Control

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a mainstream desktop combination that targets 1080p gaming. For Control, a demanding action-adventure title from 2019, the recorded data shows this system falls short of the 60 FPS playability threshold at every tested resolution and settings level. The database ranks this specific CPU and GPU pairing at 3530 out of 3720 combos for this game, placing it in the lower tier of systems capable of launching the title. This analysis breaks down the measured performance across three resolutions and four quality presets to show exactly where the hardware stands.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database defines playable performance as an average frame rate at or above 60 FPS. Based on the measured data, this system never reaches that target in Control.

At 3840x2160, no settings preset achieves a playable frame rate. The highest average recorded at this resolution is 28.4 FPS on Low settings. The High preset manages only 16.7 FPS, Medium drops to 19.3 FPS, and Ultra sits at 17.3 FPS. Since even the least demanding preset falls far below the 60 FPS threshold, there is no best playable setting at 4K.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves slightly but remains unplayable by the database standard. Low settings produce the highest average at 45.7 FPS. High reaches 28.5 FPS, Medium records 31 FPS, and Ultra drops to 21.3 FPS. None of these averages clear 60 FPS, so the verdict for 1440p is the same as 4K: no playable preset exists.

At 1920x1080, the system comes closest to playability but still misses the mark. Low settings deliver the best measured result at 53.5 FPS average. Medium follows at 42.4 FPS, High at 38.2 FPS, and Ultra at 34.2 FPS. The gap between the best result and the 60 FPS target is 6.5 FPS, which means even the most performance-friendly preset cannot sustain a smooth experience by the database's standard.

In summary, the data shows no resolution and preset combination reaches 60 FPS. The closest result is 53.5 FPS at 1080p Low, which remains below the playable threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured frame rates reveal how the balance between CPU and GPU shifts as resolution changes. At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint. The difference between Low and Ultra settings is substantial: Low averages 28.4 FPS while Ultra averages 17.3 FPS, a drop of 11.1 FPS or roughly 39%. This large spread indicates that the GTX 1650's rendering workload scales heavily with quality settings, and at 4K the GPU is clearly the limiting factor.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds but with slightly smaller gaps. Low averages 45.7 FPS, while Ultra drops to 21.3 FPS, a difference of 24.4 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium shows a reduction from 45.7 to 31 FPS, which is a 14.7 FPS drop. This suggests the GPU still carries most of the performance burden, as increasing pixel count and shading quality directly impacts the measured averages.

At 1920x1080, the CPU begins to play a more noticeable role relative to the GPU. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 19.3 FPS (53.5 versus 34.2), which is smaller than at higher resolutions. However, the absolute frame rates are still low enough that neither component is delivering headroom. The i5-10400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, provides enough processing power for the game's logic, but the GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus limit how much data can be pushed at higher settings.

The scaling between resolutions reinforces the GPU-bound nature of this pairing. Moving from 1080p Low to 1440p Low reduces the average from 53.5 to 45.7 FPS, a decline of 7.8 FPS. Moving from 1440p Low to 4K Low drops the average from 45.7 to 28.4 FPS, a much steeper decline of 17.3 FPS. This accelerating loss as resolution climbs indicates that the GTX 1650's memory bandwidth and pixel throughput are exhausted quickly, making the GPU the primary bottleneck at all tested settings.

The CPU's role is secondary but not irrelevant. The i5-10400F scores 4318 in Cinebench R20 multicore and 609 in single-core, which are respectable figures for a 10th generation desktop chip. Control is not a heavily threaded title in the way that productivity workloads are, so the CPU's 12 threads are sufficient to avoid becoming the main constraint. The data shows that lowering resolution from 4K to 1080p improves frame rates significantly, which would not happen if the CPU were the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following data points come directly from the database measurements for this specific CPU and GPU combination.

At 3840x2160, the averages are as follows: Low settings produce 28.4 FPS, Medium produces 19.3 FPS, High produces 16.7 FPS, and Ultra produces 17.3 FPS. Notably, Ultra is slightly higher than High, which is an anomaly in the recorded data, but the overall trend is clear: all presets are far below playable levels. The minimum and maximum FPS values are not recorded in the database for any resolution, so only averages are available for analysis.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 45.7 FPS, Medium at 31 FPS, High at 28.5 FPS, and Ultra at 21.3 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is a loss of 14.7 FPS, which is the largest single-step decline at this resolution. High to Ultra drops another 7.2 FPS, showing diminishing returns as settings increase.

At 1920x1080, the averages are: Low at 53.5 FPS, Medium at 42.4 FPS, High at 38.2 FPS, and Ultra at 34.2 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 11.1 FPS, while Medium to High costs 4.2 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 4 FPS. The smallest gap between consecutive presets is 4 FPS, indicating that the most demanding settings have similar performance costs at this resolution.

Across all resolutions, the best measured average is 53.5 FPS at 1080p Low. The worst measured average is 16.7 FPS at 4K High. The database records no minimum or maximum frame times, so variance and stutter cannot be assessed from the available data.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU provide context for how the i5-10400F compares in synthetic benchmarks. The Intel Xeon 6756E has an average score of 14163, which is 0.2% lower than the i5-10400F's average score of 14185. The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232, which is 0.3% higher. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, 0.5% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, 0.6% higher. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical performance in Control when paired with the same GPU. The i5-10400F sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, so it is a mid-range processor that does not bottleneck the GTX 1650 in most scenarios.

The nearest rivals for the GPU show similar closeness. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M has an average score of 7447, which is 0.3% lower than the GTX 1650's average of 7472. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, 0.4% lower. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, 0.6% lower. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1% higher. These small deltas mean that swapping the GTX 1650 for any of these alternatives would produce nearly identical frame rates in Control. The GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, which is below the CPU's percentile, reinforcing that the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing.

For a user considering an upgrade path, the data suggests that replacing the GPU would yield larger gains than replacing the CPU. The CPU's nearest rivals are all within 0.6% performance, so there is no meaningful headroom to be gained from a CPU swap alone. The GPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A310, which is 1% faster, but the overall GPU tier remains the limiting factor.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1080p with any settings?

A: The database shows that no preset at 1920x1080 reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best average is 53.5 FPS on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS standard.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce the highest average at 45.7 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 31 FPS, so Low is the only preset with a double-digit lead over the others.

Q: How much does resolution affect performance?

A: Moving from 1080p Low to 1440p Low drops the average from 53.5 to 45.7 FPS. Moving from 1440p Low to 4K Low drops it further to 28.4 FPS. The largest single drop occurs between 1440p and 4K.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in Control?

A: The GPU is the primary constraint. The i5-10400F ranks at the 68th percentile among CPUs, while the GTX 1650 ranks at the 40th percentile among GPUs. The measured frame rates scale heavily with resolution and settings, which is typical of a GPU-bound scenario.

Q: Are there any GPUs that perform similarly to the GTX 1650?

A: The database lists the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, Intel UHD Graphics 750, and AMD Radeon R7 350 as close matches, all within 0.6% of the GTX 1650's average score. The Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster.

Q: What is the best measured frame rate for this system?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 53.5 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other preset or resolution combination exceeds this value.

The Verdict

The recorded data is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Control at a playable frame rate by the database's 60 FPS standard. At 3840x2160, no settings preset is playable, and the best average is 28.4 FPS on Low. At 2560x1440, the same conclusion applies, with Low settings averaging 45.7 FPS. At 1920x1080, the best result is 53.5 FPS on Low, which is still 6.5 FPS below the threshold.

The verdict by resolution is as follows: 4K has no playable settings, 1440p has no playable settings, and 1080p has no playable settings. For gamers targeting smooth performance, this hardware combination falls short in Control across the board. The GTX 1650's 40th percentile GPU ranking and 4 GB memory capacity limit its ability to handle the game's visual demands, while the i5-10400F's 68th percentile CPU ranking provides sufficient processing power but cannot compensate for the GPU's constraints. Users seeking 60 FPS in Control would need to consider a more powerful GPU, as the current pairing maxes out at 53.5 FPS under the least demanding conditions.