Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title that stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB produces a specific bottleneck profile. The data shows a system that is firmly GPU-limited at higher resolutions, while the processor’s substantial headroom becomes apparent only when the graphical load is reduced. This analysis breaks down the measured performance across the three primary resolutions and four quality presets, referencing the exact figures from the benchmark database to explain what frames per second (FPS) you can expect and why.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, which is the classic signature of a graphics card being the primary limiting factor. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 53 FPS at 1920x1080 to 40 FPS at 2560x1440, and then plummets to 27 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 24.5% performance loss when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and another 32.5% loss when stepping up to 4K. The trend is linear, indicating that the RTX 3050 4 GB is running out of raw throughput and memory bandwidth as the pixel count increases, not that the CPU is failing to feed it.

The scaling pattern holds across all settings presets. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 83 at 1080p, down to 63 at 1440p, and finally to 43 at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 4K is a 48.2% reduction, which is significant but slightly less punishing than at High settings, where the reduction is 49.1%. This suggests that even when the game is not demanding on the GPU's shaders, the sheer number of pixels at 4K overwhelms the 128-bit memory bus and the 4 GB frame buffer.

The most telling data point for resolution scaling is the Medium preset, which includes minimum and maximum FPS readings. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 59 FPS with a range of 50 to 68 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average drops to 45 FPS with a range of 38 to 51 FPS. At 3840x2160 Medium, the average falls to 30 FPS with a range of 26 to 35 FPS. The minimum frame rates scale proportionally with the averages, which means the experience remains consistent without sudden stutters; the entire frame delivery pipeline is just slower at higher resolutions. This indicates the limiting component is the GPU, as a CPU bottleneck would typically cause erratic frame time spikes and a less predictable FPS range.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is the definitive bottleneck in this configuration for Control. Its specifications paint a clear picture: a GA107 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, with 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The memory configuration is particularly critical here, as the card has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s. This is a low bandwidth figure for a modern game, and Control’s environments, which are dense with destructible geometry and particle effects, demand substantial memory throughput.

The clock speeds are listed as a base of 1545 MHz and a boost of 1740 MHz. These clocks are not high enough to compensate for the limited memory subsystem. The pixel rate is 55.68 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s, but the FP32 performance is only 7.127 TFLOPS. For a game like Control, which uses ray tracing effects heavily (though the data here does not specify RT settings), these raw compute numbers are modest. The GPU’s percentile rank against all GPUs is 50, placing it exactly at the median, which aligns with its observed performance: playable at 1080p, marginal at 1440p, and generally not viable at 4K for smooth gameplay.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is also a concern. At Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 46 at 1080p, 35 at 1440p, and 23 at 4K. The drastic drop at 4K Ultra suggests the card is not only compute-limited but also likely hitting the VRAM ceiling, causing asset thrashing. The RTX 3050 4 GB was released on 2022-01-26 with a launch MSRP of 199 USD, but its end-of-life status is evident in its inability to handle higher resolutions in this title. The data shows that even at 1080p, the card cannot maintain a 60 FPS average at High settings, only achieving 53 FPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Control with this CPU and GPU combo?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the average FPS consistently stays above 40 FPS across all settings. At Low settings it reaches 83 FPS, at Medium 59 FPS, and at High 53 FPS, making 1080p the viable choice for a smooth experience.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset averages 40 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 35 FPS. This is a 12.5% performance penalty for enabling the highest graphical options, which might not be worth it given the already low frame rate.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU causing the low frame rates at 4K?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 23 at Ultra to 43 at Low. The CPU has 24 cores and 24 threads with a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, which is far more capable than what the GPU can utilize at this resolution.

Q: What is the frame rate range at 1080p Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows a minimum FPS of 50, a maximum FPS of 68, and an average of 59 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings. This provides a relatively stable experience without massive dips.

Q: How much faster is Low settings compared to Ultra at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, Low settings produce an average of 43 FPS, while Ultra settings produce an average of 23 FPS. The Low preset is 87% faster than Ultra, which is a massive difference that allows for a playable, albeit visually reduced, experience.

Q: Does the RTX 3050 4 GB have enough memory for this game?

A: The 4 GB VRAM appears to be a limiting factor at higher resolutions. The steep performance collapse at 4K Ultra (23 FPS) compared to 4K Low (43 FPS) suggests that the memory buffer is being exhausted, leading to severe performance degradation.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB ranks 2522 out of 2888 tested combos for Control. This places it in the bottom 12.7% of all configurations in the database, which is a poor showing for a system with such a high-end processor. The rank is clearly dragged down by the GPU, as the CPU alone sits in the 96th percentile when compared to all CPUs. The disparity between the CPU’s potential and the combo’s actual ranking highlights a severe imbalance.

Looking at the CPU’s nearest rivals provides context for what this processor is capable of. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785, which is virtually identical to the Intel Xeon 6520P at 93786 (0% delta). It is slightly behind the AMD EPYC 4564P, which scores 95183 (-1.5% delta), and the AMD EPYC 9175F at 95615 (-1.9% delta). These are all server-class processors, which shows the 270K Plus is a heavyweight, but pairing it with a mid-range GPU from 2022 results in a combo that is ranked near the bottom of the pile for this specific game.

The implication is that this system is poorly balanced for Control. The CPU is never the bottleneck, and the GPU is always the limiting factor, leading to a situation where a significantly cheaper processor could achieve the same FPS in this title. The combo rank of 2522 out of 2888 indicates that most other tested combinations, even those with less powerful CPUs, likely perform better in Control because they are paired with more capable graphics cards.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a 3 nm TSMC process. It features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The cache configuration is generous, with 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Its memory bandwidth is rated at 115.2 GB/s, and it supports DDR5 memory. In the context of Control, this CPU has more than enough compute headroom to handle the game’s physics and AI processing demands.

The benchmark results for the CPU are stellar. In Cinebench R23, it scores 44253 in multi-core and 2439 in single-core. In PassMark, it achieves a multi-thread score of 68574 and a single-thread score of 5068. These numbers place the CPU in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. However, the measured FPS in Control does not reflect this power. At 1080p Low settings, the FPS is 83, which is not a high number for a system with such a strong processor. This proves that the CPU is providing all the frames the GPU can render, but the GPU cannot keep up.

The CPU’s role in this game is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. Since the RTX 3050 4 GB has a FP32 performance of only 7.127 TFLOPS, it takes much longer to render each frame than it takes for the CPU to prepare the next one. Therefore, the 270K Plus is effectively idle, waiting on the GPU. The data shows no signs of a CPU bottleneck; the FPS scales directly with resolution changes, which is a pure GPU behavior. If the CPU were the limiter, the FPS would be similar across resolutions, which is not the case here.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following is the complete set of measured average FPS data for the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB in Control:

• 1920x1080 (1080p):
• Low: Average FPS 83
• Medium: Average FPS 59, with a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 68
• High: Average FPS 53
• Ultra: Average FPS 46

• 2560x1440 (1440p):
• Low: Average FPS 63
• Medium: Average FPS 45, with a minimum of 38 and a maximum of 51
• High: Average FPS 40
• Ultra: Average FPS 35

• 3840x2160 (4K):
• Low: Average FPS 43
• Medium: Average FPS 30, with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 35
• High: Average FPS 27
• Ultra: Average FPS 23

The data reveals a clear hierarchy. At 1080p, only the Low preset achieves a frame rate above 60 FPS, with Medium and High hovering in the 50-60 range, and Ultra dipping to 46. At 1440p, all presets fall below 63 FPS, with the High and Ultra settings delivering 40 and 35 FPS respectively, which is borderline playable for a single-player title. At 4K, the experience is consistently poor, with even the Low preset failing to reach 45 FPS, and the Ultra preset dropping to 23 FPS, which is a slideshow. The Medium preset’s minimum and maximum FPS values at each resolution show a spread of roughly 9-18 FPS, indicating that the frame delivery is not perfectly smooth but also not wildly erratic. The performance is predictable and scales exactly as one would expect from a GPU-bound system with modest specifications.