Control

The Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 combination delivers a surprisingly capable, though ultimately resolution-dependent, experience in Control. The recorded data shows a system that can comfortably handle 1080p gaming with high settings, can manage 1440p only by dropping to the lowest preset, and is entirely out of its depth at 4K. The benchmark results paint a clear picture of a pairing where the GPU becomes the dominant limiting factor as resolution increases, while the six-core, twelve-thread processor provides ample headroom to avoid bottlenecking at lower settings. This analysis breaks down the exact frame rates, compares the hardware to its nearest rivals, and provides a definitive guide to which settings are playable at each resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Control shows a clear and predictable scaling pattern tied to both resolution and graphical preset. At 1920x1080, the combination is at its most capable. With Low settings, the average frame rate reaches 97 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS playable threshold and provides a significant margin for high refresh rate displays. Moving to Medium settings, the average drops to 69 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 58 FPS and a maximum of 79 FPS. This preset remains playable, though the minimum frame rate indicates occasional dips just below the 60 FPS line during intense scenes. At High settings, the average is 61 FPS, which is right at the playable threshold. This is a borderline result, as the average meets the 60 FPS requirement but leaves little room for frame rate fluctuation. At Ultra settings, the average falls to 53 FPS, which does not meet the 60 FPS threshold, making this preset unplayable by the database's standard.

At 2560x1440, the performance hit is substantial across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 73 FPS, which is the only playable configuration at this resolution. Medium settings drop the average to 52 FPS, with a minimum of 44 FPS and a maximum of 60 FPS. This is a significant step down from the 1080p Medium result and clearly below the playable threshold. High settings average 46 FPS, and Ultra settings average 40 FPS. None of these three presets approach the 60 FPS mark, indicating that the GTX 1070 simply does not have enough rendering power to maintain smooth gameplay at 1440p with higher quality settings.

At 3840x2160, the results are consistently below the playable threshold. Low settings produce an average of 49 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution but still falls short of 60 FPS. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. High settings average 31 FPS, and Ultra settings average 27 FPS. The 4K data confirms that this hardware combination is not viable for Control at this resolution, regardless of the preset chosen. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p to 4K shows a roughly 25% to 30% drop in performance at each step for equivalent settings, which aligns with the increasing pixel count and the fixed memory bandwidth of the graphics card.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database's nearest rival comparisons for both the CPU and GPU provide context for how this specific hardware pairing performs relative to other components. For the Intel Core i5-10400F, the average benchmark score is 14,185. The closest competitors are the Intel Xeon 6756E with an average score of 14,163, which is 0.2% lower, and the Intel Core 7 160UL with an average score of 14,232, which is 0.3% higher. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14,115, 0.5% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14,277, 0.6% higher. These delta percentages are all within a single percentage point, meaning that in synthetic CPU benchmarks, any of these processors would deliver nearly identical performance. In practical gaming terms, the choice between these CPUs would have no measurable impact on frame rates in Control, as the game is not particularly CPU-intensive at these resolutions.

For the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, the average benchmark score is 9,780. The nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W5000 with a score of 9,803, which is 0.2% higher, and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M with a score of 9,832, which is 0.5% higher. The NVIDIA Tesla M10 scores 9,724, 0.6% lower, and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9,716, 0.7% lower. All four rival GPUs are within a fraction of a percent of the GTX 1070's score, indicating that they would produce nearly identical frame rates in Control. The Quadro M2000M and Tesla cards are not consumer gaming products, but the data shows that their raw compute performance is closely matched to the GTX 1070. A system with any of these GPUs paired with the i5-10400F would behave essentially the same as the tested configuration.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core i5-10400F and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 in Control becomes clear when analyzing the frame rate scaling across resolutions and presets. The CPU, with its six cores and twelve threads, has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz and a base clock of 2.90 GHz. Its multi-threaded benchmark scores, such as 10,283 in Cinebench R23, indicate strong processing power for a mid-range desktop chip. However, the frame rate data shows that the GPU is the primary bottleneck in almost every scenario. At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 97 FPS, which is the highest recorded result. When the resolution increases to 1440p Low, the average drops to 73 FPS, and at 4K Low, it drops further to 49 FPS. This consistent decline with increasing resolution is the signature of a GPU-limited scenario, as the CPU's workload remains relatively constant while the GPU must render an increasing number of pixels.

The preset scaling further confirms the GPU's dominant role. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 28 FPS, from Medium to High costs 8 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 8 FPS. The large drop from Low to Medium indicates that the GTX 1070 is heavily taxed by the additional rendering effects and texture quality at Medium settings. At 1440p, the same progression shows a 21 FPS drop from Low to Medium, then 6 FPS to High, and 6 FPS to Ultra. At 4K, the drops are 14 FPS, 4 FPS, and 4 FPS respectively. The diminishing returns at higher settings are due to the GPU reaching its limits, where additional graphical features have less impact on the already strained rendering pipeline. The CPU's role is secondary, and the data does not show any signs of CPU bottlenecking, as even the lowest frame rates at 1080p do not suggest the processor is limiting the GPU's output.

The Verdict

The question of whether this PC can run Control is answered definitively by the verdict data. At 3840x2160, the verdict is clear: there are no playable settings. The best average frame rate at this resolution is 49 FPS on Low settings, which falls 11 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold. The system cannot run Control at 4K with any preset. At 2560x1440, the system can run the game only on Low settings, with an average of 73 FPS. This is a playable result, but it requires the lowest quality preset to achieve it. Medium settings at 1440p average 52 FPS, which is not playable, and High and Ultra are even lower at 46 FPS and 40 FPS respectively. At 1920x1080, the system is playable on High, Low, and Medium settings. The best playable preset is High with an average of 61 FPS, which barely clears the 60 FPS threshold. Low settings provide 97 FPS and Medium provides 69 FPS, both comfortably playable. Ultra settings at 1080p average 53 FPS, which is not playable.

The overall verdict is that this combination is a solid 1080p gaming machine for Control, a marginal 1440p machine limited to low settings, and not a 4K machine at all. The 61 FPS average at 1080p High is the recommended target, as it provides the best visual quality while maintaining the 60 FPS threshold, though the margin is thin.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is the optimal configuration. At 1920x1080, the best settings are High, which produce an average of 61 FPS. This is the highest quality preset that meets the playable threshold, and it represents the sweet spot for this hardware. Medium settings are also playable at 69 FPS, but High offers better visual fidelity for only a small performance cost. Low settings at 97 FPS are the fastest option, but the graphical quality is significantly reduced. At 2560x1440, the best settings are Low, with an average of 73 FPS. This is the only preset that meets the 60 FPS threshold at this resolution. The jump from 1080p High to 1440p Low is a substantial downgrade in visual quality, but it is the only way to achieve smooth gameplay at 1440p with this hardware. At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, as the best result is 49 FPS on Low, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold.

The frame rate data for the best settings at each resolution shows the trade-off clearly. At 1080p High, the system delivers 61 FPS, which is just above the threshold. At 1440p Low, it delivers 73 FPS, which is a comfortable margin but requires the lowest preset. The lack of a playable 4K configuration means that users with a 4K display would need to either lower the resolution to 1440p or accept sub-60 FPS performance at 4K low settings.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested hardware combinations for Control, this specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 ranks 3,083 out of 3,720 total combos. This places it in the lower portion of the overall rankings, in roughly the 17th percentile of tested systems. The rank reflects the age and performance tier of both components. The GTX 1070, released in 2016, is an end-of-life product that sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The i5-10400F, released in 2020, is at the 68th percentile of all CPUs. The combination of a mid-range CPU and a lower-mid-range GPU results in a system that is adequate for 1080p gaming in Control but struggles at higher resolutions.

The rank of 3,083 out of 3,720 indicates that the majority of tested combos outperform this system. This is expected given the GPU's age and its benchmark score relative to modern cards. The GPU's percentile of 47 means that slightly more than half of all GPUs in the database score higher, and the CPU's 68th percentile shows it is a relatively stronger component. The bottleneck analysis confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor, and any upgrade path would focus on replacing the GTX 1070 to improve the system's ranking and its ability to handle higher resolutions and settings in Control.