midpoint where both components contribute nearly equally. The 4K Low preset (115 FPS) is higher than 1440p Ultra (93 FPS), which suggests that players seeking high frame rates at 4K should prioritize lowering settings over resolution, as the GPU has headroom for pixel count but not for shading complexity.