Control

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, this combination produces a narrow band of results across all four presets. The Low preset averages 30 FPS, which is the peak for this resolution. Medium drops to 21 FPS on average, with a recorded minimum of 18 FPS and maximum of 25 FPS. High falls further to 19 FPS, while Ultra bottoms out at 17 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS playable threshold, and even the Low preset's 30 FPS average represents a demanding workload for the integrated graphics solution at 4K.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern holds but with modest gains. Low reaches 45 FPS average, still 15 FPS short of the playable threshold. Medium averages 32 FPS, with minimum and maximum readings of 27 and 37 FPS respectively. High settles at 28 FPS, and Ultra drops to 25 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 20 FPS, showing that preset selection carries meaningful weight, yet even the most forgiving settings leave the system well below 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the results become more competitive. Low preset achieves 59 FPS average, within 1 FPS of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 and maximum of 48 FPS. High drops to 37 FPS, and Ultra reaches 32 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra here is 27 FPS, the largest gap across all resolutions, indicating that at 1080p the preset choice has the most pronounced impact on frame rate. The 1080p Low result is the only measurement in the entire dataset that comes within striking distance of playable performance.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: lowering the preset yields proportionally larger gains at lower resolutions. The data also shows that no preset at any resolution clears 60 FPS, and only the 1080p Low setting approaches it. The minimum and maximum values are only recorded for Medium presets, so the variance characteristics of other settings are not captured in the database.

CPU and GPU Roles

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Core 11th Gen series, based on Rocket Lake architecture. Its benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 14340, Geekbench multicore scores 7737, and the 3DMark 16-thread test scores 5619. The CPU ranks in the 71st percentile among all tested processors, meaning it outperforms roughly two-thirds of the database's CPU samples. This is clearly not a weak processor, and its single-thread results (Cinebench R23 singlecore at 2024, Geekbench singlecore at 1777) indicate solid per-core capability.

The Intel Arc B370, however, is a different story. This integrated GPU, built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with Panther Lake chip, ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its only recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, scores 1184. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, with 10 ray tracing cores. Its FP32 throughput is 6.144 TFLOPS, and it uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The 25 W TDP and IGP form factor confirm this is an integrated solution, not a discrete graphics card.

The resolution scaling data reveals which component constrains performance. At 4K, the GPU is overwhelmingly the bottleneck. The Arc B370's pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are modest figures for 4K workloads. Moving from 4K Low at 30 FPS to 1440p Low at 45 FPS represents a 50% improvement, while 1440p Low to 1080p Low at 59 FPS adds another 31%. This strong scaling with resolution reduction is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios, where fewer pixels directly translate into higher frame rates.

The CPU's role is secondary but not irrelevant. At 1080p, the CPU has more influence because the GPU's workload per pixel decreases. The 59 FPS result at 1080p Low suggests the CPU can feed the GPU adequately at lower resolutions, but the GPU still cannot reach 60 FPS. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s and DDR4 dual-channel support provide reasonable data throughput, yet the integrated GPU's reliance on system memory means bandwidth is shared, which can limit performance in memory-intensive scenes.

The preset scaling further clarifies the balance. At 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS (30 to 17), a 43% drop. At 1440p, that gap is 20 FPS (45 to 25), a 44% drop. At 1080p, the gap is 27 FPS (59 to 32), a 46% drop. The consistency of these relative drops indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution, with the CPU providing enough headroom that it does not become the primary constraint even at 1080p. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the absolute FPS differences between presets would shrink more dramatically at lower resolutions.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 7H12, which scores 17120 on average, a 0.3% delta from the i5-11400F's 17177. The Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239, 0.4% higher. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, 0.6% higher. The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U scores 17074, 0.6% lower. These four processors bracket the i5-11400F within a narrow 1.2% performance band, meaning any of them would deliver effectively identical frame rates in this game when paired with the same GPU.

The GPU's nearest rivals present a starker picture. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, 0.2% above the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4% lower. These are all older or lower-tier GPUs, and the deltas are tiny. A system with any of these GPUs paired with a comparable CPU would produce nearly identical Control performance, meaning the 1080p Low result of 59 FPS is representative of this entire GPU performance class.

For users considering alternatives, the data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield far more benefit than swapping the CPU. A processor from the nearest rival list would change results by less than 1%, while a GPU from a higher performance tier would be needed to meaningfully improve frame rates. However, the database does not provide direct measurements for such alternative pairings in Control, so the exact impact cannot be quantified from this dataset.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with the Low preset, the average frame rate is 59 FPS, which is 1 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The Medium preset averages 42 FPS, High averages 37 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. The system cannot maintain 60 FPS at any preset, though Low comes very close.

Q: What is the best preset at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 45 FPS average, which is the highest score at that resolution. Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 28 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. None of these settings reach the 60 FPS threshold, and the database records no playable settings at this resolution.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186 (0.2% higher), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% higher), and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168 (1.4% lower). These differences are negligible in real-world gaming.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor?

A: The GPU is the primary constraint at all resolutions. The i5-11400F ranks in the 71st percentile among CPUs, while the Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile among GPUs. Resolution scaling shows large FPS improvements when lowering resolution, which is typical of GPU-bound scenarios. The CPU has sufficient headroom even at 1080p.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 30 FPS, Medium averages 21 FPS (with 18 FPS minimum and 25 FPS maximum), High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. All presets are far below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Does the system have any playable settings?

A: According to the verdict data, there are no playable settings at any resolution. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the highest recorded average is 59 FPS at 1080p Low. The database lists empty playable settings arrays for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of Intel Core i5-11400F and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3436 out of 3720 tested combinations in the database for Control. That places it in the bottom 7.6% of all tested systems, a reflection of the GPU's low performance percentile. The CPU's 71st percentile ranking demonstrates that the processor is not the weak link, but the overall combo ranking is dragged down by the Arc B370's 5th percentile GPU score.

The ranking context matters for interpretation. There are 284 combinations in the database that perform worse than this setup, meaning the system is not the absolute lowest tier, but it sits clearly in the lower echelon. For a game like Control, which is a demanding action-adventure title, this ranking translates into a system that can only approach playability at the lowest settings and resolution.

The asymmetry between CPU and GPU performance is notable. The i5-11400F would typically be paired with a more capable discrete GPU in most system configurations, but the integrated Arc B370 constrains the overall result. The database's measured FPS data confirms this: the system's performance profile closely mirrors the GPU's capabilities rather than the CPU's. Users considering this combination should understand that the CPU has headroom for a future GPU upgrade, but with the current integrated graphics, the system's ranking reflects a GPU-bound configuration.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset meets the 60 FPS threshold, and the database records no best settings for this resolution. The highest average FPS is 30 at Low, which is exactly half the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the same situation applies: no playable settings exist, and the best settings field is null. The Low preset achieves 45 FPS average, but this falls 15 FPS short of the threshold.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 59 FPS average, which is the closest any configuration comes to the 60 FPS threshold. However, the verdict data still lists no playable settings at this resolution, because 59 FPS is below the 60 FPS cutoff. The database does not designate a best settings value because the threshold is not cleared.

The pattern is clear: the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist for any resolution. The system's peak performance is 59 FPS at 1080p Low, and every other configuration produces lower averages. For users who accept frame rates below 60 FPS, the Low preset at 1080p is the most viable option, but strictly speaking, the playable threshold is not reached anywhere.

The Verdict

The data answers the question directly: this PC cannot run Control at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or preset. At 3840x2160, the best case is 30 FPS on Low. At 2560x1440, the best case is 45 FPS on Low. At 1920x1080, the best case is 59 FPS on Low, which misses the threshold by a single frame per second.

The verdict by resolution is uniform: all three resolutions list empty playable settings, meaning no configuration achieves 60 FPS. The 1080p Low result is tantalizingly close, but the database's strict threshold means it does not qualify as playable. Users who are willing to tolerate sub-60 FPS performance could run the game at 1080p Low with a nearly playable experience, but the official classification is that this system cannot run the game at the required frame rate.

The bottleneck analysis points squarely at the GPU. The Arc B370's 5th percentile ranking and its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 place it in a performance class that is simply insufficient for Control's demands. The CPU's 71st percentile ranking and strong multi-threaded scores (Cinebench R23 multicore at 14340, Geekbench multicore at 7737) indicate that a GPU upgrade would unlock the system's potential, but with the current integrated graphics, the verdict is negative. For a game that launched in 2019, this combination demonstrates that integrated graphics remain a limiting factor for demanding titles, even at lower resolutions and settings.