Control

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-11400F sits in a narrow performance band relative to several other processors in the database. Its average benchmark score of 17,177 places it within 0.6% of the AMD EPYC 7H12 (17,120, 0.3% slower), the Intel Core i5-12450H (17,239, 0.4% faster), the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (17,278, 0.6% faster), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (17,074, 0.6% slower). In practical terms, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame pacing in Control, with the differences being well within run-to-run variance. The i5-11400F achieves a 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms roughly seven out of ten processors tested, though it is not a top-tier part.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, the database lists an average GPU benchmark score of 60,347, with a percentile rank of 88 among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, 0.0% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60,140, 0.3% slower), the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (61,896, 2.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58,657, 2.9% slower). The RTX 4090 is effectively tied with the Arc Pro A60 and Pro Vega 48, while the W6600M edges ahead slightly and the V710 trails by a small margin. These deltas are small enough that swapping between these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Control, provided the CPU does not become a limiting factor.

The pairing of this CPU with this GPU is interesting because the RTX 4090 is far more powerful than the i5-11400F in absolute terms. The CPU's 71st percentile and the GPU's 88th percentile indicate a significant gap in relative strength. For a game like Control, which is known for its physics-heavy combat and destructible environments, the CPU's six cores and twelve threads (with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz) are adequate, but the GPU will dominate most frame generation work at higher resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data reveals how the workload shifts between CPU and GPU across resolutions. At 3840x2160, the average frame rate drops sharply as settings increase: from 139 FPS at Low, down to 99 FPS at Medium, 88 FPS at High, and 76 FPS at Ultra. This steep decline (45% from Low to Ultra) indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at 4K, as each preset increase adds significant pixel shading and memory bandwidth demands. The RTX 4090's 24 GB of GDDR6X memory and 1.01 TB/s bandwidth are being exercised heavily at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds but with higher absolute numbers: 181 FPS at Low, 146 FPS at Medium, 130 FPS at High, and 113 FPS at Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 38%, slightly less severe than at 4K. This still points to GPU dominance, but the CPU begins to play a more noticeable role as the pixel count decreases.

At 1920x1080, the scaling flattens considerably: 199 FPS at Low, 175 FPS at Medium, 168 FPS at High, and 149 FPS at Ultra. The gap from Low to Ultra is only 25%, and the differences between Medium, High, and Ultra are just 7 to 19 FPS. This compression suggests the CPU is starting to limit peak frame rates at 1080p, particularly at lower settings where the GPU could otherwise render faster. The i5-11400F's single-thread score of 868 in 3DMark and 2,024 in Cinebench R23 single-core are modest by modern standards, and Control's game logic, physics updates, and draw call submission can bottleneck at very high frame rates.

In summary, the RTX 4090 carries the load at 4K and 1440p, while the i5-11400F becomes a co-limiting factor at 1080p, especially on Low and Medium presets where the GPU has spare capacity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K Ultra HD):

• Low: average 139 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Medium: average 99 FPS, min 84 FPS, max 114 FPS
• High: average 88 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: average 76 FPS, no min/max recorded

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: average 181 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Medium: average 146 FPS, min 124 FPS, max 168 FPS
• High: average 130 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: average 113 FPS, no min/max recorded

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: average 199 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Medium: average 175 FPS, min 149 FPS, max 202 FPS
• High: average 168 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: average 149 FPS, no min/max recorded

The only settings where min and max values were captured are Medium presets at each resolution. At 4K Medium, the frame rate dipped to 84 FPS and peaked at 114 FPS, giving a spread of 30 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range was 124 to 168 FPS, a 44 FPS spread. At 1080p Medium, the range was 149 to 202 FPS, a 53 FPS spread. The widening variance at lower resolutions reflects the CPU's increasing involvement in frame pacing, as thread scheduling and physics updates introduce larger per-frame fluctuations.

Across all resolutions, the step from Low to Medium costs between 24 and 40 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs between 7 and 11 FPS, and the step from High to Ultra costs between 12 and 19 FPS. The largest single drop occurs at 4K, going from Low to Medium (40 FPS lost), while the smallest is at 1080p from Medium to High (7 FPS lost). Ultra presets consistently cost the most relative to Low, with the penalty ranging from 50 FPS at 1080p to 63 FPS at 4K.

The Verdict

This system can run Control at all tested resolutions and presets while staying well above the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 3840x2160, every preset from Low to Ultra clears 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 76 FPS. The margin is comfortable, and even the recorded minimum at 4K Medium (84 FPS) stays far above the threshold. At 2560x1440, all presets also clear 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 113 FPS and the minimum at Medium being 124 FPS. At 1920x1080, the system is even more capable, with Ultra averaging 149 FPS and every other preset exceeding 168 FPS.

The verdict data confirms that the playable settings list is identical across all three resolutions: High, Low, Medium, and Ultra are all playable. There is no resolution or preset combination in the recorded data that falls below 60 FPS. The weakest measured point is 4K Ultra at 76 FPS average, which still leaves a 16 FPS headroom above the threshold. The strongest is 1080p Low at 199 FPS, which is more than three times the playable threshold.

In practical terms, this PC will deliver a smooth experience at maximum settings on any of the three resolutions tested. The only consideration is that at 4K Ultra, the average of 76 FPS leaves less headroom for demanding scenes, though the data does not show any min FPS values for Ultra that would indicate problematic dips.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes, the average frame rate at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 76 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves?

A: The highest recorded average is 199 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: Is there any resolution where the system falls below 60 FPS?

A: No, all tested resolution and preset combinations stay above 60 FPS. The lowest average is 76 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Q: How does the frame rate scale from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At Ultra, the average drops from 149 FPS at 1080p to 113 FPS at 1440p, then to 76 FPS at 4K, a total reduction of 49% from 1080p to 4K.

Q: What are the minimum recorded frame rates for this system?

A: Minimum values were only recorded for Medium settings: 84 FPS at 4K, 124 FPS at 1440p, and 149 FPS at 1080p.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this game?

A: At 1080p, the scaling between Low and Ultra is only 25%, suggesting the CPU limits peak frame rates. At 4K, the scaling is 45%, indicating the GPU is the primary bottleneck.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 76 FPS. All lower presets also clear the threshold, but Ultra provides the highest visual quality while still maintaining a 16 FPS margin.

At 2560x1440, the best preset is also Ultra, averaging 113 FPS. This gives a 53 FPS margin over the playable threshold, allowing for full visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness.

At 1920x1080, Ultra is again the optimal choice, with an average of 149 FPS. This is 89 FPS above the threshold, meaning the system has substantial headroom even at maximum settings.

In all three cases, the recorded data shows that no settings trade-off is necessary: the RTX 4090 paired with the i5-11400F can run Control at its highest preset at every resolution tested while remaining comfortably above 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 ranks 221st out of 3,720 tested combos in Control, placing it in the top 6% of all systems in the database. This is a strong result, though not top-tier, which is consistent with the CPU's 71st percentile ranking. The GPU's 88th percentile is the primary driver of this ranking; the CPU pulls the overall position down relative to what the RTX 4090 alone could achieve with a faster processor.

The rank of 221 out of 3,720 means that roughly 3,500 other combinations outperform this setup in Control, but it also means this system outperforms roughly 94% of all tested configurations. Given that the RTX 4090 is near the top of the GPU hierarchy, the limiting factor is the i5-11400F's six-core Rocket Lake architecture. A higher-ranking combo would likely pair the RTX 4090 with a CPU that has stronger single-thread performance and higher multi-core throughput, as evidenced by the CPU's moderate Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14,340.

For the specific game of Control, this ranking is respectable but not exceptional. The system excels at high resolutions where the GPU dominates, but at 1080p, the CPU's relative weakness prevents it from reaching the frame rates that a top-tier processor would unlock. The data suggests that this combo is best suited for 1440p and 4K gaming, where the GPU's power is fully utilized and the CPU's limitations are hidden behind the pixel workload.