Control

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER shows a clear performance curve across three resolutions and four quality presets. The measurements are captured in average FPS, with only the Medium preset providing full min and max frame data at each resolution.

At 3840x2160 (4K) , the system delivers an average of 38 FPS on High settings, 60 FPS on Low settings, 43 FPS on Medium, and 33 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 49 FPS, indicating that frame pacing is consistent but well below the 60 FPS threshold. The gap between Low and Ultra is 27 FPS, a substantial drop that highlights the heavy cost of the highest quality settings at this resolution.

At 2560x1440 (1440p) , performance improves significantly. Low settings produce an average of 89 FPS, Medium averages 63 FPS with a minimum of 54 and maximum of 73, High averages 56 FPS, and Ultra averages 49 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 26 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs 7 FPS, and High to Ultra costs another 7 FPS. This resolution is the boundary where Medium remains playable but High and Ultra fall short of 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080 (1080p) , the system shows its strongest results. Low settings average 118 FPS, Medium averages 84 FPS with a minimum of 71 and maximum of 96, High averages 74 FPS, and Ultra averages 65 FPS. Every preset clears the 60 FPS threshold, with Ultra maintaining a 5 FPS margin. The scaling from Low to Ultra is a 53 FPS drop, but the minimum recorded frame on Medium (71 FPS) is still above the playable threshold.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 4K with playable frame rates?

A: Yes, but only on Low settings. The recorded average at 3840x2160 on Low is 60 FPS, exactly matching the playable threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS, with averages of 43, 38, and 33 respectively.

Q: What is the best quality preset at 1440p that stays above 60 FPS?

A: Medium settings are the most demanding preset that maintains playability at 2560x1440, with an average of 63 FPS. The minimum recorded frame on Medium is 54 FPS, which dips below the threshold, but the average remains above it.

Q: Is the RTX 2060 SUPER the limiting factor at 1080p Ultra?

A: The data at 1920x1080 Ultra shows an average of 65 FPS, which is only 5 FPS above the playable threshold. Since the CPU has a 68th percentile ranking among all processors and the GPU sits at the 62nd percentile, the GPU is likely the primary constraint, but the margin is thin enough that both components contribute to the result.

Q: How does the Medium preset min FPS compare across resolutions?

A: The minimum frame rates on Medium are 36 FPS at 4K, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 71 FPS at 1080p. This shows a consistent 18 FPS jump when moving down from 4K to 1440p, and another 17 FPS jump from 1440p to 1080p.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at each resolution?

A: At 4K, the difference is 27 FPS (60 vs 33). At 1440p, the difference is 40 FPS (89 vs 49). At 1080p, the difference is 53 FPS (118 vs 65). The widening gap at lower resolutions suggests the GPU has more headroom to exploit higher settings.

Q: Does the system ever drop below 60 FPS on the playable presets?

A: Yes, at 1440p Medium the minimum recorded frame rate is 54 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. At 4K Low, the average is exactly 60 FPS, but no minimum is recorded, so transient dips cannot be ruled out. At 1080p, all presets maintain averages above 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER ranks 2650 out of 3720 tested combos in Control. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the database, indicating that while the system can run the game, many other pairings deliver higher frame rates.

The CPU achieves a 68th percentile ranking across all processors, while the GPU achieves a 62nd percentile ranking across all GPUs. These positions suggest that the processor is slightly more capable relative to its peers than the graphics card is relative to its own peers. However, the in-game rank of 2650 out of 3720 (roughly the 29th percentile) is lower than either component's individual standing, implying that this specific title is demanding on the pairing as a whole.

The measured results align with this rank. At 1080p, the system clears all presets, but at 1440p only Low and Medium remain playable, and at 4K only Low hits the threshold. The rank reflects a system that is adequate for 1080p gaming but struggles as resolution increases, which is consistent with the GPU's mid-tier standing and the CPU's modest multi-threaded performance profile.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Xeon 6756E with an average score of 14163 and a delta of 0.2%, the Intel Core 7 160UL with a score of 14232 and a delta of -0.3%, the AMD EPYC 7552 with a score of 14115 and a delta of 0.5%, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C with a score of 14277 and a delta of -0.6%. These processors all fall within a 1% performance band of the i5-10400F, meaning any of them would deliver nearly identical CPU-bound behavior in Control.

The GPU's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile with an average score of 18159 and a delta of -0.4%, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 with a score of 18189 and a delta of -0.5%, the AMD Radeon RX 460 with a score of 18373 and a delta of -1.5%, and the Intel Arc A770M with a score of 18383 and a delta of -1.6%. The first two rivals are within half a percent of the RTX 2060 SUPER, while the latter two are slightly ahead. In practical terms, any of these GPUs would produce frame rates within a few FPS of the recorded values, assuming the CPU remains the same.

When considering a swap of either component, the delta percentages indicate that the GPU choices have a wider spread (up to 1.6%) than the CPU choices (up to 0.6%). This suggests that the GPU selection has a slightly larger impact on final frame rates in this title, though all alternatives remain close enough to be considered equivalent for gameplay purposes.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160 , the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 60 FPS exactly. Medium drops to 43 FPS, High to 38 FPS, and Ultra to 33 FPS, so no other preset is viable at this resolution.

At 2560x1440 , the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 63 FPS. Low runs at 89 FPS, but Medium offers a better visual balance while still clearing the threshold. High and Ultra fall below 60 FPS at 56 and 49 FPS respectively.

At 1920x1080 , the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 65 FPS. This is the only resolution where the highest quality preset is playable, and it maintains a 5 FPS margin above the threshold. High runs at 74 FPS, Medium at 84 FPS, and Low at 118 FPS, but Ultra is the recommended choice for maximum visual fidelity.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control at all three tested resolutions, but the playable settings vary significantly by resolution. At 3840x2160, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold only on Low settings, with an exact average of 60 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra are not playable, with averages of 43, 38, and 33 FPS respectively.

At 2560x1440, the system clears 60 FPS on Low and Medium, with Medium being the best playable preset at 63 FPS. High and Ultra fall short at 56 and 49 FPS. At 1920x1080, all four presets clear 60 FPS, with Ultra being the best playable preset at 65 FPS.

The verdict is straightforward: this is a 1080p machine for Control, with 1440p limited to Medium settings and 4K limited to Low. The system meets the playable threshold in all resolutions, but only at progressively lower quality as resolution increases.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows that the GPU is the dominant factor in this game, particularly at higher resolutions. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1080p produces a 53 FPS drop (from 118 to 65), while at 4K the same preset change produces only a 27 FPS drop (from 60 to 33). This indicates that at lower resolutions, the GPU has enough headroom to render higher settings, but at 4K the GPU is already saturated even on Low, leaving less room for quality improvements.

The resolution scaling reinforces this conclusion. Moving from 1080p to 1440p on Medium settings costs 21 FPS (84 to 63), and moving from 1440p to 4K on Medium costs another 20 FPS (63 to 43). These consistent drops are characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where pixel count directly impacts frame rate.

The CPU's role is more apparent at 1080p Low, where the system achieves 118 FPS. This high frame rate suggests the processor can feed the GPU effectively at lower resolutions, but the relatively modest multi-threaded scores (Cinebench R23 multicore of 10283, Passmark multithread of 12115) indicate that the CPU would become a limiting factor if the GPU were upgraded. At 4K, the CPU matters less, as the GPU is clearly the bottleneck across all settings.

In summary, the RTX 2060 SUPER is the primary constraint at 1440p and 4K, while the i5-10400F is sufficient to avoid being the main bottleneck at 1080p. The gap between Low and Ultra widens at lower resolutions because the GPU has spare capacity, but the CPU's 68th percentile standing ensures it does not drag down performance in this title.