Control

The Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 combination delivers a very specific performance profile for Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title. The measured data shows that this pairing is capable of smooth gameplay at 1080p with medium settings, but struggles progressively as resolution and graphical demands increase. This analysis breaks down the recorded frame rates, component roles, and comparative standing of this hardware pairing within the broader database of tested combinations.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest graphical preset that achieves a playable frame rate at 1920x1080?

A: At 1920x1080, the Medium preset reaches an average of 71.3 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. The High preset falls slightly short at 59.4 FPS average, and Ultra drops to 53.9 FPS average.

Q: Can this system handle 4K resolution in Control?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even the Low preset only manages an average of 50.7 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The Ultra preset at that resolution averages just 28.2 FPS.

Q: Which resolution offers the best balance of visual quality and frame rate?

A: The 2560x1440 resolution with Low settings provides a 71.8 FPS average, making it the only playable option at that resolution. However, the 1920x1080 Medium preset at 71.3 FPS average delivers a higher visual quality tier while maintaining nearly the same frame rate.

Q: How does the CPU compare to nearby processors in the database?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400F sits at the 71st percentile among all CPUs tested. Its average benchmark score of 17177 is nearly identical to the AMD EPYC 7H12, which scores 17120, a difference of 0.3 percent. It also closely matches the Intel Core i5-12450H at 17239 and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G at 17278.

Q: What is the GPU's standing relative to other graphics cards in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 ranks at the 47th percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 9780 is within 0.7 percent of several nearby rivals, including the AMD FirePro W5000 at 9803 and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M at 9832.

Q: Is the 60 FPS threshold consistently met at 2560x1440?

A: Only with the Low preset. The measured average of 71.8 FPS at Low settings clears the threshold, but Medium drops to 54.7 FPS, High to 48.8 FPS, and Ultra to 39.7 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data indicates that this hardware combination has a very narrow window of playability above 60 FPS. The most demanding preset that still maintains at least 60 FPS average varies by resolution.

1920x1080: The Medium preset is the highest quality option that stays above the threshold, averaging 71.3 FPS. Low settings average 96 FPS, while High averages 59.4 FPS, just under the threshold. Ultra averages 53.9 FPS.

2560x1440: Only the Low preset qualifies as playable, with an average of 71.8 FPS. Medium drops to 54.7 FPS, which fails the 60 FPS requirement. High averages 48.8 FPS and Ultra averages 39.7 FPS.

3840x2160: No preset achieves 60 FPS average. Low comes closest at 50.7 FPS, followed by Medium at 34.4 FPS, High at 34.1 FPS, and Ultra at 28.2 FPS.

The data shows a clear pattern: this system is best suited for 1080p gaming with medium settings or 1440p gaming at low quality. Pushing beyond these configurations sacrifices playability.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling across resolutions and presets reveals which component constrains this game. The frame rate differences between presets are substantial, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiting factor.

At 1920x1080, the jump from Low to Medium reduces the average from 96 FPS to 71.3 FPS, a drop of 24.7 FPS. From Medium to High, the average falls to 59.4 FPS, a further drop of 11.9 FPS. High to Ultra brings the average down to 53.9 FPS, another 5.5 FPS reduction. These consistent declines with each preset tier point to the graphics card handling most of the rendering load.

The resolution scaling reinforces this GPU-bound behavior. At the same High preset, moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 reduces the average from 59.4 FPS to 48.8 FPS, a drop of 10.6 FPS. Moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 at High settings further reduces the average to 34.1 FPS, a drop of 14.7 FPS. The increasingly severe penalty at higher resolutions is a classic indicator of GPU limitations.

The CPU, a 6-core, 12-thread processor with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, provides enough headroom for the GPU to be the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the 96 FPS average suggests the CPU can feed the GPU adequately, but the GPU cannot maintain that pace at higher settings. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU workload increases so much that CPU differences become negligible; the frame rates are entirely dictated by the graphics card's capabilities.

The data indicates that for this game, the GTX 1070 is the determining component. The CPU's performance class, which places it in the 71st percentile among all processors, is more than sufficient for the demands of Control. Users seeking higher frame rates would need a more powerful GPU rather than a faster CPU.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database records show that both the CPU and GPU have close neighbors in terms of average benchmark scores. These alternatives would likely produce very similar in-game performance for Control.

CPU alternatives: The Intel Core i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17177. The AMD EPYC 7H12 scores 17120, a difference of only 0.3 percent. The Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239, which is 0.4 percent higher. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, 0.6 percent higher. The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U scores 17074, 0.6 percent lower. These processors are statistically indistinguishable in synthetic benchmarks, so in a GPU-bound game like Control, they would deliver nearly identical frame rates when paired with the same graphics card.

GPU alternatives: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 has an average benchmark score of 9780. The AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9803, a negligible 0.2 percent difference. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 9832, 0.5 percent higher. The NVIDIA Tesla M10 scores 9724, 0.6 percent lower. The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9716, 0.7 percent lower. These GPUs are all within 1 percent of each other, meaning any of them would produce essentially the same frame rates in Control at the same settings and resolution.

For practical purposes, a system with any of these CPU alternatives and the GTX 1070 would behave nearly identically to the tested configuration. Similarly, swapping the GTX 1070 for one of these rival GPUs while keeping the i5-11400F would yield very similar results. The performance envelope, particularly the inability to reach 60 FPS at 4K and the playability at 1080p Medium, would remain unchanged.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, but with significant caveats depending on the target resolution and quality settings. The verdictByResolution data provides a clear picture.

1920x1080: Yes, this configuration is playable. The Medium preset achieves an average of 71.3 FPS, exceeding the 60 FPS threshold. Low settings average 96 FPS for those prioritizing smoothness. High settings average 59.4 FPS, which is technically below the threshold but very close. Ultra settings average 53.9 FPS, which may be acceptable for some but does not meet the playable standard.

2560x1440: Yes, but only at Low settings, which average 71.8 FPS. This is the only preset at this resolution that clears 60 FPS. Medium averages 54.7 FPS, High averages 48.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 39.7 FPS, all failing the threshold.

3840x2160: No. None of the tested presets reach 60 FPS average. Low is the fastest at 50.7 FPS, followed by Medium at 34.4 FPS, High at 34.1 FPS, and Ultra at 28.2 FPS. This resolution is not viable for smooth gameplay with this hardware.

The overall assessment is that this system is a solid 1080p machine for Control, offering playable frame rates at medium quality. For 1440p, users must accept low settings. 4K is out of reach.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested combinations, this specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 holds the rank of 3062 out of 3720 total combinations. This places it in the lower portion of tested systems, reflecting its age and performance class.

The rank of 3062 means that roughly 82 percent of tested combinations outperform this setup in Control. This is consistent with the GPU's 47th percentile standing among all graphics cards and the CPU's 71st percentile. The pairing is not weak, but it is outclassed by many newer and more powerful systems in the database.

The implication is that while this system can handle Control at 1080p Medium, it is far from the top of the performance hierarchy. Gamers with this hardware should not expect to push high resolutions or ultra settings. The rank serves as a benchmark reference point, indicating that the combo is adequate for modest gaming expectations but not for high-end performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table presents all recorded average frame rates for this hardware combination across resolutions and settings. Minimum and maximum frame rates were not recorded for any configuration in the dataset.

3840x2160:

• Ultra: 28.2 FPS average
• High: 34.1 FPS average
• Medium: 34.4 FPS average
• Low: 50.7 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Ultra: 39.7 FPS average
• High: 48.8 FPS average
• Medium: 54.7 FPS average
• Low: 71.8 FPS average

1920x1080:

• Ultra: 53.9 FPS average
• High: 59.4 FPS average
• Medium: 71.3 FPS average
• Low: 96 FPS average

The data reveals a consistent pattern. At each resolution, the frame rate scales predictably with the preset quality. The largest gaps occur between Low and Medium at 1080p, where the difference is 24.7 FPS, and between Low and Medium at 1440p, where the difference is 17.1 FPS. At 4K, the gap between Low and Medium is much smaller at 16.3 FPS, and the gap between Medium and High is nearly nonexistent at 0.3 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is so heavily taxed at this resolution that preset changes have diminishing returns.

The 1080p Low result of 96 FPS average is the highest recorded value, indicating that the system has significant headroom at lower loads. The 4K Ultra result of 28.2 FPS is the lowest, showing the extreme end of the GPU's capability. Overall, the measured FPS breakdown confirms that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming with medium settings, with a clear drop-off in playability at higher resolutions and quality levels.