Control

This pairing is a study in extremes. The Intel Core i7-14700KF is a top-tier 20-core processor with a 96th percentile ranking against all CPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a legacy 4 GB GPU sitting at the 30th percentile. In a game like Control, which is demanding on both geometry and effects, the data shows that the graphics card is the overwhelming bottleneck. The measured FPS across all resolutions and settings tells a consistent story: the CPU has massive headroom, but the GPU cannot translate that into playable frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy for this specific CPU and GPU combination in Control. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 45.2 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches a smooth experience. Moving to Medium drops the average to 29.7 FPS, a significant 34% reduction, while High (28.6 FPS) and Ultra (24.5 FPS) offer no meaningful visual benefit for the performance cost.

At 2560x1440, the situation worsens. The Low preset averages 37 FPS, but Medium falls to 27.2 FPS, and High drops further to 23.5 FPS. The Ultra preset at this resolution yields only 19.8 FPS. The 3840x2160 results are effectively unplayable across the board, with Low averaging 22.6 FPS and every other preset falling below 18 FPS.

The data suggests that the only viable path is the Low preset at 1080p. The jump from Low to Medium costs roughly one-third of the frame rate at every resolution, which is a steep price for a modest visual upgrade. Given that even the Low preset at 1080p only achieves an average of 45.2 FPS, there is no headroom for higher settings. The benchmark results indicate that this GPU is the limiting factor; the CPU is not the constraint. For a playable experience, users should accept the Low preset and 1080p resolution as the practical ceiling, and even then, expect frame rates that are borderline for fast-paced action.

FAQ

Q: Is this CPU and GPU combination capable of running Control at 60 FPS?

A: No. The measured data shows no configuration reaches 60 FPS. The highest average recorded is 45.2 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. All other settings and resolutions produce lower averages, with 4K Ultra dipping to 12 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution to use with this hardware?

A: Based on the measured FPS, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the Low preset achieves an average above 40 FPS. At 2560x1440, the best average is 37 FPS (Low), and at 3840x2160, the best average is 22.6 FPS (Low). The data shows a clear preference for 1080p.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare to its nearest rivals in raw performance?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 5316. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, scores 5317, a 0% difference. The GeForce 940M scores 5297, which is 0.4% slower, and the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5280, which is 0.7% slower. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 is 0.8% faster with a score of 5361.

Q: Does the CPU's performance have any impact on the game's frame rate?

A: The data suggests it does not. The CPU is ranked in the 96th percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 70104. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-14700K, scores 70074 (0% difference). The GPU, however, is in the 30th percentile. The massive disparity in relative performance, combined with the fact that FPS drops significantly when resolution increases, indicates the GPU is the sole bottleneck.

Q: What is the impact of the GPU's 4 GB of VRAM on the results?

A: The 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 112.1 GB/s bandwidth is a likely contributor to the poor performance. As settings increase, the demand for memory bandwidth and capacity grows. The measured FPS drops steeply from Low to Medium at every resolution, which is consistent with the GPU running out of memory resources.

Q: Is there any reason to use the Ultra preset?

A: No. The Ultra preset provides the worst performance in every resolution, yielding an average of 24.5 FPS at 1080p, 19.8 FPS at 1440p, and 12 FPS at 4K. The performance cost is not justified by the data.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the definitive limiting factor in this configuration. Its specifications are modest for modern gaming: 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GPU has a base clock of 1291 MHz and a boost clock of 1392 MHz, with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus providing 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The FP32 performance is 2.138 TFLOPS.

These numbers place the GPU at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5316. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, scores 5317, showing that the 1050 Ti is at the very bottom of the performance ladder. The measured FPS in Control reflects this: the GPU struggles to maintain playable frame rates even at the lowest settings.

The VRAM capacity is a critical issue. With only 4 GB, the card cannot handle the texture and geometry data required by higher presets. The data shows a sharp drop in performance when moving from Low to Medium settings at all resolutions. For example, at 1440p, the average FPS falls from 37 on Low to 27.2 on Medium, a 26% decline. This pattern is consistent with the GPU hitting a memory bandwidth or capacity wall. The GTX 1050 Ti simply does not have the resources to process Control's visual effects at higher detail levels. Its role is to hold the system back; the CPU is never the constraint.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i7-14700KF and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti ranks 1622 out of 1636 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 1% of systems. The ranking reflects the extreme imbalance of the pairing: a top-tier CPU with a bottom-tier GPU.

The CPU's own benchmarks are exceptional. It scores 44557 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 6290 in single-core, with a 96th percentile ranking. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-14700K, scores 70074 on average, a 0% difference, while the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X scores 70420, which is 0.4% faster. This CPU is not the issue.

The GPU, however, is near the bottom of its own rankings. It scores 6340 in Passmark G3D and 6340 in Passmark G3D. Its average benchmark score is 5316, placing it in the 30th percentile. The disparity between the CPU's 96th percentile and the GPU's 30th percentile is the story. The combo rank of 1622 out of 1636 indicates that this system performs like a much weaker CPU paired with the same GPU, because the CPU's power is entirely unused. The data shows that in Control, this combination is effectively a low-end GPU test, not a balanced system.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drops from 1080p to 4K are steep and consistent across all settings. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 45.2 at 1080p to 37 at 1440p (an 18% drop) and then to 22.6 at 4K (a 39% drop from 1440p). At High settings, the averages are 28.6 at 1080p, 23.5 at 1440p, and 13.6 at 4K.

This scaling pattern is a classic sign of a GPU-bound system. When the CPU is the bottleneck, frame rates stay relatively flat as resolution increases because the CPU is doing the same amount of work. Here, the FPS drops dramatically as resolution increases, which means the GPU is being asked to render more pixels and is failing to keep up. The GPU's pixel rate is 44.54 GPixel/s, which is insufficient for 4K rendering in this game.

The data indicates that the limiting component is the GPU. The CPU has ample headroom; it is waiting for the GPU to finish each frame. The 4K results are particularly telling: even at Low settings, the average is 22.6 FPS, which is unplayable. The scaling from 1080p to 4K on Low settings shows a 50% reduction in FPS, which is a significant penalty that cannot be mitigated by CPU performance. The only way to improve frame rates is to reduce the GPU's workload, which means lowering resolution or settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: Average 45.2 FPS
• Medium: Average 29.7 FPS
• High: Average 28.6 FPS
• Ultra: Average 24.5 FPS

At 1080p, the Low preset is the only one that approaches a playable frame rate. The gap between Low and Medium is 15.5 FPS, which is a 34% reduction. High and Ultra offer no advantage over Medium; the differences are within a few FPS.

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: Average 37 FPS
• Medium: Average 27.2 FPS
• High: Average 23.5 FPS
• Ultra: Average 19.8 FPS

At 1440p, the Low preset drops below 40 FPS. The Medium preset is 26% slower than Low, and High is 14% slower than Medium. The Ultra preset is the lowest at 19.8 FPS, which is a poor experience.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: Average 22.6 FPS
• Medium: Average 17.9 FPS
• High: Average 13.6 FPS
• Ultra: Average 12 FPS

At 4K, all presets are unplayable. The Low preset is the only one above 20 FPS. The Ultra preset is the worst, with an average of 12 FPS. The data shows a clear linear decline in performance as settings increase at this resolution.

The overall pattern is that the GTX 1050 Ti cannot handle Control at any resolution above 1080p Low with acceptable performance. The measured numbers confirm that this is a hardware limitation, not a software issue.