Control

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1920x1080 with the highest settings?

A: Yes. At 1080p with Ultra settings, the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 7600 combination delivers an average of 65 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. The data shows that all four tested presets at 1080p (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable.

Q: What is the best preset at 2560x1440?

A: Medium is the best playable setting at 1440p, producing an average of 64 FPS. Low also clears the threshold at 89 FPS, but High falls short at 56 FPS and Ultra drops to 49 FPS.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this hardware?

A: Only at Low settings. At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 60 FPS, which exactly meets the playable threshold. Medium drops to 43 FPS, High to 38 FPS, and Ultra to 33 FPS, so higher presets are not viable at this resolution.

Q: How does the RX 7600 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Radeon RX 7600 has an average benchmark score of 15171. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, scores 15199, a 0.2% difference. The AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270, which is 0.7% higher, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560X trails by 0.6% with a score of 15082.

Q: Where does the Core i5-10400F rank among all tested CPUs?

A: The processor sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 14185. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6756E, scores 14163, a 0.2% difference, while the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, 0.6% higher.

Q: What frame rate variance can be expected at Medium settings?

A: The recorded data shows consistent frame times. At 1080p Medium, the average is 84 FPS with a minimum of 71 FPS and maximum of 97 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average is 64 FPS with a range of 54 to 73 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average is 43 FPS with a range of 36 to 49 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data for Control reveals a clear pattern where the graphics card becomes increasingly dominant as resolution rises, while the processor maintains a more consistent workload across all settings. The Core i5-10400F, with 6 cores and 12 threads, provides sufficient processing headroom even at lower resolutions where CPU load tends to be proportionally higher.

At 1920x1080, the scaling between Low and Ultra presets shows the GPU being pushed harder as visual complexity increases. The Low preset averages 118 FPS, while Ultra drops to 65 FPS, a reduction of 53 FPS or roughly 45%. This substantial gap indicates that the RX 7600 is the primary limiting factor at 1080p, as the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at these frame rates. The 118 FPS at Low suggests the processor can sustain high throughput without becoming a bottleneck.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance envelope tightens. The Low preset delivers 89 FPS, while Ultra falls to 49 FPS. The Medium preset at 64 FPS represents the sweet spot where the GPU workload balances against the CPU's ability to maintain frame pacing. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 40 FPS, proportionally similar to 1080p, which confirms that the GPU remains the dominant factor at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes overwhelmingly important. The RX 7600's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus width are pushed to their limits, with the Low preset barely achieving 60 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a drop from 60 to 33 FPS, a 45% reduction. This pattern indicates that at 4K, the GPU's compute resources and memory bandwidth are the decisive constraints. The CPU's role diminishes further, as frame rates are low enough that the 12-thread processor is unlikely to be a limiting factor.

The data suggests that the Core i5-10400F provides adequate headroom for this game across all tested configurations. The RX 7600, with 2048 shading units and a boost clock of 2655 MHz, determines the playable envelope. The GPU's performance at 1440p Medium (64 FPS) versus 4K Low (60 FPS) illustrates how resolution scaling affects the graphics card more than the processor. The CPU's 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth and dual-channel DDR4 support are sufficient for the workloads presented by Control, as evidenced by the high frame rates at 1080p Low where CPU overhead is most pronounced.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database's nearest rival data for both components provides useful context for users considering alternative hardware. For the CPU, the Intel Core i5-10400F (average score 14185) sits within a tight cluster of comparable processors. The Intel Xeon 6756E scores 14163, a 0.2% margin, while the AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, a 0.5% difference. On the higher side, the Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232 (0.3% above) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277 (0.6% above). These deltas are negligible in real-world gaming scenarios, meaning any of these CPUs would likely produce near-identical frame rates in Control when paired with the same GPU.

For the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (average score 15171) is closely matched by several alternatives. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199, just 0.2% higher, which places it within the same performance tier. The AMD Radeon 680M integrated solution scores 15270, 0.7% above, though this is an integrated GPU and would behave differently in terms of memory sharing. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X scores 15082 (0.6% lower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti scores 15063 (0.7% lower). These differences are within measurement noise, suggesting that swapping the RX 7600 for any of these rivals would yield comparable frame rates in Control.

In practical terms, a system built with the Core i5-10400F and an RTX 3050 OEM would show nearly identical performance to the RX 7600 configuration, with the 0.2% benchmark delta translating to at most 1-2 FPS difference in the measured presets. Similarly, pairing the RX 7600 with a Ryzen 3 7320C would not meaningfully alter the results, as the 0.6% CPU score difference is unlikely to manifest in a GPU-bound title like Control at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The Core i5-10400F and RX 7600 combination ranks 2608 out of 3720 tested combos in the database for Control. This places the system in the 70th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning roughly 30% of tested combos perform better while 70% perform worse. This ranking reflects a balanced mid-range pairing rather than an entry-level or enthusiast setup.

The rank position aligns with the measured frame rates across resolutions. At 1080p, the combo delivers playable performance at all presets, which is a solid result for a system in this percentile range. The 1440p results are more constrained, with only Low and Medium clearing the 60 FPS threshold, while 4K is limited to Low settings. This pattern is consistent with a GPU that ranks at the 57th percentile among all GPUs in the database, paired with a CPU at the 68th percentile.

The gap between the combo's rank and the component percentiles suggests that Control is somewhat more demanding than average on the GPU relative to other games in the database. The RX 7600's 57th percentile GPU ranking translates to a 70th percentile game-specific combo ranking, indicating that the CPU contributes positively to the overall performance. A weaker CPU paired with the same GPU would likely drop the combo rank further down the list.

The Verdict

The recorded data answers the core question directly: yes, this PC can run Control, but the playable envelope depends heavily on resolution and preset selection. The verdict by resolution is as follows:

At 3840x2160, the system achieves playable performance only at Low settings, with an average of 60 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 43 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. High and Ultra are not viable at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the system expands its playable range to include Low (89 FPS) and Medium (64 FPS). High at 56 FPS and Ultra at 49 FPS remain below the threshold, so users seeking higher visual quality at 1440p would need to accept reduced frame rates.

At 1920x1080, the system achieves playable performance at all four tested presets. Low averages 118 FPS, Medium 84 FPS, High 75 FPS, and Ultra 65 FPS. This makes 1080p the most flexible resolution for this combination, with Ultra settings delivering a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold.

The verdict is clear: this system is fully capable of running Control at 1080p with maximum settings, offers a good experience at 1440p with medium settings, and can handle 4K only at minimum settings. Users prioritizing high frame rates should target 1080p, while those wanting higher resolution should stick to 1440p Medium or 4K Low.

Best Settings per Resolution

The most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS at each resolution:

3840x2160: Low settings, averaging 60 FPS. This is the only preset at 4K that meets the playable threshold. The next step up, Medium, falls to 43 FPS, so there is no room for visual quality improvements without sacrificing playability.

2560x1440: Medium settings, averaging 64 FPS. This provides a 4 FPS margin above the threshold. Low is also playable at 89 FPS, but Medium offers better visual quality while still clearing 60 FPS. High at 56 FPS is just below the threshold, so Medium is the optimal choice.

1920x1080: Ultra settings, averaging 65 FPS. This is the highest preset tested and it clears the threshold with a 5 FPS margin. All lower presets are also playable, but Ultra provides the maximum visual quality without compromising the 60 FPS target. The 65 FPS average gives some headroom above the minimum, though the margin is tighter than at lower presets.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete frame rate data from the database is presented below, organized by resolution and settings.

3840x2160:

• Low: 60 FPS average (minimum and maximum not recorded)
• Medium: 43 FPS average, 36 FPS minimum, 49 FPS maximum
• High: 38 FPS average (minimum and maximum not recorded)
• Ultra: 33 FPS average (minimum and maximum not recorded)

2560x1440:

• Low: 89 FPS average (minimum and maximum not recorded)
• Medium: 64 FPS average, 54 FPS minimum, 73 FPS maximum
• High: 56 FPS average (minimum and maximum not recorded)
• Ultra: 49 FPS average (minimum and maximum not recorded)

1920x1080:

• Low: 118 FPS average (minimum and maximum not recorded)
• Medium: 84 FPS average, 71 FPS minimum, 97 FPS maximum
• High: 75 FPS average (minimum and maximum not recorded)
• Ultra: 65 FPS average (minimum and maximum not recorded)

The frame time consistency, where recorded, shows reasonable stability. At 1080p Medium, the 71 FPS minimum against an 84 FPS average represents a 15% dip, which should be imperceptible in normal gameplay. At 1440p Medium, the 54 FPS minimum against a 64 FPS average is a similar 16% variance. At 4K Medium, the 36 FPS minimum against a 43 FPS average shows proportionally higher variance, which is expected as the GPU approaches its limits.

The scaling across resolutions follows a predictable pattern. The 1080p Low result of 118 FPS represents the maximum throughput this system can achieve in Control, while the 4K Ultra result of 33 FPS represents the minimum. The step from 1080p to 1440p at each preset costs roughly 25-30% of frame rate, while the step from 1440p to 4K costs an additional 35-45%. This non-linear scaling is typical for a GPU with 8 GB of memory and a 128-bit bus, as memory bandwidth becomes increasingly strained at higher resolutions.