Control

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data for Control shows a clear progression of what this hardware combination can sustain at the 60 FPS threshold. At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that maintains at least 60 FPS on average is Low, which delivers 63 FPS. The step up to Medium drops to 45 FPS, so the margin is decisive: Low is the only viable 4K setting.

At 2560x1440, the ceiling rises to Medium, which holds an average of 67 FPS. High falls slightly short at 59 FPS, making Medium the optimal choice for a smooth experience at this resolution. The 1440p data indicates that the gap between Medium and High is only 8 FPS, yet that gap is enough to push High below the playable mark.

At 1920x1080, the situation flips entirely. Every recorded preset clears 60 FPS, including Ultra at 68 FPS. This makes Ultra the best setting for 1080p, as it delivers the highest visual quality while remaining above the threshold. Low runs at 124 FPS, Medium at 88 FPS, and High at 78 FPS, so there is headroom across the board.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database, this specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 occupies position 2296 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. That places it in the upper-middle portion of the field, meaning it outperforms roughly 38% of all tested combos while trailing the remaining 62%.

The percentile data reinforces this positioning. The CPU sits at the 68th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits at the 66th percentile among all graphics cards. Both components are solidly mid-pack performers individually, and their combined rank in this game reflects that balance. The rank suggests that Control is not a title where this combo punches far above its weight, but it also is not a pairing that struggles against the broader field.

The 2296 rank out of 3720 combos indicates that many other hardware pairings deliver higher frame rates in Control, but a substantial number also deliver lower performance. For a mainstream 10th-gen six-core CPU paired with a current-generation entry-level GPU, this is a consistent result: neither component drastically boosts nor drags down the overall experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a full picture across three resolutions and four quality presets. Starting at 3840x2160, the averages are as follows: Low runs at 63 FPS, Medium at 45 FPS, High at 40 FPS, and Ultra at 35 FPS. Only the Medium preset has min and max values recorded, showing a range from 38 FPS to 52 FPS. The other 4K presets lack min/max data, so the averages stand alone.

At 2560x1440, the averages climb substantially. Low hits 94 FPS, Medium reaches 67 FPS, High lands at 59 FPS, and Ultra drops to 52 FPS. Medium again is the only preset with min/max values, spanning 57 FPS to 77 FPS. The 1440p results show that Low offers nearly double the frame rate of Ultra, which speaks to the heavy cost of the highest settings at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the averages are the strongest of the entire dataset. Low produces 124 FPS, Medium runs at 88 FPS, High reaches 78 FPS, and Ultra holds 68 FPS. Medium has the only recorded min/max range, from 75 FPS to 101 FPS. The 1080p data shows a compression of performance across settings: the difference between Low and Ultra is 56 FPS, whereas at 4K that same difference is 28 FPS. This indicates that at lower resolutions, the CPU and GPU have more headroom to absorb the cost of higher presets.

Interpreting the numbers across resolutions, the pattern is consistent. Each step up in resolution reduces the average FPS by a significant margin. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at High settings drops the average from 78 to 59 FPS, a 24% reduction. Moving from 1440p to 4K at High settings drops it from 59 to 40 FPS, a 32% reduction. The scaling is not linear, but it is steep enough to require dropping two full preset levels when jumping from 1080p to 4K.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide context for what other hardware would behave similarly in this game. For the Intel Core i5-10400F, the closest matches by average benchmark score are the Intel Xeon 6756E, the Intel Core 7 160UL, the AMD EPYC 7552, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C. The delta percentages are small: the Xeon 6756E scores 0.2% higher, the Core 7 160UL scores 0.3% lower, the EPYC 7552 scores 0.5% higher, and the Ryzen 3 7320C scores 0.6% lower. These differences are negligible in real-world gaming, so any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Control when paired with the same GPU.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, the AMD Radeon HD 8970M, the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile. The delta percentages here are slightly larger but still modest: the RX Vega M GL scores 0.6% lower, the HD 8970M scores 1% lower, the RX 5600 XT scores 1.6% higher, and the RTX A4000 Mobile scores 1.6% lower. In practical terms, swapping the RTX 5050 for any of these would shift Control's frame rates by only a few FPS at most. The RX 5600 XT, with its 1.6% higher score, might squeeze out an extra 1 to 2 FPS in the most demanding 4K preset, but it would not change the verdict at any resolution.

The implication is that this combo sits in a dense cluster of similar-performing hardware. The differences among these rivals are so small that the in-game experience would be effectively identical. Gamers with any of these alternative CPUs or GPUs should expect the same playable settings at each resolution as recorded for this pairing.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals how the CPU and GPU split responsibility for Control's performance across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the GPU has the easiest job. The frame rates range from 68 FPS at Ultra to 124 FPS at Low, showing that even the highest settings leave substantial headroom. The CPU, a 6-core 12-thread Comet Lake part, is sufficient to feed the GPU at these frame rates without becoming a bottleneck.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts. The GPU begins to struggle more visibly, as evidenced by the drop from 94 FPS at Low to 52 FPS at Ultra. The CPU still has enough throughput to keep the GPU supplied, but the GPU's rendering load is now the primary constraint. The fact that Low runs at 94 FPS while Ultra runs at 52 FPS indicates that the GPU's shading and rasterization work is the limiting factor, not the CPU's instruction throughput.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the dominant bottleneck. The frame rates collapse to a range of 35 to 63 FPS across settings. Even Low, which should be relatively light on the GPU, only manages 63 FPS. The CPU's role diminishes further because the GPU cannot generate frames fast enough to stress the processor. The scaling between resolutions confirms this: at High settings, the FPS drops from 78 at 1080p to 59 at 1440p to 40 at 4K. This steep decline is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

The CPU's benchmark scores support this interpretation. Its single-thread score in Cinebench R23 is 1451, and its multi-thread score is 10283. These are capable numbers for a 2020-era mainstream chip. In Control, which is not known for extreme CPU demands, the i5-10400F provides enough compute headroom that the GPU becomes the limiting component at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU and GPU are more evenly matched, but neither is severely strained.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 4K resolution?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings. The recorded average FPS at 3840x2160 with Low settings is 63 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS, with averages of 45, 40, and 35 FPS respectively.

Q: What is the best setting for 1440p gaming with this hardware?

A: Medium is the best setting at 2560x1440. It delivers an average of 67 FPS, which is above the playable threshold. High averages 59 FPS, just below the threshold, while Low runs at 94 FPS and Ultra at 52 FPS.

Q: Does this combination support 1080p Ultra settings?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the recorded average FPS is 68, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold. All four presets at 1080p clear 60 FPS, with Low reaching 124 FPS, Medium at 88 FPS, and High at 78 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems in Control?

A: This pairing ranks 2296 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. The CPU sits at the 68th percentile among all processors, and the GPU sits at the 66th percentile among all GPUs. This places the combo in the upper-middle range of the database.

Q: Which component is more important for performance at 4K?

A: The GPU is the dominant factor at 3840x2160. The frame rates drop sharply across all settings, with Low at 63 FPS and Ultra at 35 FPS, indicating that the RTX 5050's rendering throughput is the limiting constraint. The CPU has sufficient single-thread and multi-thread performance to avoid becoming a bottleneck at this resolution.

Q: Are there other GPUs that would perform similarly to the RTX 5050 in this game?

A: Yes. The nearest rival GPUs by average benchmark score include the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, AMD Radeon HD 8970M, AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT, and NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile. Their scores differ by only 0.6% to 1.6% from the RTX 5050, so in-game frame rates would be nearly identical.

The Verdict

The data shows that this PC can run Control, but the experience depends heavily on resolution. At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS on every preset, including Ultra at 68 FPS. This is the resolution where the combo is most comfortable, offering full visual quality without compromise.

At 2560x1440, the system remains playable but requires a setting reduction. Medium delivers 67 FPS, which is above the threshold, while High falls just short at 59 FPS. Gamers at 1440p should use Medium for a smooth experience and can accept a small visual downgrade to stay above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system is barely playable and only at the lowest settings. Low averages 63 FPS, just above the threshold, while everything else falls below. The jump from Low to Medium costs 18 FPS, which is a steep penalty for one quality tier. For 4K gaming, this combination is limited to Low settings, and even then the margin is thin.

The verdict by resolution is clear: 1080p Ultra is fully playable, 1440p Medium is the best balance, and 4K Low is the only option that clears 60 FPS. This is a system that excels at 1080p, handles 1440p with reasonable settings, and struggles at 4K.