Control

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-10400F sits in a narrow performance band where several very different processors produce nearly identical average scores. The database places this CPU at the 68th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 14185. Its closest rival is the Intel Xeon 6756E, which scores 14163, a margin of just 0.2%. The Intel Core 7 160UL comes in at 14232, only 0.3% ahead of the i5-10400F. On the AMD side, the EPYC 7552 scores 14115, 0.5% behind, while the Ryzen 3 7320C posts 14277, 0.6% ahead. These deltas are all within one percent, meaning any of these processors would deliver effectively indistinguishable CPU-bound performance in Control. The i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread Comet Lake part with a base clock of 2.90 GHz, a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache, so its position among enterprise Xeons and low-power mobile chips is a reflection of the synthetic benchmark averages rather than architectural similarity.

The Intel Arc B390 presents a more dramatic situation. Its average benchmark score is 1482, placing it at just the 9th percentile among all GPUs. The nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX at 1463 (1.3% behind), the GeForce 800M at 1460 (1.5% behind), the GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1446 (2.5% behind), and the GeForce GT 710 at 1443 (2.7% behind). This is an unusual comparison group for a modern integrated GPU built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with 1536 shading units, 12 ray tracing cores, and a 2500 MHz boost clock. The Arc B390 is an integrated part with system-shared memory, which explains why its raw 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 lands near decade-old discrete entry-level cards. In practical terms, the Arc B390 behaves like a very old low-end GPU in synthetic workloads, and that pattern carries directly into the measured game performance.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data for Control shows that the Intel Arc B390 is the dominant bottleneck across all tested resolutions and settings. The Intel Core i5-10400F has enough single-thread and multi-thread headroom, as indicated by its 68th percentile standing and Cinebench R23 scores of 1451 single-core and 10283 multi-core, that it is unlikely to constrain frame rates at these low output levels. The GPU, by contrast, sits at the 9th percentile, and the frame rates scale almost entirely with resolution and preset changes rather than with any CPU workload variation.

At 1920x1080, the average frame rates range from 36 FPS at Ultra to 65 FPS at Low. Dropping from Ultra to Low produces a 29 FPS improvement, which is an 80.6% increase. At 2560x1440, the same preset sweep goes from 27 FPS at Ultra to 50 FPS at Low, a 23 FPS gain or 85.2%. At 3840x2160, the range narrows to 18 FPS at Ultra and 33 FPS at Low, a 15 FPS gain or 83.3%. The consistency of these percentage gains across resolutions shows that the GPU's fixed-function throughput, not the CPU, determines the outcome. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the gap between Low and Ultra would shrink at higher resolutions, but it does not.

Resolution scaling tells the same story. At Low settings, moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 drops the average from 65 FPS to 50 FPS, a 23.1% reduction. Moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 drops it further to 33 FPS, a 34.0% reduction. At High settings, the progression is 41 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K. These are steep, consistent declines that track pixel count increases closely. The GPU is the sole performance gate here; the i5-10400F's 12 threads and 4.30 GHz boost clock are never the limiting resource in any of the twelve recorded configurations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the only resolution with a playable configuration, the data shows a clear preset hierarchy. Low settings produce an average of 65 FPS. Medium settings average 46 FPS with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 53 FPS. High settings average 41 FPS. Ultra settings average 36 FPS. The gap from Low to Medium is 19 FPS, from Medium to High is 5 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 5 FPS. The largest single jump comes from dropping from Medium to Low, which suggests that a specific graphics option between those presets carries a heavy cost. The minimum frame rate recorded at Medium, 40 FPS, is still above 30 FPS, so the frame pacing does not collapse even when the average is below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, no settings level reaches 60 FPS. Low settings average 50 FPS. Medium settings average 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. High settings average 31 FPS. Ultra settings average 27 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 15 FPS, then 4 FPS from Medium to High, then 4 FPS from High to Ultra. The minimum at Medium, 30 FPS, sits exactly at the lower bound of what could be considered a stable console-like experience, but the average of 35 FPS leaves no margin.

At 3840x2160, performance falls below playable levels across all presets. Low settings average 33 FPS. Medium settings average 24 FPS with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. High settings average 21 FPS. Ultra settings average 18 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 15 FPS, and even the best case, Low at 4K, stays well below the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset's minimum of 20 FPS indicates that demanding scenes can dip into slideshow territory.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and the Intel Arc B390 ranks 3311 out of 3720 tested combos in Control. That places it in the bottom 11.0% of all recorded system pairings. This is a low rank, but it is not the absolute floor: 409 tested combos recorded worse results. The ranking is consistent with the GPU's 9th percentile standing. The CPU's 68th percentile does little to lift the overall position because the game is entirely GPU-bound in this pairing. The data shows that the Arc B390's integrated memory architecture and low absolute throughput cap the system at a level comparable to the GPU's nearest rivals, all of which are legacy NVIDIA parts from the early 2010s. The CPU cannot compensate for that ceiling, regardless of its 12 threads or 4.30 GHz boost clock.

In the context of the full database, this combo sits in the lower decile, and the measured frame rates reflect that. A user coming from a stronger GPU pairing would see a massive difference, but within the 3720 tested combinations, this one is firmly in the lower range. The rank is not a judgment on the CPU, which is competitive in its own class, but on the integrated GPU's inability to drive Control at acceptable frame rates except at the very lowest settings at 1080p.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, but only under narrow conditions. The verdict data shows exactly one playable configuration: 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the average frame rate is 65 FPS. That clears the 60 FPS playable threshold with a small 5 FPS margin. No other resolution or preset combination reaches 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, Medium settings fall to 46 FPS, High to 41 FPS, and Ultra to 36 FPS. None of these are playable by the 60 FPS standard. At 2560x1440, every preset fails: Low averages 50 FPS, Medium 35 FPS, High 31 FPS, and Ultra 27 FPS. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse: Low averages 33 FPS, Medium 24 FPS, High 21 FPS, and Ultra 18 FPS. The verdict field for both 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 lists no playable settings at all.

The practical takeaway is straightforward. If the target is 60 FPS, the only path is to run Control at 1080p with Low settings. Any attempt to raise the preset or increase the resolution will drop the average below the playable line. The system has no headroom for future patches or more demanding scenes, as the Medium preset minimum at 1080p is already 40 FPS. This is a machine that can play the game, but it asks the user to accept the lowest visual quality and a modest frame rate buffer.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the average frame rate is 65 FPS. All other tested configurations fall below 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset for this combo?

A: The best settings preset is Low at 1920x1080, which achieves an average of 65 FPS. The verdict data lists this as the only playable configuration.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482, placing it at the 9th percentile. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower.

Q: What frame rates does Control achieve at 2560x1440?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings average 50 FPS, Medium averages 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS, High averages 31 FPS, and Ultra averages 27 FPS. No preset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-10400F the bottleneck in this system?

A: No. The CPU ranks at the 68th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks at the 9th percentile. The frame rate scaling across resolutions and presets indicates the GPU is the limiting component.

Q: What is the worst performing configuration for this combo?

A: The worst configuration is 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, which averages 18 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K records a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS.