Control

Control pairs an Intel Core i7-14700K with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, a combination that lands at rank 3588 out of 3720 tested combos in this game. The CPU is a 20-core, 28-thread Raptor Lake part with a 3.40 GHz base and 5.60 GHz boost clock, while the GPU is a 4 GB GDDR5 card with a 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost. The measured frames tell a consistent story: this pairing struggles to keep Control playable at higher resolutions, and the GTX 1650 is the limiting factor in nearly every scenario. The data shows a clear hierarchy where dropping settings or resolution yields meaningful gains, but even the best case — 1080p Low at 56 FPS average — barely crosses the smooth-play threshold. This analysis breaks down the resolution scaling, settings impact, GPU role, CPU contribution, and exact measured performance to give a practical picture for anyone considering this hardware.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all quality presets, revealing a GPU-bound system at every step. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 36 FPS at 1920x1080 to 27 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 18 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 50% reduction from 1080p to 4K for the same preset, and the pattern holds for other settings. Low settings show 56 FPS at 1080p, 43 FPS at 1440p, and 29 FPS at 4K — a 48% drop from the lowest to highest resolution. Medium settings move from 40 FPS at 1080p to 30 FPS at 1440p to 20 FPS at 4K, while Ultra goes from 31 FPS to 23 FPS to 16 FPS across the same resolutions.

The scaling curve indicates that pixel count is the dominant variable. Going from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 20-25% of the average FPS at every preset, and moving from 1440p to 4K costs another 30-35%. This is a classic sign that the GTX 1650’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are exhausted long before the CPU becomes relevant. The 128.1 GB/s bandwidth and 128-bit bus are simply inadequate for 4K workloads in this game, which is why 4K numbers sit in the 16-29 FPS range regardless of settings. At 1080p, the GPU still has some headroom, but the 56 FPS ceiling on Low suggests even that resolution is near the card’s practical limit for Control.

The data also shows that resolution scaling is not linear with settings. At Low, the 1080p-to-4K gap is 27 FPS (56 to 29), while at Ultra the gap is only 15 FPS (31 to 16). This narrower absolute drop at Ultra means the GPU is already so strained by the highest preset that adding pixels produces diminishing returns in terms of FPS loss percentage. For a builder, this implies that if 4K is the target, lowering settings yields a bigger relative improvement than at 1080p — Low at 4K (29 FPS) is 81% faster than Ultra at 4K (16 FPS), whereas at 1080p Low is only 80% faster than Ultra (56 vs 31).

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows show that Low is the only preset where this combo achieves an average FPS above 50 at any resolution, and that happens only at 1080p. Medium at 1080p delivers 40 FPS average with a minimum of 34 and maximum of 46, which is playable for slower-paced action but will feel stuttery in Control’s combat-heavy sequences. High at 1080p drops to 36 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 31 FPS. For a smooth experience, Low at 1080p is the clear recommendation — 56 FPS average leaves enough margin for dips during physics-heavy fights, though the lack of min/max data for that row means the floor is unknown.

At 1440p, the situation worsens. Low averages 43 FPS, Medium 30 FPS (min 26, max 35), High 27 FPS, and Ultra 23 FPS. Only Low approaches acceptable playability, and even then, the average is below the 60 FPS target most PC builders use for action games. The data suggests that 1440p should be avoided unless the user accepts Low settings and tolerates occasional frame drops. Medium at 1440p, with its 26 FPS minimum, will feel choppy during environmental destruction or when multiple enemies are on screen.

For 4K, no preset is recommended. The best case is Low at 29 FPS average, and Ultra sits at 16 FPS. Even the most forgiving player would find these numbers unplayable for a game that relies on quick aiming and dodging. The practical takeaway: run Control at 1080p with Low settings for the best balance of visual clarity and responsiveness. If visual fidelity is more important than frame rate, Medium at 1080p (40 FPS average) is the highest preset that stays above 30 FPS on average, but the 34 FPS minimum means it will not hold that floor consistently.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650’s specifications explain the benchmark results directly. With 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, the card delivers 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth — a figure that is simply too low for Control’s texture streaming and particle effects at higher resolutions. The GPU has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. These numbers place it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs in the database, just above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% faster) and Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% faster), but 1% slower than the Intel Arc A310.

The clock behavior offers some insight into the scaling. The card boosts to 1665 MHz from a 1485 MHz base, and the memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). At 1080p Low, the card manages 56 FPS average, suggesting the boost clock is holding steady. But as resolution climbs, the 4 GB frame buffer becomes a bottleneck. Control at 4K with High settings likely exceeds 4 GB of VRAM usage, forcing the card to swap textures, which explains the collapse to 18 FPS average. The measured FPS rows show that Medium at 4K has a minimum of 17 and maximum of 24, a tight range that indicates memory pressure is capping performance rather than raw compute.

The GPU’s FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS, and it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. In practice, the passmark DirectX 12 score of 35 and DirectX 11 score of 58 confirm that this card is not built for modern API-heavy titles. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 is a fraction of what newer cards achieve. For Control, which uses DirectX 12 features, the GTX 1650’s modest DX12 performance directly contributes to the low FPS numbers across all resolutions. The card also has no ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so any RT features in Control would fall back to compute shaders, further hurting frame rates — though the measured data does not include RT-specific rows.

FAQ

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

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the average FPS exceeds 40 on any preset. At 1080p, Low averages 56 FPS, Medium 40 FPS, High 36 FPS, and Ultra 31 FPS. At 1440p, the best average is 43 FPS on Low, and at 4K, the best is 29 FPS on Low.

Q: Should I use Low or Medium settings at 1080p?

A: Low gives 56 FPS average, while Medium gives 40 FPS with a 34 FPS minimum and 46 FPS maximum. If you prioritize smoothness, Low is safer. If you accept occasional dips below 40 FPS, Medium offers better visuals but the minimum indicates stutter risk during intense scenes.

Q: Why is the 4K performance so poor even on Low settings?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, which are insufficient for 4K textures and fill rates in Control. The data shows Low at 4K averages 29 FPS, while Medium drops to 20 FPS (min 17, max 24), indicating memory bandwidth is the primary constraint.

Q: How does this combo rank relative to other systems tested?

A: This pairing ranks 3588 out of 3720 combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 4% of tested configurations. The GPU’s 40th percentile score (vs all GPUs) and the CPU’s 94th percentile (vs all CPUs) highlight the imbalance — the processor is far stronger than the graphics card.

Q: Is the CPU holding back the GPU at 1080p?

A: No. The i7-14700K has 20 cores and 28 threads with a 5.60 GHz boost, placing it in the 94th percentile of CPUs. At 1080p Low, the GPU averages 56 FPS, which is near the GTX 1650’s practical limit. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 33440.5 and single-core score of 2160 are far above what Control requires.

Q: Can I play Control at 1440p with this setup?

A: Only on Low settings, which average 43 FPS. Medium at 1440p averages 30 FPS with a 26 FPS minimum, High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra 23 FPS. None of these provide a consistent 60 FPS experience, so 1080p is recommended over 1440p.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700K is a Raptor Lake Refresh part with 20 cores (8 performance + 12 efficiency) and 28 threads. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz, boosting to 5.60 GHz, and it has 33 MB of shared L3 cache plus 2 MB L2 per core. In the database, this CPU ranks in the 94th percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 69355. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9115 (0.1% faster), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (0.2% slower), AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (0.7% slower), and AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (0.9% slower). For Control, the CPU is not the limiting factor — the measured FPS scales almost entirely with resolution and settings, which are GPU-bound variables.

The CPU’s single-thread performance is strong, with Cinebench R23 single-core scoring 2160 and Geekbench single-core at 2569. Control’s gameplay logic, physics, and AI benefit from high single-thread throughput, and the 5.60 GHz boost clock ensures the game’s main thread is never starved. Multi-thread performance is also ample: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 33440.5, and Geekbench multicore hits 20767. The 20-core design handles background tasks and streaming without contention, but the frame rate data shows no evidence of CPU bottlenecking — at 1080p Low, the GPU reaches 56 FPS, which is consistent with the GTX 1650’s capability rather than a CPU ceiling.

The CPU’s memory support includes DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel bus, though the measured FPS does not specify which type was used. The L3 cache of 33 MB is shared across all cores, which helps with game asset caching. The integrated UHD Graphics 770 is present but irrelevant here since the GTX 1650 handles rendering. The CPU’s 125W TDP and Intel Socket 1700 mounting are standard for this generation. In the context of Control, the i7-14700K is overkill — a lower-tier CPU would likely produce identical FPS numbers with this GPU, as the 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are the hard limits.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows a clear progression across settings. Low averages 56 FPS with no min or max recorded. Medium averages 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 and maximum of 46. High averages 36 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 25 FPS (56 to 31), a 45% reduction in performance for the highest preset. The Medium row’s min/max range of 34-46 indicates decent stability, but the lack of min/max for other rows limits full variance analysis.

At 2560x1440, performance drops across the board. Low averages 43 FPS, Medium averages 30 FPS (min 26, max 35), High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The Medium range at 1440p (26-35) is tighter than at 1080p (34-46), suggesting the GPU is more consistently saturated at higher resolution. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 13 FPS on Low (56 to 43), 10 FPS on Medium (40 to 30), 9 FPS on High (36 to 27), and 8 FPS on Ultra (31 to 23). These absolute differences are similar, but the percentage loss grows as the base FPS shrinks.

At 3840x2160, the numbers fall below playable thresholds. Low averages 29 FPS, Medium averages 20 FPS (min 17, max 24), High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 16 FPS. The Medium row’s max of 24 FPS is the highest recorded at 4K, while Ultra’s 16 FPS average is the lowest across all tests. The 4K data shows that even the most aggressive settings reduction cannot overcome the GPU’s memory and bandwidth limitations. From 1440p to 4K, the drops are 14 FPS on Low (43 to 29), 10 FPS on Medium (30 to 20), 9 FPS on High (27 to 18), and 7 FPS on Ultra (23 to 16).

Comparing settings at each resolution, Low is consistently the fastest preset. At 1080p, Low is 40% faster than Medium (56 vs 40), 55% faster than High (56 vs 36), and 81% faster than Ultra (56 vs 31). At 1440p, Low beats Medium by 43% (43 vs 30), High by 59% (43 vs 27), and Ultra by 87% (43 vs 23). At 4K, Low leads Medium by 45% (29 vs 20), High by 61% (29 vs 18), and Ultra by 81% (29 vs 16). The percentage advantage of Low over Ultra remains consistent around 80% across all resolutions, indicating that settings scaling is uniform even when the absolute FPS is low.

The data also reveals that High and Ultra are close in performance. At 1080p, High averages 36 FPS vs Ultra’s 31 FPS — a 16% difference. At 1440p, the gap is 27 vs 23 (17%), and at 4K, it is 18 vs 16 (12.5%). This suggests that Ultra adds visual features that cost performance without a proportional FPS penalty, but the absolute numbers are so low that neither preset is viable above 1080p. Medium sits between Low and High, with the 1080p Medium range (34-46) overlapping with High’s 36 average, meaning Medium can occasionally outperform High depending on scene complexity.

For the CPU’s contribution, the measured FPS does not vary with CPU load indicators, but the i7-14700K’s benchmark scores provide context. The 20-core, 28-thread configuration with a 5.60 GHz boost ensures that Control’s engine can spawn threads for physics, AI, and streaming without contention. The 33 MB L3 cache reduces memory latency, and the 94th percentile ranking places it among the top processors for any game. In this combo, however, the GPU’s 40th percentile score (7880 in Passmark G3D) is the bottleneck, as evidenced by the FPS scaling aligning with resolution and settings rather than CPU-bound scenarios. The nearest GPU rival, Intel Arc A310, is 1% faster, but the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are the decisive factors in Control’s performance.