Control

Control pairs a 20-core Intel Core i7-14700KF with a 4 GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, and the measured results show a system that is firmly GPU-bound at every resolution tested. The GTX 1650, with its 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, becomes the limiting factor long before the i7-14700KF’s 5.60 GHz boost clock is stressed. This combination ranks 1592 out of 1636 tested configurations for this game, placing it in the bottom 3% of all pairings, which aligns with the GPU’s 43rd percentile standing among all graphics cards. The CPU’s 96th percentile rank among all processors, meanwhile, suggests the processor is never the bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling

The data shows a predictable but steep drop in frame rates as resolution increases, confirming that the GTX 1650’s pixel throughput is the primary constraint. At 1080p with Low settings, the system averages 56.4 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 40.6 FPS, a 28% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 31.2 FPS, which is 45% below the 1080p Low figure. This scaling pattern is classic for a GPU with only 32 ROPs and a 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate — the render target size grows faster than the card can fill pixels.

The gap between 1080p and 1440p is consistent across all settings. At High, the drop from 35.8 FPS to 26.5 FPS is a 26% loss; at Medium, 41.1 to 28.5 is a 31% loss; at Ultra, 29.6 to 21.5 is a 27% loss. Interestingly, the jump from 1440p to 4K is smaller in percentage terms at High (26.5 to 19.7, a 26% drop) than the 1080p-to-1440p transition, which suggests that at 4K the system is hitting a hard floor imposed by the GPU’s memory bandwidth. The 4K Medium result of 19.9 FPS is nearly identical to the 4K High result of 19.7 FPS, indicating that the card is saturated regardless of shader workload — the 128.1 GB/s bus cannot feed the render output fast enough.

These numbers make it clear that the i7-14700KF is not the limiter. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS deltas between resolutions to shrink or vanish entirely. Instead, every resolution step produces a proportional FPS change, which is the signature of a GPU-bound scenario. The processor’s 33 MB of shared L3 cache and 28 threads are simply waiting on the graphics card to deliver frames.

FAQ

Q: Is this system capable of playing Control at 1080p?

A: At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 56.4, which is playable. However, at 1080p Ultra the average drops to 29.6 FPS, which falls below the 30 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. Medium settings at 1080p yield 41.1 FPS, providing a usable middle ground.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in this game?

A: The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score of 8713 is within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8761) and 0.4% of the AMD Radeon 550X (8749). It sits 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8671). These deltas are negligible, so performance in Control should be nearly identical across these cards.

Q: Should I use High or Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: Neither is ideal. High averages 26.5 FPS and Ultra averages 21.5 FPS. Both are below the 30 FPS playability threshold. The data suggests dropping to Medium (28.5 FPS) or Low (40.6 FPS) for a smoother experience at this resolution.

Q: What is the CPU’s role if the system is GPU-bound?

A: The i7-14700KF is vastly overqualified for this pairing. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44557 and single-core score of 6290 place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. In this game, the processor is never the limiting factor; it simply feeds the GPU without bottlenecking.

Q: Can this system handle 4K in Control?

A: No. The best 4K result is 31.2 FPS on Low settings. Every other 4K preset — Medium (19.9), High (19.7), and Ultra (16) — falls well below playable frame rates. The GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus are insufficient for 4K rendering in this title.

Q: How does the GPU’s DirectX 12 performance affect the game?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 35 in the Passmark DirectX 12 test, which is notably lower than its DirectX 11 score of 58. Control is a DirectX 12 title, and this lower DX12 result aligns with the measured FPS being below what the card’s raw FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS might suggest.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700KF is a 20-core, 28-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake-R architecture, built on Intel’s 10 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, with 33 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, it achieves a Geekbench multi-core score of 19287 and a single-core score of 2972, along with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44557. These figures place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 70104.

For Control, however, these CPU credentials are largely irrelevant. The measured FPS data shows that the system is GPU-bound at every resolution and settings combination. The CPU’s nearest rivals — the Intel Core i7-14700K (70074 avg score, 0% delta), AMD Ryzen 9 9950X (70420, -0.4% delta), and AMD EPYC 9115 (69887, 0.3% delta) — all have nearly identical average scores, and any of them would produce the same FPS in this game when paired with a GTX 1650.

The processor’s high single-thread performance (Passmark single-thread score of 4480) ensures that game logic and physics calculations are handled with headroom to spare. Control is an action-adventure title that relies on physics-heavy environments and particle effects, but the i7-14700KF’s 28 threads are more than adequate for these workloads. The bottleneck is purely the GPU’s rendering capability, not the CPU’s ability to issue draw calls.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its only playable results. Low settings average 56.4 FPS, which is smooth and responsive. Medium settings drop to 41.1 FPS, still within a comfortable range for most players. High settings yield 35.8 FPS, which is borderline but playable with some frame pacing adjustments. Ultra settings fall to 29.6 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS target and will feel stuttery during combat sequences.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance degrades significantly. Low settings average 40.6 FPS, which is acceptable but not ideal. Medium averages 28.5 FPS, High averages 26.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 21.5 FPS. None of these meet the 30 FPS standard for consistent gameplay, though Low is usable if you prioritize resolution over visual quality.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings average 31.2 FPS, which is the only 4K preset that approaches playability. Medium averages 19.9 FPS, High averages 19.7 FPS, and Ultra averages 16 FPS. The near-identical Medium and High scores indicate that the GPU is completely saturated at 4K, and further shader work does not meaningfully change the frame rate.

The scaling between settings at a fixed resolution is also telling. At 1080p, going from Low to Medium costs 15.3 FPS (56.4 to 41.1), while going from Medium to High costs 5.3 FPS (41.1 to 35.8). This nonlinear drop suggests that Medium settings are the sweet spot for the GTX 1650’s 896 shading units, as the card can handle moderate shader loads but chokes on higher-quality lighting and reflections.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the TU117 chip using TSMC’s 12 nm process, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. It features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The card has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. Its FP32 throughput is 2.984 TFLOPS, and it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

In synthetic benchmarks, the GTX 1650 scores 7880 in Passmark G3D and 39112 in Geekbench OpenCL. Its Passmark DirectX 11 score of 58 is notably higher than its DirectX 12 score of 35, which directly correlates with the game’s measured performance. The card’s 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8713, places it in the lower midrange. Its nearest rivals — the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, -0.4% delta), AMD Radeon 550X (8749, -0.4% delta), and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8761, -0.5% delta) — all perform within a fraction of a percent, so swapping among these cards would yield nearly identical FPS in Control.

The GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM is a significant limitation for Control. The game’s high-resolution textures and effects can exceed this capacity at higher settings, causing the card to rely on slower memory swapping. This explains why the 4K Medium and High results are nearly identical (19.9 vs 19.7 FPS) — the card is bandwidth-stalled rather than shader-limited. The 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is simply insufficient for 4K workloads, regardless of the shader configuration.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience for this combination is at 1080p with Medium settings, which delivers 41.1 FPS. This is a 27% improvement over High settings (35.8 FPS) and keeps the frame rate comfortably above the 30 FPS threshold. Low settings (56.4 FPS) provide the smoothest experience but sacrifice visual fidelity that Control’s atmospheric environments benefit from.

For players who prioritize frame rate over visuals, 1080p Low is the only preset that consistently stays above 50 FPS. The 56.4 FPS average provides enough headroom for demanding combat sequences without dropping below playability. However, the step from Low to Medium at 1080p costs only 15.3 FPS, and the visual gains in texture detail and shadow quality are substantial for this genre.

At 1440p, the data suggests avoiding Ultra entirely (21.5 FPS) and even High (26.5 FPS). Medium at 28.5 FPS is marginal, but Low at 40.6 FPS is the only 1440p option that feels responsive. If you have a 1440p monitor, the recommendation is to run Low settings and accept the visual trade-off, or drop to 1080p for a better balance.

For 4K, the measured results are clear: this GPU cannot handle the resolution in Control. Even Low settings (31.2 FPS) are borderline, and every other preset falls below 20 FPS. The GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are fundamentally inadequate for 4K rendering in this title. Users should not attempt 4K with this card and should instead target 1080p or 1440p with lower presets. The i7-14700KF has no bearing on these recommendations — the GPU is the sole determining factor in every measured configuration.