Control

# Control with Intel Core i9-14900K + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060

Control’s benchmark data for this combination reveals a system where the GPU is the clear performance anchor, with the RTX 2060’s Turing architecture and 6 GB of GDDR6 memory limiting the experience long before the i9-14900K’s 24 cores and 6.00 GHz boost clock can be fully exercised. The measured FPS numbers across resolutions and settings tell a consistent story: the CPU is massively overprovisioned relative to the GPU in this pairing, and the data reflects that bottleneck clearly.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across every settings tier, which points squarely at the GPU as the limiting component. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 107 FPS at 1920x1080 to 81 FPS at 2560x1440 (a 24% reduction), then to 55 FPS at 3840x2160 (a 32% further drop from 1440p). The cumulative loss from 1080p to 4K at Low is 52 FPS, or roughly 49%. This pattern is not random — it tracks the pixel-count increase almost exactly, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario.

At High settings, the scaling is even more pronounced. The average drops from 68 FPS at 1080p to 51 FPS at 1440p (-25%), then to 35 FPS at 4K (-31% from 1440p). The 4K High result of 35 FPS is below the 30 FPS Ultra result at 4K of 30 FPS, but the gap between High and Ultra at each resolution is remarkably consistent: 9 FPS at 1080p, 6 FPS at 1440p, and 5 FPS at 4K. This suggests that the GPU's shading units (1920) and texture units (120) are being saturated at higher resolutions, and the incremental cost of Ultra over High is relatively small compared to the cost of adding pixels.

The Medium preset shows the same trajectory: 76 FPS at 1080p, 58 FPS at 1440p, and 39 FPS at 4K. The min FPS values for Medium are 65 at 1080p, 49 at 1440p, and 33 at 4K, with max FPS of 88, 66, and 45 respectively. The delta between min and max grows from 23 FPS at 1080p to 17 FPS at 1440p and 12 FPS at 4K — the frame time variance shrinks as resolution rises, which is counterintuitive but indicates that the GPU is so thoroughly saturated at 4K that it's running at a more consistent (though lower) pace. At 1080p, the CPU can push the GPU harder, creating larger swings.

The data implies that 1080p is where this combo shows its best behavior, but even there, the i9-14900K is not the driver. The CPU's 24 cores and 32 threads are simply not needed for Control's demands at any resolution — the game is not scaling across those threads, and the GPU becomes the wall at every pixel count tested. The fact that 4K Low (55 FPS) is barely better than 1440p High (51 FPS) reinforces this: the GPU's raw throughput, not the settings complexity, is what governs performance.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear hierarchy of playability. At 1920x1080, High preset averages 68 FPS, which is solidly playable, but Medium averages 76 FPS with a min of 65 FPS — the min FPS on Medium is higher than the average on Ultra (59 FPS). This suggests that Medium at 1080p is the sweet spot for consistent frame delivery, because the min FPS of 65 is close to the average, indicating stability. Ultra at 1080p averages 59 FPS, which is acceptable but leaves no headroom for dips; the lack of min FPS data for Ultra makes it risky to recommend.

At 2560x1440, the picture changes. High averages 51 FPS, Medium averages 58 FPS with a min of 49 FPS, and Low averages 81 FPS. For a game like Control, which features fast-paced combat and physics-based environments, the 58 FPS Medium result with a 49 FPS min is marginal but workable. The 81 FPS Low result at 1440p is the only preset that provides comfortable headroom above 60 FPS. The data suggests that at 1440p, dropping to Low is the pragmatic choice if smoothness is prioritized, since Medium's min FPS of 49 could produce noticeable stutter in dense scenes.

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. Low averages 55 FPS, Medium 39 FPS, High 35 FPS, and Ultra 30 FPS. The 55 FPS Low result is the only 4K option that approaches playability, and even that is below the 60 FPS target. The min FPS of 33 at 4K Medium indicates that dips into the low 30s are possible, which would be disruptive. For 4K, the only reasonable recommendation from the measured data is Low, and even then, users should expect occasional drops below 55 FPS.

Comparing across resolutions, the 1080p Medium preset offers the best balance: 76 FPS average, 65 FPS min, and 88 FPS max. This is the only settings/resolution combination in the measured data that delivers a min FPS above 60, making it the most reliable choice for consistent frame pacing. The 1440p Low preset (81 FPS average) has a higher average but lacks min FPS data, so its stability is unverified. The data implies that for this specific CPU-GPU pairing, the user must trade resolution against settings, and the 1080p Medium option is the only one that fully clears the 60 FPS floor.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i9-14900K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 ranks 2950 out of 3720 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 21% of all configurations. This is a surprisingly low rank for a system with a top-tier CPU — the i9-14900K alone sits in the 95th percentile against all CPUs, but the RTX 2060's 58th percentile against all GPUs drags the combo down. The data shows that Control's performance is overwhelmingly GPU-limited, and the CPU's strength cannot compensate for the GPU's mid-range position.

The rank of 2950 out of 3720 means that approximately 770 combos perform worse, but over 2,900 perform better. This positions the combo in the lower quartile of tested configurations, which is consistent with the RTX 2060's age and its 6 GB memory capacity. The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (deltaPct 0), AMD Radeon 680M (deltaPct 0.1), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (deltaPct 0.6), and AMD Radeon RX 7600 (deltaPct 0.8) — all within 0.8% of the RTX 2060's average benchmark score. This clustering suggests that the RTX 2060 is firmly in a performance tier that predates modern high-end GPUs, and Control's demands push it to its limits.

The CPU side tells a different story. The i9-14900K's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900KF (deltaPct -0.3), Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus (deltaPct -0.6), AMD EPYC 7413 (deltaPct -1.2), and AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 (deltaPct 1.7). These are all flagship or near-flagship parts, and the i9-14900K's 95th percentile ranking shows it is not the bottleneck. The combo rank being so low despite the CPU's strength is direct evidence that Control does not utilize the CPU's 24 cores or 32 threads in a meaningful way — the game is not CPU-bound at any tested resolution, and the RTX 2060 is the sole limiting factor.

The rank also implies that users with this combo would see substantial gains from a GPU upgrade alone, while a CPU upgrade would yield no measurable improvement in Control. The data's 3720 combo count suggests a broad test pool, and being at position 2950 means that even mid-range modern GPUs paired with weaker CPUs likely outperform this combination in this specific game.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 60 FPS at 1080p?

A: Yes, at Low settings the average is 107 FPS, and at Medium it is 76 FPS with a min of 65 FPS. High averages 68 FPS, but Ultra drops to 59 FPS, which is below 60.

Q: What is the best 4K experience available with this hardware?

A: The only 4K preset that exceeds 50 FPS is Low, which averages 55 FPS. Medium averages 39 FPS, High 35 FPS, and Ultra 30 FPS. No 4K setting reaches 60 FPS.

Q: Is the i9-14900K being fully utilized in Control?

A: No. The CPU ranks in the 95th percentile and has 24 cores, but the combo ranks 2950 out of 3720, indicating the GPU is the bottleneck. Control does not appear to scale across the CPU's many threads.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RTX 2060 has an average benchmark score of 15290, with the GTX 580 at 15283 (0% delta), AMD Radeon 680M at 15270 (0.1%), RTX 3050 OEM at 15199 (0.6%), and RX 7600 at 15171 (0.8%). All are within 0.8%, placing them in the same performance tier.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Medium and Ultra at 1440p?

A: Medium averages 58 FPS with a min of 49 FPS, while Ultra averages 45 FPS. The difference is 13 FPS on average, but Medium's min FPS is 4 FPS higher than Ultra's average.

Q: Does the 6 GB VRAM on the RTX 2060 affect Control's performance?

A: The data does not directly measure VRAM usage, but the GPU's 6 GB GDDR6 memory with a 192-bit bus and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth is the only memory configuration available. The steep FPS drops at 4K are consistent with memory bandwidth saturation.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is the defining component in this pairing, and its specifications explain the measured FPS patterns. The GPU has 1920 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units, with a base clock of 1365 MHz and a boost clock of 1680 MHz. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) across a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The pixel rate is 80.64 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 201.6 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance at 6.451 TFLOPS.

These numbers indicate a GPU that was designed for 1080p gaming at its launch in January 2019, and Control's 2019 release aligns with that era. The 4K results — 30 FPS at Ultra, 35 FPS at High, 39 FPS at Medium, and 55 FPS at Low — show that the GPU's shading throughput and memory bandwidth are simply insufficient for 4K at higher presets. The 6 GB VRAM may also be a factor at 4K, where texture data can exceed that capacity, though the data does not provide direct VRAM usage metrics.

The RTX 2060's 58th percentile ranking against all GPUs places it just above the midpoint, and its nearest rivals include the GTX 580 (a much older part) and the RX 7600 (a newer budget card), all within 0.8% in average benchmark score. This clustering suggests that the RTX 2060 is not a high-end part by any measure, and Control's demanding physics and particle effects push it to its limits. The 30 RT cores and 240 tensor cores are present but do not appear to provide a meaningful advantage in this game, as the FPS numbers are typical of a mid-range Turing GPU.

The data implies that the GPU's 160 W TDP and dual-slot design are appropriate for its performance class, but the 4K results clearly show the ceiling. The 1080p Medium result (76 FPS average) and 1080p Low result (107 FPS average) are the only settings where the GPU can stretch its legs, and even then, the i9-14900K is waiting idle, capable of far more than Control requires.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i9-14900K is a 24-core, 32-thread processor with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 6.00 GHz, based on the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process. It has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 80 KB of L1 per core. Its benchmark scores are exceptional: 39399.5 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 2262.5 in single-core, and 21697 in Geekbench multi-core. It ranks in the 95th percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79097.

Despite this overwhelming CPU capability, the combo ranks 2950 out of 3720 in Control. This discrepancy is the key finding: Control does not appear to be a CPU-intensive game that scales across many cores. The game's demands are met by a fraction of the i9-14900K's resources, and the measured FPS is entirely governed by the GPU. The CPU's nearest rivals include the i9-14900KF (deltaPct -0.3) and AMD EPYC 7413 (deltaPct -1.2), which are similarly powerful, but their performance in this combo would likely be identical because the GPU is the limiting factor.

The CPU's 6.00 GHz boost clock and 32 threads are irrelevant when the GPU is the bottleneck, and the data confirms this. At 1080p Low, the 107 FPS average is likely near the maximum the RTX 2060 can produce, regardless of CPU. The lack of min FPS data for most settings makes it difficult to assess CPU-related frame pacing issues, but the available min FPS values (65 at 1080p Medium, 49 at 1440p Medium, 33 at 4K Medium) show no signs of CPU stutter.

The i9-14900K's 125 W TDP and Intel Socket 1700 interface are standard for its class, but in this pairing, they are overkill. The data suggests that a user would see zero FPS improvement in Control from upgrading the CPU, while a GPU upgrade would unlock the CPU's potential. The CPU's benchmark scores, such as 58674 in Passmark multithread and 210622 in integer math, are impressive but not exercised by this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 107 FPS average
• Medium: 76 FPS average, 65 FPS min, 88 FPS max
• High: 68 FPS average
• Ultra: 59 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 81 FPS average
• Medium: 58 FPS average, 49 FPS min, 66 FPS max
• High: 51 FPS average
• Ultra: 45 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 55 FPS average
• Medium: 39 FPS average, 33 FPS min, 45 FPS max
• High: 35 FPS average
• Ultra: 30 FPS average

The progression across resolutions is linear and consistent with GPU-bound behavior. At every settings tier, the FPS drops by roughly 25-30% from 1080p to 1440p, and another 30-35% from 1440p to 4K. The Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data at all resolutions, and it shows that the min FPS scales from 65 to 49 to 33 as resolution increases, while max FPS scales from 88 to 66 to 45. The spread between min and max narrows from 23 FPS at 1080p to 17 FPS at 1440p to 12 FPS at 4K, indicating more consistent frame delivery as the GPU becomes fully saturated.

The 1080p Low result of 107 FPS is the highest average in the entire dataset, and the 4K Ultra result of 30 FPS is the lowest. The gap between these extremes is 77 FPS, demonstrating the wide performance envelope of this combo. The data shows that the RTX 2060 cannot maintain 60 FPS at 4K under any settings, and at 1440p, only Low (81 FPS) exceeds 60 FPS. At 1080p, Low, Medium, and High all exceed 60 FPS, with only Ultra falling short at 59 FPS. This makes 1080p the only resolution where the combo can be considered fully playable across most presets.