Control

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Control on this configuration shows a steep performance curve as resolution increases, with the system only managing playable frame rates at 1080p on the lowest preset. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 65 FPS, which is the only setting across all resolutions that clears the 60 FPS playability threshold. The Medium preset at 1080p drops to 46 FPS average, with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 53 FPS, indicating noticeable frame pacing variance. High at 1080p yields 41 FPS average, while Ultra falls to 36 FPS average, showing a consistent degradation of roughly 5 FPS per preset step from Low to Ultra.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average frame rates compress into a narrower band. Low produces 50 FPS average, which is 15 FPS below the same preset at 1080p. Medium at 1440p averages 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS and maximum of 40 FPS, representing a 24% drop from the 1080p Medium result. High at 1440p averages 31 FPS, and Ultra averages 27 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 23 FPS, compared to a 29 FPS gap at 1080p, suggesting that resolution scaling compresses the preset differences as pixel count rises.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles across the board. Low averages 33 FPS, which is the best result at 4K. Medium averages 24 FPS with a minimum of 20 FPS and maximum of 27 FPS, showing that even the mid-range preset cannot maintain a consistent frame delivery. High averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 18 FPS. The data indicates a clear pattern: every resolution step from 1080p to 1440p to 4K costs roughly 30-40% of the average frame rate at any given preset. For instance, Low goes from 65 to 50 to 33 FPS across the three resolutions, while High goes from 41 to 31 to 21 FPS. The minimum frame rates recorded only for Medium settings show that 4K Medium has a 7 FPS spread between min and max, while 1440p Medium has a 10 FPS spread and 1080p Medium has a 13 FPS spread, indicating tighter frame delivery at higher resolutions but still far below playable levels.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU in this configuration, the Intel Core i5-11400F, sits near several closely matched processors according to aggregate benchmark scores. The AMD EPYC 7H12 is 0.3% ahead in average score, the Intel Core i5-12450H is 0.4% behind, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G is 0.6% behind, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U is 0.6% ahead. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Control when paired with the same GPU. The practical takeaway is that the i5-11400F is not a bottleneck differentiator in this pairing; a system builder swapping to any of these rivals would see no meaningful change in the game's measured performance.

The GPU situation is more pronounced. The Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are older or lower-end NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX is 1.3% ahead, the GeForce 800M is 1.5% ahead, the GeForce GT 625 OEM is 2.5% ahead, and the GeForce GT 710 is 2.7% ahead. These are all within a 3% performance band, meaning the Arc B390 delivers frame rates nearly identical to those legacy GPUs in synthetic benchmarks. For Control specifically, this translates to the same sub-60 FPS outcomes at 1440p and above, and only marginal playability at 1080p Low. The recorded data shows that any of these rival GPUs would produce essentially the same experience: the game runs on low settings at 1080p, but anything more demanding exceeds the hardware's capability.

The composite picture is that the CPU is more than adequate for this game, while the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's nearest rivals all cluster within 0.6% of its average score, indicating that the processor tier is well-established and not a source of variance. The GPU's nearest rivals cluster within 2.7%, but they are all in the bottom percentile of hardware, confirming that the Arc B390 is positioned at the very low end of the performance spectrum. In Control, this means the bottleneck is almost entirely on the graphics side, and no CPU swap within the rival set would change the outcome.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions reveals that the GPU is the dominant constraint in this configuration. From 1080p to 1440p, the average frame rate at Low drops from 65 to 50 FPS, a 23% reduction. From 1440p to 4K, it drops from 50 to 33 FPS, a 34% reduction. These are substantial losses that align with the pixel count increase, which strongly suggests the GPU is saturated before the CPU becomes a limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU workload per frame stays constant while the GPU workload grows. The data shows the opposite, confirming that the Arc B390 is the constraining component.

The preset scaling at each resolution further supports this conclusion. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 29 FPS (65 to 36). At 1440p, the difference is 23 FPS (50 to 27). At 4K, the difference is 15 FPS (33 to 18). As resolution increases, the preset overhead shrinks, which is typical of a GPU-bound scenario: at higher pixel counts, the fixed-cost rendering passes consume more of the GPU's time, leaving less headroom for the quality presets to matter. The CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics data, and with a 6-core, 12-thread processor that has a 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs, it is not the limiting factor here. The i5-11400F has single-thread and multi-thread scores that place it well above the GPU's percentile, so the GPU runs out of throughput first.

The minimum frame rates recorded for Medium settings also indicate GPU dominance. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 40 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 30 FPS; at 4K Medium, it is 20 FPS. The consistent 10 FPS drop per resolution step mirrors the average FPS drops, showing that the GPU's render time scales predictably with pixel count. The CPU, with its base clock of 2.60 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz, has ample headroom for this game's requirements, and the benchmark data does not show any signs of CPU-induced stutter or frame time spikes. In short, for Control, the Arc B390 is the sole determinant of playability, and the i5-11400F is a passive spectator that has no trouble keeping up.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 1080p?

A: Yes, but only on the Low preset, which averages 65 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 46 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution and preset for this system?

A: The only combination that clears 60 FPS is 1920x1080 with Low settings, averaging 65 FPS. No settings at 1440p or 4K reach the playable threshold.

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

A: The Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, is 1.3% ahead, and the GeForce GT 710 is 2.7% ahead, meaning all four rivals perform nearly identically.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck in this game?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-11400F ranks in the 71st percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.6% of its average score. The frame rate drops consistently with resolution, indicating the GPU is the limiting component.

Q: What frame rate does 1440p Medium produce?

A: The average is 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and maximum of 40 FPS. This is well below the 60 FPS threshold and not recommended for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the system rank among all tested combos for Control?

A: It ranks 3311 out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the lower 11% of all configurations for this game.

The Verdict

The recorded data is unambiguous: this system can run Control, but only at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where it averages 65 FPS. Every other resolution and preset combination falls below the 60 FPS playability threshold. At 1440p, no preset reaches playable levels; the best result is Low at 50 FPS average, which is a 17% shortfall. At 4K, the situation is worse, with Low averaging only 33 FPS and Ultra averaging 18 FPS. The verdict by resolution confirms this: 3840x2160 has no playable settings, 2560x1440 has no playable settings, and 1920x1080 has exactly one playable setting, Low.

The system's ranking of 3311 out of 3720 combos for this game reinforces that this is a low-end configuration for Control. The GPU's 9th percentile standing among all GPUs, combined with the CPU's 71st percentile standing, creates a pairing where the graphics card is severely underpowered relative to the processor. If the goal is to play Control at higher presets or resolutions, the data shows that the Arc B390 would need to be replaced with a substantially stronger GPU, as the CPU has headroom to spare. For users who accept the 1080p Low compromise, the system is functional, but it is not a configuration that can deliver the game's intended visual experience at smooth frame rates.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the only preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, which averages 65 FPS. The next step up, Medium, averages 46 FPS, which is a 29% drop and falls short of the threshold. At 2560x1440, no preset achieves 60 FPS; the closest is Low at 50 FPS average, which is 10 FPS below the target. At 3840x2160, no preset comes close, with Low averaging 33 FPS and all other presets ranging from 18 to 24 FPS. The best settings per resolution are therefore: 1080p Low at 65 FPS, and no viable settings at 1440p or 4K. Users who prioritize higher resolutions must accept frame rates in the 20-50 FPS range, which the data shows are not playable by the 60 FPS standard used in this database.

How This Combo Ranks

This configuration, the Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the Intel Arc B390, ranks 3311 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. That places it in the bottom 11% of all tested systems, meaning roughly 89% of configurations deliver better performance in this game. The rank reflects the GPU's severe limitation: the Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts from the GT 500 and GT 700 series. The CPU, by contrast, is a mid-range part that ranks in the 71st percentile, so the pairing is heavily imbalanced. The system is capable of running Control at a playable level only in the narrowest possible configuration: 1080p Low, which yields 65 FPS. Any attempt to increase quality or resolution pushes the frame rate below the 60 FPS threshold, and at 4K the system operates in the 18-33 FPS range, which is effectively unplayable for a fast-paced action game. The ranking of 3311 out of 3720 is consistent with this analysis: it is a functional but very low-end combo for Control, suitable only for the most modest settings.