Control

The pairing of Intel’s flagship Core i9-14900K with the entry-level NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 creates an extreme bottleneck scenario in Control. The data shows a processor capable of 49,872 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, yet the graphics card’s 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth limit output to a narrow band of frame rates. This analysis focuses strictly on the measured FPS rows, providing a clear picture of what this specific combination delivers.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and linear, confirming the GTX 1650 as the sole limiting component. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 56.8 FPS at 1920x1080 to 40.5 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 16.3 FPS. Moving to 3840x2160, the same Low preset yields just 27.5 FPS, meaning the jump from 1440p to 4K costs another 13.0 FPS. This pattern holds across all presets: the gap between 1080p and 4K is consistently large, indicating that the GPU is saturated well before the CPU’s headroom is ever approached.

At High settings, the scaling is even more punishing. The 1080p result of 34.0 FPS drops to 27.7 FPS at 1440p, then plummets to 16.1 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset follows a similar trajectory, starting at 33.9 FPS at 1080p, falling to 22.4 FPS at 1440p, and bottoming out at 14.6 FPS at 4K. These numbers reveal that the GTX 1650’s 896 shading units and 32 ROPs are overwhelmed by the pixel count at higher resolutions, regardless of the visual complexity. The i9-14900K’s 24 cores and 32 threads remain idle bystanders; the data shows no scenario where CPU performance influences the frame rate.

The most telling comparison is between Low and Ultra at the same resolution. At 1080p, the difference is 22.9 FPS (56.8 vs. 33.9), while at 4K, the difference narrows to 12.9 FPS (27.5 vs. 14.6). This compression at higher resolutions is classic GPU-bound behavior: as pixel shading workload increases, the relative cost of additional graphical effects diminishes. The GTX 1650’s 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is simply insufficient for 4K in Control, a game that heavily utilizes volumetric effects and physics. For any playable experience, the resolution must stay at 1080p, where the card can at least approach playable territory on lower presets.

FAQ

Q: What is the best-case average FPS for this combo?

A: The highest measured average is 56.8 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration in the data that exceeds the 60 FPS threshold, and it does so by a narrow margin.

*Q: Is this combo capable of 4K gaming in Control?*

A: No. The best 4K result is 27.5 FPS at Low settings, which is below playable standards. High and Ultra presets at 3840x2160 produce 16.1 FPS and 14.6 FPS respectively, making 4K impractical for this hardware.

Q: How does the GPU rank relative to its peers?

A: The GTX 1650 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8,713. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8,746, a delta of -0.4%, meaning the GTX 1650 is essentially tied with that mobile part.

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

A: The measured average FPS drops from 56.8 on Low to 33.9 on Ultra, a difference of 22.9 FPS. This represents a 40.3% reduction in frame rate for the highest visual fidelity preset.

Q: Does the i9-14900K help in this game?

A: No. The CPU’s benchmark scores (49,872 in Cinebench R23 multi-core) are far beyond what Control requires. The measured FPS is entirely dictated by the GTX 1650, as evidenced by the consistent scaling across resolutions and settings.

Q: What is the combo’s overall rank among tested systems?

A: This combination ranks 1,598 out of 1,636 tested combos in Control. That places it in the bottom 2.3% of all systems, reflecting the severe GPU bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the only viable path to a smooth experience is to prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. The Low preset at 1920x1080 delivers 56.8 FPS, which is the sole configuration approaching acceptable smoothness. Medium settings at the same resolution produce 38.1 FPS, a playable but compromised experience, while High and Ultra yield 34.0 FPS and 33.9 FPS respectively—nearly identical results that suggest the game’s higher presets add cost without proportional visual benefit on this hardware.

At 2560x1440, even Low settings only reach 40.5 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target but may be playable for less demanding users. Medium at 1440p drops to 29.5 FPS, and High falls to 27.7 FPS. The data suggests that resolution scaling is the primary lever; dropping from 1440p to 1080p yields a 16.3 FPS improvement on Low settings, whereas reducing from Medium to Low at the same resolution only gains 18.7 FPS at 1080p. For the best experience, the recommendation is unambiguous: 1080p with Low settings.

The gap between High (34.0 FPS) and Ultra (33.9 FPS) at 1080p is negligible, indicating that the Ultra preset offers no meaningful advantage while consuming additional GPU resources. Medium settings at 1080p provide a 12.1% improvement over High, but still fall short of the Low preset’s frame rate. Given the GTX 1650’s 4 GB memory limit, the data implies that texture quality and shadow resolution are the primary bottlenecks, and the Low preset’s reduced memory footprint is what allows the card to operate at its peak measured output.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the frame rates range from a low of 33.9 FPS on Ultra to a high of 56.8 FPS on Low. The progression is consistent: Low (56.8), Medium (38.1), High (34.0), and Ultra (33.9). Notably, High and Ultra are separated by only 0.1 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset’s additional effects are either not rendered or are handled at a negligible cost. Medium settings offer a middle ground, but the 18.7 FPS gap between Medium and Low is substantial, indicating that the Low preset removes critical GPU load.

Moving to 2560x1440, the best result is 40.5 FPS on Low, which is 16.3 FPS lower than the same preset at 1080p. Medium drops to 29.5 FPS, High to 27.7 FPS, and Ultra to 22.4 FPS. The performance hierarchy remains the same, but the distances between presets narrow: the difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 18.1 FPS, compared to 22.9 FPS at 1080p. This confirms that pixel throughput is the dominant factor, as the GPU’s fill rate (53.28 GPixel/s) becomes the limiting resource.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings manage 27.5 FPS, Medium falls to 22.4 FPS, High to 16.1 FPS, and Ultra to 14.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 5.1 FPS, while High and Ultra are separated by only 1.5 FPS. The data shows that the GTX 1650 cannot sustain even 30 FPS at this resolution on any preset, and the performance curve flattens as the pixel count overwhelms the 128-bit memory bus. The 4K results are less than half of the 1080p results for every preset, further underscoring the GPU’s limitations.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of an Intel Core i9-14900K and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1,598 out of 1,636 tested combos in Control. That places it in the bottom 38 positions, a stark indication of how poorly the GPU matches the CPU’s potential. The i9-14900K is at the 97th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79,824, while the GTX 1650 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 8,713. The disparity between these two components is the defining characteristic of this setup.

Relative to the CPU’s nearest rivals, the i9-14900K holds its own: it trails the AMD EPYC 7413 by 0.3%, but beats the Intel Core i9-14900KF and Core Ultra 7 265KF by 0.7%, and the Core Ultra 7 265K by 0.9%. These differences are negligible and have no bearing on the game’s performance, as the CPU is never the bottleneck. On the GPU side, the GTX 1650 is effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (-0.4%), AMD Radeon 550X (-0.4%), and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (-0.5%), while edging out the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 by 0.5%. These rivals share the same performance tier, but none of them would meaningfully improve Control’s frame rates.

The combo rank of 1,598 is a direct consequence of the GPU’s percentile ranking. In a game like Control, which relies heavily on GPU compute and memory bandwidth, the GTX 1650’s 4 GB capacity and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for anything beyond 1080p Low. The data confirms that this rank is not a reflection of the CPU, which would rank near the top in CPU-bound titles, but rather evidence of the GTX 1650’s status as an entry-level part that is end-of-life. For users with this pairing, the measured FPS represents the absolute ceiling of what the hardware can deliver.