Control

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 lands at rank 2048 out of 3720 tested combinations in the database for Control. That places this combo in the 55th percentile of all recorded system pairings, meaning slightly more than half of all tested combos deliver higher frame rates in this title. The ranking reflects a mid-pack outcome, not a top-tier one, and the data suggests the pairing is balanced enough to handle the game at mainstream resolutions but will struggle at the most demanding settings.

Breaking down the components individually adds context. The i5-10400F sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 14185. Its nearest rivals in raw compute are the Intel Xeon 6756E at 14163 (0.2% behind), the Intel Core 7 160UL at 14232 (0.3% ahead), the AMD EPYC 7552 at 14115 (0.5% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14277 (0.6% ahead). These deltas are tiny, within noise, so the CPU is essentially interchangeable with those parts for general compute workloads. The GPU, meanwhile, holds the 61st percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 17639. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 7790 at 17666 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon 780M at 17588 (0.3% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17551 (0.5% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17509 (0.7% behind). Again, the margins are minimal, so the RTX 4060 effectively performs on par with those cards in aggregate benchmarks.

What matters more than raw synthetic scores is how the combo behaves specifically in Control. The measured FPS data reveals a system that scales predictably with resolution and settings, but the shape of that scaling tells a nuanced story about where the bottleneck lives. At 1080p, the combo clears 60 FPS at every preset, even Ultra at 76.1 FPS. At 1440p, it stays above 60 FPS through High settings, but Ultra drops to 59.3 FPS, a hair below the playable threshold. At 4K, only Low settings remain playable at 70.7 FPS, while Medium and High fall to 48.9 and 47.3 FPS respectively, and Ultra drops to 36.5 FPS. This is a system that can run Control comfortably at 1080p and 1440p with some headroom, but 4K demands significant compromises.

The rank of 2048 out of 3720 should be read as a warning about expectations. This is not a combo that will dominate the game, but it is also far from the bottom of the pile. The data indicates a usable, mainstream pairing that delivers its best results at 1080p and remains viable at 1440p with settings tuned down from the absolute maximum.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 60 FPS at 1080p?

A: Yes. All four tested presets clear 60 FPS at 1920x1080. Low averages 138.2 FPS, Medium 101.6 FPS, High 88.7 FPS, and Ultra 76.1 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1440p?

A: High is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at 2560x1440, averaging 65.8 FPS. Ultra falls just short at 59.3 FPS.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: Only at Low settings. The 3840x2160 Low preset averages 70.7 FPS. Medium averages 48.9 FPS, High 47.3 FPS, and Ultra 36.5 FPS, all below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185. The Intel Xeon 6756E scores 0.2% lower, the Intel Core 7 160UL scores 0.3% higher, the AMD EPYC 7552 scores 0.5% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 0.6% higher. All four are effectively equivalent in aggregate performance.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The RTX 4060 has an average benchmark score of 17639. The AMD Radeon HD 7790 scores 0.2% higher, the AMD Radeon 780M scores 0.3% lower, the AMD Radeon Pro 560 scores 0.5% lower, and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 scores 0.7% lower. The differences are negligible.

Q: What ranking does this combo hold in the database for Control?

A: The combo ranks 2048 out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle portion of all recorded pairings for this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates in the database cover three resolutions and four quality presets, for a total of twelve data points. All values are average FPS; no minimum or maximum frame time data was recorded for this game. The pattern across resolutions is consistent: lowering resolution increases performance at every preset, and lowering settings increases performance at every resolution.

At 1920x1080, the combo produces its strongest results. Low settings average 138.2 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded for this pairing in any configuration. Medium drops to 101.6 FPS, High to 88.7 FPS, and Ultra to 76.1 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 62.1 FPS, meaning Ultra delivers roughly 55% of the frame rate of Low. Even at the most demanding preset, the system maintains a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS playable threshold, with 16.1 FPS of headroom at Ultra.

At 2560x1440, performance steps down noticeably. Low averages 107.1 FPS, a 31.1 FPS drop from the same preset at 1080p. Medium averages 74.7 FPS, down 26.9 FPS from 1080p Medium. High averages 65.8 FPS, down 22.9 FPS from 1080p High. Ultra averages 59.3 FPS, down 16.8 FPS from 1080p Ultra. The Ultra result is the only one at 1440p that misses the 60 FPS threshold, and it misses by just 0.7 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is not uniform; Low loses the most absolute FPS, while Ultra loses the least, suggesting that at higher settings the GPU is already heavily loaded and the additional pixel count has a smaller relative impact.

At 3840x2160, the picture changes dramatically. Low averages 70.7 FPS, still above the playable threshold, but every other preset falls below it. Medium averages 48.9 FPS, High 47.3 FPS, and Ultra 36.5 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium at 4K is 21.8 FPS, which is a much larger drop than the 36.6 FPS difference between Low and Medium at 1080p in relative terms. The 4K Ultra result of 36.5 FPS is the lowest recorded value for this combo, and it is less than half of the 1080p Low figure. The data shows a steep cliff between Low and Medium at 4K, indicating that the GPU's memory bandwidth and raster throughput become limiting factors once the resolution pushes beyond 1440p.

The resolution scaling also reveals how the CPU and GPU share the load. At 1080p, the CPU has more influence on the frame rate, since the GPU can render frames quickly and the processor must keep up with draw calls and game logic. At 4K, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint, as the frame rate drops sharply regardless of CPU headroom. The measured FPS values support this interpretation: the 1080p to 4K drop at Low settings is 67.5 FPS, while the same drop at Ultra is 39.6 FPS, a smaller absolute decline because the GPU is already saturated at 1080p Ultra.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU in the database provide a sense of what other hardware would behave similarly in this game. These comparisons are based on aggregate benchmark scores, not on Control-specific measurements, so they should be read as approximate equivalents rather than exact matches.

On the CPU side, the i5-10400F's closest neighbors are the Intel Xeon 6756E (0.2% lower average score), the Intel Core 7 160UL (0.3% higher), the AMD EPYC 7552 (0.5% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.6% higher). All four fall within a 0.6% band of the i5-10400F's 14185 average score, meaning any of them would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios. None of these are mainstream gaming parts in the traditional sense; the Xeon and EPYC are server processors, while the Core 7 160UL and Ryzen 3 7320C are lower-power mobile or embedded chips. Yet their aggregate compute scores are close enough that the database treats them as peers. For Control specifically, the game's physics and destruction systems do load the CPU, but the differences among these five parts would be imperceptible in practice.

On the GPU side, the RTX 4060's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (0.2% higher), the AMD Radeon 780M (0.3% lower), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (0.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (0.7% lower). The Radeon HD 7790 is a much older discrete card, while the Radeon 780M is an integrated GPU found in modern AMD APUs, and the Radeon Pro 560 and 460 are professional laptop GPUs. The fact that these disparate products cluster within 0.7% of the RTX 4060's 17639 average score highlights how aggregate benchmarks can mask architectural differences. In Control, the RTX 4060's Ada Lovelace features, including dedicated ray tracing cores and DLSS support, would matter at settings that use those features, but the database's measured FPS data does not include ray tracing or upscaling results. For the standard rasterized presets tested here, a system with one of these rival GPUs would likely land within a few FPS of the RTX 4060's results, assuming the CPU and memory configuration were held constant.

The practical takeaway is that a shopper with any of these rival CPUs or GPUs should expect similar performance in Control. The deltas are all under 1%, which is well below the margin of error for game benchmarking. The rank of 2048 out of 3720 would shift by only a few positions if the CPU were swapped for the Xeon 6756E or the GPU for the Radeon 780M.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database records the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at each resolution. This is the highest quality setting that remains playable according to the 60 FPS threshold.

At 1920x1080, Ultra is the best playable setting. It averages 76.1 FPS, which is 16.1 FPS above the threshold. The system has enough headroom at this preset that frame rate dips, if they occur, would likely still stay above 60 FPS for most of the session. Lower presets are faster but unnecessary if the goal is maximum visual quality.

At 2560x1440, High is the best playable setting, averaging 65.8 FPS. Ultra averages 59.3 FPS, which misses the threshold by just 0.7 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is 6.5 FPS, so the visual upgrade from High to Ultra costs a meaningful chunk of performance. The data suggests that players who want to run at 1440p should choose High and accept the modest visual reduction, since the Ultra preset cannot guarantee a consistent 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, Low is the only playable setting, averaging 70.7 FPS. Medium falls to 48.9 FPS, a 21.8 FPS drop that pushes the system well below the threshold. The jump from Low to Medium at 4K is the largest single-preset performance hit in the entire dataset, larger than the 1080p Low-to-Medium drop of 36.6 FPS in absolute terms but more significant because it crosses the playability line. The verdict for 4K is clear: play at Low, or lower the resolution.

The Verdict

This combo can run Control, but the experience depends heavily on resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS at every preset, including Ultra at 76.1 FPS. This is the resolution where the pairing is most comfortable, with enough margin to handle demanding scenes without dropping below the playable threshold. At 2560x1440, the system remains playable at High settings with 65.8 FPS, but Ultra falls just short at 59.3 FPS. The 1440p verdict is conditional: playable at High, borderline at Ultra. At 3840x2160, only Low settings reach 60 FPS, averaging 70.7 FPS, while Medium and above fall to 48.9 FPS or lower. The 4K verdict is restrictive: playable only at the lowest quality preset.

The verdict by resolution in the database confirms this reading. For 1920x1080, the playable settings are High, Low, Medium, and Ultra, with Ultra as the best choice. For 2560x1440, the playable settings are High, Low, and Medium, with High as the best choice. For 3840x2160, the only playable setting is Low. The overall assessment is that this is a solid 1080p machine for Control, a good 1440p machine with settings compromises, and a poor 4K machine unless the player accepts Low quality.

The rank of 2048 out of 3720 reinforces this mixed verdict. The combo is not weak enough to struggle at mainstream resolutions, but it is also not strong enough to dominate at high resolutions. The data shows a system that rewards players who match their expectations to the hardware's capabilities. For anyone considering this pairing for Control, the practical advice is to target 1080p Ultra for the best balance of quality and performance, or 1440p High if a larger display is a priority. 4K is possible only at Low, and even then the 70.7 FPS average leaves less headroom than the 1080p results.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data allows for an analysis of which component matters more for Control at each resolution. The key evidence is how performance scales between resolutions and presets, and where the frame rate drops most sharply.

At 1920x1080, the CPU plays a larger role than at higher resolutions. The frame rate at Low settings, 138.2 FPS, is high enough that the GPU is not the primary constraint; the i5-10400F must feed the RTX 4060 with draw calls and physics updates fast enough to sustain that rate. The 3dmark multi-threaded scores for the CPU, such as 4748 for 16 threads and 3929 for 8 threads, indicate a processor that can handle modern game workloads, but the 1080p Low result is likely closer to the CPU's limit than the GPU's. The single-thread score of 688 in 3dmark and 1451 in Cinebench R23 suggest that the CPU's per-core performance is adequate but not exceptional, and Control's engine does use multiple threads for its physics and destruction systems.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts toward the GPU. The frame rates at Medium and High, 74.7 and 65.8 FPS, are lower than at 1080p, which points to the GPU becoming more important as pixel count rises. The Ultra result of 59.3 FPS is the first preset to miss the 60 FPS threshold, and the gap between High and Ultra at 1440p is 6.5 FPS. This suggests that the RTX 4060's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 272.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for most 1440p presets, but the card's 48 ROPs and 15.11 TFLOPS of FP32 performance begin to show limits at the highest quality settings. The CPU is still contributing, but the GPU is now the limiting factor for Ultra.

At 3840x2160, the GPU dominates the performance equation. The frame rate at Low, 70.7 FPS, is still playable, but the drop to Medium at 48.9 FPS is a 21.8 FPS decline, and High falls further to 47.3 FPS. The Ultra result of 36.5 FPS is less than half of the 1080p Low figure. These numbers indicate that the RTX 4060 is overwhelmed by the 4K pixel count, particularly at higher presets where the shading load and memory bandwidth demands increase. The CPU's role at 4K is minimal; even the i5-10400F's modest multi-threaded scores are more than enough to keep up with the GPU at these frame rates. The 4K results would not improve meaningfully with a faster CPU, because the GPU is the bottleneck.

The scaling between resolutions supports this division of labor. The 1080p to 4K drop at Low settings is 67.5 FPS, while the same drop at Ultra is 39.6 FPS. The larger absolute drop at Low settings reflects the GPU's inability to maintain high frame rates at 4K even when the settings are minimal. The smaller drop at Ultra reflects the fact that the GPU is already near its limit at 1080p Ultra, so the additional resolution has less headroom to remove. Both observations point to the GPU as the dominant constraint at 4K, with the CPU's influence fading as resolution increases.

For players deciding whether to upgrade either component for Control, the data suggests that the GPU is the more impactful upgrade for 1440p and 4K performance, while the CPU would only matter for pushing frame rates beyond 138 FPS at 1080p Low, which is well above the playable threshold. The i5-10400F's 65 W TDP and 12 MB of L3 cache are sufficient for this game, and the RTX 4060's 115 W TDP and 8 GB of memory are the limiting factors at higher resolutions. The combo's rank of 2048 out of 3720 reflects this balance: neither component is a weak link at 1080p, but the GPU holds the system back at 4K.