Control

How This Combo Ranks

The database places the Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER at rank 566 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. That positions this system in the top 15 percent of all recorded configurations, a strong showing for a game that rewards both CPU throughput and GPU rasterization power. The CPU itself sits at the 68th percentile among all processors in the database, while the GPU lands at the 86th percentile among all graphics cards. The combo rank reflects the GPU doing most of the heavy lifting, but the i5-10400F does not drag the system down in this title.

What makes this ranking notable is how close the CPU's nearest rivals are in aggregate benchmark score. The Intel Xeon 6756E scores 14163, a mere 0.2 percent behind the i5-10400F's 14185 average. The Intel Core 7 160UL sits 0.3 percent higher at 14232, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C is 0.6 percent ahead at 14277. These are tiny margins, meaning the i5-10400F trades blows with a spread of enterprise and mobile hardware. For Control specifically, the measured frame rates suggest the CPU is rarely the limiting factor, as even the most demanding preset at 4K stays well above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

The GPU's nearest rivals are equally close. The RTX 4080 SUPER averages 54209 in the database, while the standard RTX 4080 sits at 54247, a 0.1 percent gap in favor of the older card. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X is 1.1 percent higher at 54828, and the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB reaches 55698, 2.7 percent above. These deltas are small enough that swapping between these cards would produce nearly identical results in Control. The ranking data suggests this combo is well balanced for the game, with no obvious bottleneck dragging the experience down.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that maintains at least 60 FPS is Ultra, and the recorded average is 134.8 FPS. Every preset at this resolution clears the playable threshold, with Low reaching 169.5 FPS, Medium hitting 149.5, and High sitting at 145.9. The Ultra preset is the obvious choice here, since it delivers the highest visual quality while still leaving enormous headroom above the 60 FPS line.

Moving to 2560x1440, the best settings remain Ultra, with an average of 103.2 FPS. The gap between presets narrows compared to 1080p: Low runs at 152.1 FPS, Medium at 131.1, and High at 116.1. Even the heaviest settings stay comfortably above 60 FPS, so the resolution scaling penalty is manageable for this hardware combination.

At 3840x2160, the best settings are still Ultra, but the average drops to 71.6 FPS. That remains above the playable threshold, though the margin is thinner. High runs at 80.6 FPS, Medium at 88.9, and Low at 127.9. The data shows that 4K Ultra is playable, but it is the only configuration in the measured set where the frame rate dips below 80. For users who prefer a larger safety margin, dropping to High at 4K adds 9 FPS on average.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling pattern across resolutions reveals which component matters more. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra is 34.7 FPS (169.5 down to 134.8). At 2560x1440, that same preset spread is 48.9 FPS (152.1 down to 103.2). At 3840x2160, the spread grows to 56.3 FPS (127.9 down to 71.6). As resolution increases, the cost of higher settings becomes more pronounced, which points to the GPU bearing an increasing share of the workload.

The CPU's role is more visible at lower resolutions. Going from 1080p Low to 1440p Low costs 17.4 FPS (169.5 to 152.1), while 1440p Low to 4K Low costs 24.2 FPS (152.1 to 127.9). At Low settings, the GPU is less stressed, so the i5-10400F's six cores and twelve threads have more influence on the frame rate. The CPU's single-thread score of 688 in 3dmark and 1451 in Cinebench R23 suggests it can feed the RTX 4080 SUPER adequately at lower resolutions, but the frame rate ceiling at 1080p Low (169.5 FPS) is likely CPU-limited rather than GPU-limited.

At Ultra settings, the GPU dominates. The drop from 1080p Ultra to 1440p Ultra is 31.6 FPS (134.8 to 103.2), and from 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra is another 31.6 FPS (103.2 to 71.6). The consistent 31.6 FPS penalty per resolution step at Ultra settings is a classic GPU-bound pattern. The RTX 4080 SUPER's 52.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 736.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth are the primary drivers here, and the CPU's influence diminishes as pixel count rises.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are all within 0.6 percent of the i5-10400F's average benchmark score. The Intel Xeon 6756E at 14163 (0.2 percent slower) would behave nearly identically in Control. The Intel Core 7 160UL at 14232 (0.3 percent faster) and the AMD EPYC 7552 at 14115 (0.5 percent slower) would also land in the same performance band. The AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14277 (0.6 percent faster) rounds out the group. In practice, any of these CPUs paired with the RTX 4080 SUPER would produce frame rates within a few percent of what this combo achieves.

On the GPU side, the standard RTX 4080 is the closest match, scoring 54247 versus the SUPER's 54209, a 0.1 percent difference. Swapping to the non-SUPER card would change Control's frame rates by less than a single FPS in most scenarios. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X at 54828 (1.1 percent faster) and the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB at 55698 (2.7 percent faster) would both deliver slightly higher averages, but the real-world gap in a game like Control would be minor. The Radeon 8060S at 55757 (2.8 percent faster) is the most performant of the group, yet still close enough that the gameplay experience would feel identical.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured averages are as follows: Low settings produce 127.9 FPS, Medium produces 88.9, High produces 80.6, and Ultra produces 71.6. The step from Low to Medium is a 39 FPS drop, which is substantial. From Medium to High is 8.3 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 9 FPS. The diminishing returns pattern is clear: the jump from Low to Medium costs the most performance, while the higher tiers have smaller incremental penalties.

At 2560x1440, Low runs at 152.1 FPS, Medium at 131.1, High at 116.1, and Ultra at 103.2. The spread from Low to Ultra is 48.9 FPS, with the largest single drop again coming from Low to Medium at 21 FPS. Medium to High costs 15 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 12.9 FPS. The scaling is more linear here than at 4K, suggesting the GPU has enough headroom at this resolution to absorb the settings increases without hitting a hard wall.

At 1920x1080, Low reaches 169.5 FPS, Medium hits 149.5, High runs at 145.9, and Ultra sits at 134.8. The Low to Medium drop is 20 FPS, Medium to High is just 3.6 FPS, and High to Ultra is 11.1 FPS. The small gap between Medium and High at 1080p is notable, as it suggests those two presets have similar GPU demands at this resolution. The CPU's influence is strongest here, and the i5-10400F's 3dmark 8-thread score of 3929 indicates it can sustain high frame rates without becoming a severe constraint.

FAQ

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

A: Yes. The recorded average at 3840x2160 Ultra is 71.6 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. All four presets at 4K are playable, with Low reaching 127.9 FPS, Medium at 88.9, and High at 80.6.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 2560x1440?

A: Ultra is the best choice, with an average of 103.2 FPS. The next step down, High, runs at 116.1 FPS, but Ultra still has enough headroom above 60 FPS to justify the visual upgrade.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: The average frame rate drops from 134.8 FPS at 1920x1080 Ultra to 71.6 FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra, a loss of 63.2 FPS. The largest single step is from 1440p Ultra (103.2 FPS) to 4K Ultra (71.6 FPS), which costs 31.6 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for this game?

A: The GPU dominates at higher resolutions. At 4K, the preset spread from Low to Ultra is 56.3 FPS, while at 1080p it is only 34.7 FPS. The CPU's influence is strongest at 1080p Low, where the frame rate of 169.5 FPS suggests a CPU-related ceiling.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: It ranks 566 out of 3720 combinations, placing it in the upper tier of the database. The GPU's 86th percentile standing contributes more to this rank than the CPU's 68th percentile.

Q: Are there comparable GPU alternatives that would perform similarly?

A: The standard RTX 4080 is the closest, with an average score 0.1 percent higher than the RTX 4080 SUPER. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (1.1 percent faster), Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (2.7 percent faster), and Radeon 8060S (2.8 percent faster) would all produce nearly identical frame rates in Control.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control at every resolution and preset combination recorded in the database, and it clears the 60 FPS threshold in all of them. At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra with 134.8 FPS average, leaving massive headroom. At 2560x1440, Ultra still delivers 103.2 FPS, which is comfortably playable. At 3840x2160, Ultra averages 71.6 FPS, so even the most demanding configuration remains above the playable line, though the margin is tighter.

The verdict by resolution is straightforward: all three resolutions list all four presets (High, Low, Medium, Ultra) as playable. The weakest point in the entire measured set is 4K Ultra at 71.6 FPS, which is still 11.6 FPS above the playable threshold. For users who want a larger safety buffer at 4K, High settings at 80.6 FPS or Medium at 88.9 FPS are viable alternatives. The data indicates that this is a high-confidence system for Control, with no configuration falling below the 60 FPS target.