Control

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data for Control on this Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT combination shows clear performance tiers across the three tested resolutions. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the goal here is to identify the most demanding preset that stays at or above that mark.

At 3840x2160, the only setting that clears 60 FPS is Low, which delivers an average of 72.1 FPS. Medium drops to 48.6 FPS, High falls to 45.7 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 41.2 FPS. So for 4K, Low is the only viable option if you want to stay above the 60 FPS line. The jump from Low to Medium costs over 23 FPS, which is a steep price for what is likely a modest visual upgrade.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves considerably. High settings produce an average of 66.5 FPS, which clears the threshold with a small margin. Medium runs at 78.7 FPS and Low at 105.2 FPS, but since High is the most demanding preset that stays above 60 FPS, it is the recommended choice. Ultra sits at 56.5 FPS, just 3.5 FPS short of the target, so pushing to Ultra means accepting a sub-60 experience.

At 1920x1080, the full range of presets is playable. Ultra averages 81 FPS, which is comfortably above the threshold, and it is the best setting to use. High runs at 90.4 FPS, Medium at 99.7 FPS, and Low at 140.1 FPS, but there is no reason to drop below Ultra when it already holds 81 FPS. The headroom at 1080p suggests that even the most demanding scenes should stay fluid, though the database only records average FPS, not minimums.

In short, the best settings are Low at 4K, High at 1440p, and Ultra at 1080p. These are the highest presets that maintain at least 60 FPS on average.

CPU and GPU Roles

Understanding which component drives performance in Control requires looking at how FPS scales across resolutions and presets. The data shows a pattern typical of a GPU-bound title at higher resolutions, but with some nuance at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the differences between presets are large. Low runs at 72.1 FPS, Medium at 48.6 FPS, High at 45.7 FPS, and Ultra at 41.2 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is roughly 31 FPS, which points to the GPU being the primary limiter. The RX 6700 XT is being pushed hard at 4K, and the CPU has enough headroom to feed it without becoming a bottleneck. The fact that Low nearly doubles the FPS of Ultra reinforces this: the GPU's shading and memory throughput are the deciding factors.

At 2560x1440, the same trend continues but with more overall headroom. Low hits 105.2 FPS, Medium 78.7 FPS, High 66.5 FPS, and Ultra 56.5 FPS. The preset scaling is still steep, and the GPU remains the dominant constraint. The CPU, a 6-core, 12-thread Comet Lake part, is not showing signs of limiting performance here. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS gap between Low and Ultra would be much narrower, because lowering settings would not relieve CPU pressure. Instead, the large gaps confirm that the RX 6700 XT is the one doing the heavy lifting.

At 1920x1080, the picture shifts slightly. Low runs at 140.1 FPS, Medium at 99.7 FPS, High at 90.4 FPS, and Ultra at 81 FPS. The scaling is still present, but the absolute numbers are high enough that the CPU starts to matter more. At 140 FPS on Low, the i5-10400F is likely nearing its effective limit in this game, though it still delivers playable results. The gap between Medium and High is only about 9 FPS, and between High and Ultra it is also about 9 FPS, which suggests diminishing returns as the GPU becomes less stressed. At 1080p, the CPU's single-thread and multi-thread performance, reflected in its Cinebench R23 scores of 1451 single-core and 10283 multi-core, is adequate to keep the GPU fed, but it is closer to becoming a limiting factor than at higher resolutions.

The overall picture is that Control is a GPU-heavy title. At 4K and 1440p, the RX 6700 XT dictates performance almost entirely, and the i5-10400F provides sufficient compute headroom. At 1080p, the CPU plays a larger role, but the combination still delivers strong results. If you were to pair this CPU with a weaker GPU, the FPS would drop across the board. If you paired this GPU with a stronger CPU, you would see little gain at 4K and 1440p, and only modest gains at 1080p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database records average FPS for each resolution and preset combination. Minimum and maximum FPS values are not available, so the analysis relies on averages.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings deliver 140.1 FPS, Medium delivers 99.7 FPS, High delivers 90.4 FPS, and Ultra delivers 81 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a loss of 40.4 FPS, which is significant. The step from Medium to High is a loss of 9.3 FPS, and from High to Ultra it is another 9.4 FPS. The largest performance hit comes from moving off Low, while the higher presets scale more gently. This suggests that Low disables or reduces several expensive effects, while Medium, High, and Ultra share more rendering features.

At 2560x1440, the recorded averages are: Low at 105.2 FPS, Medium at 78.7 FPS, High at 66.5 FPS, and Ultra at 56.5 FPS. The delta between Low and Medium is 26.5 FPS, between Medium and High it is 12.2 FPS, and between High and Ultra it is 10 FPS. The pattern is similar to 1080p, but the absolute numbers are lower, as expected from the increased pixel count. The 1440p High result of 66.5 FPS is the most relevant figure for the verdict, as it clears the 60 FPS threshold with a modest margin.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 72.1 FPS, Medium at 48.6 FPS, High at 45.7 FPS, and Ultra at 41.2 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 23.5 FPS, which is the largest single step at this resolution. Medium to High is only a 2.9 FPS difference, and High to Ultra is 4.5 FPS. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU is so stressed that the difference between Medium, High, and Ultra becomes almost negligible in terms of performance. The visual quality differences may still be noticeable, but the frame rate impact is small.

Across all resolutions, the data shows that the i5-10400F and RX 6700 XT combination scales predictably. The 1080p results are strong enough for high-refresh monitors, the 1440p results are solid for standard 60 Hz displays, and the 4K results are only playable on Low.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Control? The answer depends on the resolution and the settings you are willing to accept. The database's verdictByResolution field provides a clear breakdown.

At 3840x2160, the only playable setting is Low, which averages 72.1 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below the 60 FPS threshold, with averages of 48.6, 45.7, and 41.2 FPS respectively. So if you have a 4K display, you can play Control, but only with Low settings. This is playable, but it is a compromise.

At 2560x1440, the situation is better. High settings average 66.5 FPS, which clears the threshold. Medium runs at 78.7 FPS and Low at 105.2 FPS, but High is the recommended preset because it is the most demanding option that still holds above 60 FPS. Ultra sits at 56.5 FPS, just below the line, so it is not recommended if you are strict about the 60 FPS target.

At 1920x1080, the entire preset range is playable. Ultra averages 81 FPS, which is the best visual setting and still leaves headroom. High runs at 90.4 FPS, Medium at 99.7 FPS, and Low at 140.1 FPS. This is the resolution where this combination shines. You can enable every option and still get a smooth experience.

In summary, this PC runs Control well at 1080p and 1440p, with 1080p Ultra being the standout configuration. At 4K, it is technically playable but only on Low settings. The verdict is clear: for the best experience, stick to 1080p Ultra or 1440p High. Avoid 4K Ultra unless you are willing to drop below 60 FPS.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU in this database provide context for how other hardware would behave in this same game.

The Intel Core i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185 and sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6756E with a score of 14163 and a delta of 0.2 percent, the Intel Core 7 160UL with a score of 14232 and a delta of negative 0.3 percent, the AMD EPYC 7552 with a score of 14115 and a delta of 0.5 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C with a score of 14277 and a delta of negative 0.6 percent. These deltas are tiny, meaning any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical performance in Control when paired with the same GPU. In practice, the game would run within a percent or two of the i5-10400F results, so the FPS numbers in this analysis would barely change.

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT has an average benchmark score of 27425 and sits at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile with a score of 27435 and a delta of 0 percent, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 with a score of 27565 and a delta of negative 0.5 percent, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell with a score of 27135 and a delta of 1.1 percent, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 with a score of 27839 and a delta of negative 1.5 percent. The RTX 4070 Mobile is essentially a tie, so it would produce almost the exact same FPS in Control. The RTX 3090 is a desktop-class card with a higher score, but the delta is only 0.5 percent, meaning the in-game difference would be within a frame or two. The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell and Radeon Pro Vega 20 are also close enough that the playable settings at each resolution would remain the same.

For someone building a similar PC, swapping the i5-10400F for any of these rival CPUs, or the RX 6700 XT for any of these rival GPUs, would yield nearly identical performance in Control. The 60 FPS thresholds at each resolution would hold, and the recommended settings would not change.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT ranks 1966 out of 3720 tested combos in this game. That places it in the upper half of all configurations in the database. The percentile position is not explicitly stated, but the rank alone indicates that this is a capable pairing for Control.

A rank of 1966 out of 3720 means roughly 47 percent of tested combos perform better and 53 percent perform worse. This is a solid mid-to-upper tier result. It is not a top-end configuration, but it is far from a weak one. The 1080p Ultra result of 81 FPS and the 1440p High result of 66.5 FPS both demonstrate that this combo handles the game well at mainstream resolutions.

The ranking reflects the balance between the 6-core i5-10400F and the RDNA 2-based RX 6700 XT. The CPU is not a top-tier part, but it has enough threads and clock speed to avoid holding back the GPU in this title. The GPU is the stronger component, as evidenced by the steep FPS scaling across presets. Together, they land in the upper half of the database's tested combos, which is a reasonable outcome for a pairing of this tier.

If you are comparing this setup to others in the database, the takeaway is that it performs as expected for its component class. It will not compete with high-end combos featuring newer flagship CPUs and GPUs, but it comfortably clears the 60 FPS target at 1080p and 1440p, which is the practical goal for most players. The rank of 1966 out of 3720 puts it in the company of other balanced mid-range builds, and the measured FPS confirms that Control is a well-handled title for this hardware.