Control

FAQ

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

A: Yes. At 3840x2160, all four tested presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) clear the 60 FPS threshold. The average frame rate ranges from 81 FPS at Ultra to 137.2 FPS at Low.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 1440p?

A: The Ultra preset is fully playable at 2560x1440 with an average of 115.6 FPS. Even the most demanding setting stays well above the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: How much performance drops when moving from Low to Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average frame rate falls from 169.6 FPS on Low to 135.8 FPS on Ultra. That is a reduction of approximately 20% from the lowest to the highest preset.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for Control?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the dominant factor. At 4K, the spread between Low and Ultra is 56.2 FPS (137.2 down to 81), while at 1080p the same spread is only 33.8 FPS (169.6 down to 135.8). The larger gap at higher resolution suggests the graphics card bears most of the scaling burden.

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

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 373rd out of 3720 tested combos for Control. That places it in the top 10% of all recorded configurations.

Q: Does the i5-10400F bottleneck the RTX 5090 in Control?

A: The evidence does not show a severe bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 169.6 FPS, and at 1440p Low it hits 151.4 FPS. The frame rates remain high across all resolutions, indicating the CPU keeps pace with the GPU in this title.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data for Control shows a clear pattern: the GPU determines the frame rate ceiling, while the CPU provides a stable foundation that does not become a limiting factor at any tested resolution. The Intel Core i5-10400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, delivers enough throughput to keep the RTX 5090 well fed. The 3DMark multi-threaded score of 4748 and single-thread score of 688 suggest moderate compute capacity, yet the game's frame rates do not collapse at lower resolutions, which is where CPU limits typically surface.

Examining the scaling between resolutions offers a window into component roles. At Low settings, the average frame rate moves from 169.6 FPS at 1080p to 151.4 FPS at 1440p, then down to 137.2 FPS at 4K. That is a modest decline of 32.4 FPS from 1080p to 4K. At Ultra settings, the same resolution sweep goes from 135.8 FPS at 1080p to 115.6 FPS at 1440p, then to 81 FPS at 4K, a drop of 54.8 FPS. The steeper decline at Ultra settings indicates that pixel throughput and shading complexity, both GPU-side workloads, are the primary cost drivers.

The settings scaling further reinforces this interpretation. At 4K, moving from Low to Ultra reduces the average from 137.2 FPS to 81 FPS, a loss of 56.2 FPS. At 1440p, the same preset change costs 35.8 FPS (151.4 down to 115.6). At 1080p, it costs 33.8 FPS (169.6 down to 135.8). The widening gap as resolution increases is a signature of GPU-bound rendering. If the CPU were the constraint, the gap between presets would remain roughly constant or shrink at higher resolutions, not grow.

The RTX 5090's raw specifications support this role. The card carries 21760 shading units, 680 texture mapping units, and 176 raster output pipelines. Its 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 1.79 TB/s memory bandwidth are far beyond what a game from 2019 typically demands. The GPU is clearly the performance driver here, with the i5-10400F acting as a capable companion that never drags the average below playable levels.

At 1080p, the frame rates cluster tightly: 169.6 FPS at Low, 148 at Medium, 145.1 at High, and 135.8 at Ultra. The maximum spread is under 34 FPS, and even the lowest preset average exceeds 135 FPS. This narrow band suggests the CPU is approaching its effective limit at this resolution, since the GPU has so much headroom that it could render far more frames if the processor allowed. Still, the result is overwhelmingly positive: every preset at 1080p sails past 60 FPS with a wide margin.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-10400F, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Xeon 6756E with a 0.2% higher average score, the Intel Core 7 160UL with a 0.3% lower average score, the AMD EPYC 7552 with a 0.5% higher average score, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C with a 0.6% lower average score. These deltas are tiny, all within a single percentage point. In practice, any of these processors would produce nearly identical frame rates in Control when paired with the same GPU. The i5-10400F sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms roughly two-thirds of the processors in the database. The close rivals listed here occupy the same performance tier, so swapping among them would not meaningfully change the gameplay experience.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB, which scores 0.3% higher on average, the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB at 0.6% higher, the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT at 1.1% higher, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X at 1.4% lower. The GPU ranks at the 92nd percentile among all graphics cards, placing it near the top of the database. The rival cards are not gaming-oriented products; the Tesla P100 variants are datacenter accelerators, while the RX 6850M XT is a mobile part and the Pro Vega 64X targets professional workstations. Their benchmark averages are close to the RTX 5090's, but the gaming-focused features and driver optimizations of the 50-series card likely matter in real gameplay. For Control specifically, the measured frame rates show the RTX 5090 has enormous headroom, so any of these similarly scoring rivals would also clear 60 FPS at every tested resolution.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a definitive answer: this combination runs Control exceptionally well at every tested resolution and preset. At 3840x2160, the playable settings include Low, Medium, High, and Ultra, with the best average of 81 FPS achieved at Ultra. At 2560x1440, all four presets are also playable, and Ultra runs at 115.6 FPS. At 1920x1080, every preset clears the threshold, with Ultra hitting 135.8 FPS. The playability threshold is 60 FPS, and the lowest recorded average across all twelve measurement points is 81 FPS at 4K Ultra. That means even the most demanding configuration tested remains 21 FPS above the minimum playable frame rate. No settings combination in this dataset falls below 60 FPS. The verdict is unambiguous: this PC can run Control at maximum settings in 4K, and it has substantial performance left in reserve at lower resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are 137.2 FPS on Low, 101.2 FPS on Medium, 90.2 FPS on High, and 81 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is 36 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 11 FPS, and between High and Ultra it is 9.2 FPS. The diminishing returns at higher presets suggest that the Ultra preset adds visual effects that cost relatively little performance beyond High.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 151.4 FPS on Low, 136.6 FPS on Medium, 132.7 FPS on High, and 115.6 FPS on Ultra. The spread from Low to Ultra is 35.8 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 14.8 FPS, Medium to High costs 3.9 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 17.1 FPS. The Ultra preset is notably more expensive than the High preset at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the averages are 169.6 FPS on Low, 148 FPS on Medium, 145.1 FPS on High, and 135.8 FPS on Ultra. The total spread is 33.8 FPS. The Low to Medium transition costs 21.6 FPS, Medium to High costs 2.9 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 9.3 FPS. The 1080p results are the highest of any resolution, as expected, but the margins between presets are similar to those seen at 1440p.

The minimum and maximum frame rates are not recorded in the dataset, so the analysis relies on averages alone. The consistency of the averages across all twelve points, however, indicates stable performance with no outliers dragging the mean down.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the best settings that stay at or above 60 FPS are Ultra, with an average of 81 FPS. This is the most demanding preset available, and it still clears the threshold by a comfortable margin. Players targeting 4K can enable every visual option without concern.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are also Ultra, with an average of 115.6 FPS. The 1440p resolution offers a large performance cushion over 4K, allowing the full visual experience at nearly double the 60 FPS threshold.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra, with an average of 135.8 FPS. This is the highest frame rate among the three resolutions at the Ultra preset, making 1080p the best choice for players who prioritize smoothness over pixel density.

In every case, the most demanding preset remains playable. There is no resolution in the dataset where a player must compromise on settings to reach 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 373rd out of 3720 tested combos for Control. That places it in the top 10% of all configurations in the database. The ranking reflects the combination's ability to maintain high frame rates across all resolutions, with the GPU providing most of the muscle and the CPU contributing enough single-thread and multi-thread performance to avoid holding the system back. The i5-10400F's 68th percentile CPU rank and the RTX 5090's 92nd percentile GPU rank combine to produce a system that is far stronger than the median tested setup. The 373rd position out of 3720 means only about one in ten combos delivers a better result in this game. Given that the RTX 5090 is one of the most powerful consumer GPUs in the database, the high rank is expected, but the fact that a relatively modest 10th-gen Core i5 processor does not diminish the result is noteworthy. The data suggests that Control is not heavily CPU dependent, and the i5-10400F's 12 threads are sufficient to keep the RTX 5090 operating near its full potential.