Control

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 demonstrates a clear pattern in Control: the GPU is powerful enough to push very high frame rates, but the combination of a 6-core, 12-thread Comet Lake processor with a flagship Ada Lovelace graphics card creates a system that is playable at every preset and resolution tested. The recorded data shows a consistent ability to exceed the 60 FPS playable threshold, with the most demanding settings still delivering a comfortable margin.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 69 FPS. This is the highest quality setting available, and the system clears the playable threshold by a 9 FPS margin. The High preset averages 79 FPS, while Medium averages 89 FPS and Low averages 126 FPS. Ultra is the best choice for maximum visual fidelity at 4K because it remains above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset is also the best setting, delivering an average of 102 FPS. The High preset reaches 118 FPS, Medium reaches 132 FPS, and Low reaches 155 FPS. Every preset at this resolution provides a substantial cushion above the 60 FPS threshold, so selecting Ultra does not compromise smoothness.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 135 FPS, making it the best setting. High runs at 144 FPS, Medium at 150 FPS, and Low at 170 FPS. The frame rates are high enough across all presets that the visual quality of Ultra can be fully utilized without any risk of dropping near the playable threshold.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes. The recorded average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 69 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this combination?

A: The highest average is 170 FPS, recorded at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How does the system perform at 1440p with High settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with High settings, the average FPS is 118, which exceeds the 60 FPS threshold by a large margin.

Q: Are there any preset or resolution combinations that fall below 60 FPS?

A: No. All twelve recorded combinations, spanning three resolutions and four presets, have average FPS values above 60. The lowest average is 69 FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra.

Q: What is the frame rate range at Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 150 FPS with a minimum of 127 FPS and a maximum of 172 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average is 132 FPS with a minimum of 113 FPS and a maximum of 152 FPS. At 3840x2160 Medium, the average is 89 FPS with a minimum of 76 FPS and a maximum of 103 FPS.

Q: How much headroom does the system have at 4K Ultra?

A: The average of 69 FPS provides a 9 FPS margin over the 60 FPS playable threshold, indicating that the system is comfortably playable but with less headroom than at lower resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data covers three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset produces an average of 170 FPS, which is the highest recorded value in the entire dataset. Medium at 1080p averages 150 FPS with a minimum of 127 FPS and a maximum of 172 FPS. High at 1080p averages 144 FPS, and Ultra at 1080p averages 135 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 35 FPS drop, from 170 down to 135, which is a relatively modest penalty given the visual quality increase.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 155 FPS. Medium averages 132 FPS with a minimum of 113 FPS and a maximum of 152 FPS. High averages 118 FPS, and Ultra averages 102 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 53 FPS, a larger gap than at 1080p, which suggests the GPU is working harder as pixel count increases.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 126 FPS. Medium averages 89 FPS with a minimum of 76 FPS and a maximum of 103 FPS. High averages 79 FPS, and Ultra averages 69 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is 57 FPS. The minimum FPS recorded at 4K Medium is 76, which is still 16 FPS above the playable threshold, indicating that even the lowest dips remain smooth.

The data shows a consistent scaling pattern. At 1080p, the GPU is likely not the primary constraint, as even Ultra produces 135 FPS. At 1440p, the frame rates remain high, with Ultra at 102 FPS. At 4K, the demands on the GPU become apparent, with Ultra dropping to 69 FPS, but the system still avoids any sub-60 FPS territory.

The Verdict

The verdict by resolution confirms that this PC can run Control at all tested settings. At 3840x2160, the playable settings include High, Low, Medium, and Ultra, with the best setting being Ultra at an average of 69 FPS. At 2560x1440, all four presets are playable, with Ultra as the best setting at an average of 102 FPS. At 1920x1080, all four presets are playable, with Ultra as the best setting at an average of 135 FPS.

The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and every single average FPS value in the measured data exceeds this. The lowest recorded average is 69 FPS at 4K Ultra, and the highest is 170 FPS at 1080p Low. The system does not merely scrape past the threshold; it maintains a margin of at least 9 FPS even in the most demanding scenario.

The combination of the Core i5-10400F and the RTX 4080 is sufficient for Control at maximum settings across all three resolutions tested. The 4K Ultra result of 69 FPS is the only data point that approaches the threshold, but it remains playable. For users prioritizing higher frame rates, the Low preset at 4K delivers 126 FPS, more than double the playable threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets reveals which component dominates in this game. At 1920x1080, the frame rates across presets are extremely high, ranging from 135 FPS at Ultra to 170 FPS at Low. The relatively small difference between presets at 1080p, only 35 FPS from Low to Ultra, suggests that the CPU, the Intel Core i5-10400F, is keeping up well enough that the GPU is not being fully stressed. The 10400F has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with 6 cores and 12 threads. Its benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283 and a single-core score of 1451, indicate a capable mid-range processor.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates drop noticeably compared to 1080p. Ultra falls from 135 FPS to 102 FPS, a 33 FPS reduction. This drop indicates that the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, is becoming a larger factor as the rendering load increases. The RTX 4080 has 9728 shading units and 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, with a memory bandwidth of 716.8 GB/s. Its Passmark G3D score of 34457 places it in the 86th percentile among all GPUs.

At 3840x2160, the GPU role becomes dominant. Ultra drops to 69 FPS, and the spread between Low and Ultra is 57 FPS. The RTX 4080 is clearly the limiting factor at 4K, as the CPU has more headroom to feed frames. The 10400F's passmark multithread score of 12115 and single-thread score of 2541 are sufficient to avoid becoming a bottleneck at lower resolutions, but the GPU is the component that determines the final frame rates at higher pixel counts.

The data implies that Control at 1080p is more CPU-bound in the sense that the GPU could likely produce even higher frame rates if the CPU could feed it faster. At 4K, the situation reverses, and the GPU's raw throughput is the primary constraint. The RTX 4080 delivers 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, but the demands of 4K Ultra in Control push it to an average of 69 FPS, just above the threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 ranks 576 out of 3720 tested combos in Control. This places the system in the top 15.5% of all combinations in the database. The high ranking is driven primarily by the GPU, as the RTX 4080 sits in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU sits in the 68th percentile of all CPUs.

The rank of 576 out of 3720 indicates that many other combinations achieve higher frame rates in Control, likely those pairing higher-end CPUs with the RTX 4080 or similar GPUs. However, the ranking also shows that this combination outperforms the vast majority of systems tested. The 10400F is an older, less powerful CPU compared to the GPU, but the measured results show that it does not prevent the system from reaching playable frame rates at any preset.

The gap between the CPU's 68th percentile and the GPU's 86th percentile highlights the imbalance in this pairing. In a game like Control, which responds strongly to GPU power at higher resolutions, this imbalance has minimal impact. The system still ranks in the top 576 out of 3720, which is a strong result for a mid-range CPU paired with a high-end GPU.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals to the Intel Core i5-10400F, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Xeon 6756E, which has an average score of 14163 and a delta of 0.2% compared to the 10400F's average score of 14185. The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232, a delta of -0.3%, meaning it is slightly faster. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, a delta of 0.5%, making it slightly slower. The AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, a delta of -0.6%, making it slightly faster. These processors would behave similarly to the 10400F in terms of overall CPU benchmark performance, though their gaming behavior in Control would depend on other factors not captured in the average score.

For the GPU, the nearest rival to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, with an average score of 54209 and a delta of 0.1%, making it essentially identical in performance. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54828, a delta of -1.1%, meaning it is slightly faster. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698, a delta of -2.6%, making it slightly faster. The AMD Radeon 8060S scores 55757, a delta of -2.7%, also slightly faster. These GPUs would produce very similar frame rates in Control when paired with the same CPU.

The delta values for both the CPU and GPU rivals are all within a few percent, indicating that swapping the 10400F for any of its nearest rivals would result in a negligible change in overall system performance. Similarly, swapping the RTX 4080 for the RTX 4080 SUPER would yield nearly identical results, as the 0.1% delta is within measurement noise. The AMD alternatives show slightly higher average scores, but the differences are small enough that actual in-game frame rates would likely be within a few FPS of each other.