Control

FAQ

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

A: No. The measured data shows no playable settings at 3840x2160. The best average FPS recorded at 4K is 29.9 FPS on Low settings, which falls far below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1080p?

A: Only Low settings clear the 60 FPS threshold at 1920x1080, with an average of 60.6 FPS. All other presets at this resolution fall short: Medium averages 43.4 FPS, High averages 38.4 FPS, and Ultra averages 33.4 FPS.

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

A: The Intel Core i5-12400 sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs tested. Its average benchmark score of 18,683 is nearly identical to the AMD EPYC 7643 (18,697, only 0.1% lower) and the Intel Core i7-1355U (18,730, 0.3% lower). It is slightly ahead of the Intel Core i3-14100F (18,519, 0.9% higher).

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

A: The AMD Radeon RX 580 ranks at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs. Its average score of 12,928 is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940), 0.4% below the GTX 1660 SUPER (12,986), and 0.5% above the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870).

Q: What is the overall ranking of this CPU+GPU combo for Control?

A: This combination ranks 3,428 out of 3,720 tested combos for this game, placing it in the lower portion of the database. The recorded FPS data confirms it is only playable at 1080p on Low settings.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1440p?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary constraint. At 2560x1440, the RX 580 produces only 31.2 FPS on High and 47.8 FPS on Low, while the i5-12400 shows strong multi-threaded capability (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15,989). The GPU's 53rd percentile ranking, combined with its 8 GB GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus, indicates it cannot keep pace with the CPU's capability at higher resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded FPS data reveals a clear pattern where the GPU dominates performance scaling across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is substantial: Low achieves 60.6 FPS, while Ultra drops to 33.4 FPS, a 44.9% reduction. This steep drop-off indicates that the Radeon RX 580's shading units and texture throughput, not the CPU's processing power, are the deciding factors.

Moving to 2560x1440, the GPU bottleneck becomes even more pronounced. Low settings drop to 47.8 FPS, Medium to 36.0 FPS, High to 31.2 FPS, and Ultra to 26.9 FPS. The scaling from 1080p Low to 1440p Low represents a 21.1% performance loss, which aligns with the increased pixel count rather than any CPU limitation. The i5-12400's 6 cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, provide ample headroom for Control's gameplay logic and physics, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15,989 and single-core score of 2,257.

At 3840x2160, the situation worsens dramatically. Even Low settings only reach 29.9 FPS, while Ultra falls to 21.0 FPS. The RX 580's 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 6.175 TFLOPS FP32 performance are simply insufficient for 4K rendering in Control. The GPU's 232 mm² die and 5,700 million transistors, built on a 14 nm process, are working at their absolute limit.

The data indicates that the CPU's role is adequate across all resolutions, but the GPU's role is increasingly dominant as resolution rises. At 1080p, the GPU still matters most, but the CPU has enough single-thread performance (Geekbench single-core score of 1,848) to avoid becoming a bottleneck. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU is unequivocally the limiting factor, with no preset reaching the 60 FPS threshold. The verdictByResolution data confirms that only 1080p Low is playable, meaning the CPU could handle more demanding presets if paired with a stronger GPU, but the RX 580's fixed performance ceiling prevents that.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the Intel Core i5-12400, the nearest rivals in the database are close in aggregate score. The AMD EPYC 7643 scores 18,697, just 0.1% higher, which means it would behave nearly identically for CPU-bound tasks in Control. The Intel Core i7-1355U (18,730) and AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 (18,811) are also within 0.7% of the i5-12400's score, so any of these would provide similar CPU-level performance. The Intel Core i3-14100F (18,519) is 0.9% lower, still effectively equivalent for gaming workloads.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 580's closest rivals are all within a narrow band. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940) is 0.1% faster, the GTX 1660 SUPER (12,986) is 0.4% faster, and the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870) is 0.5% slower. Any of these GPUs would produce similar FPS numbers in Control at the same settings. The AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847) is 0.6% slower, so it would be marginally worse but still in the same performance class.

For a user considering this combo, swapping the CPU for any of its nearest rivals would yield negligible changes in Control's FPS, since the game is GPU-bound at playable settings. Swapping the GPU for a GTX 1660 SUPER or RTX 3050 Ti Mobile would provide only a tiny uplift, not enough to push Medium or High presets past 60 FPS at 1080p based on the scaling observed. The recorded data shows that even a 0.4% GPU improvement would still leave Medium at roughly 43.5 FPS, far below the threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-12400 + AMD Radeon RX 580 combination ranks 3,428 out of 3,720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the 7.9th percentile of all combos in the database. This low ranking reflects the GPU's age and performance class, not the CPU's capability. The i5-12400 itself sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, but the RX 580's 53rd percentile ranking drags the combined score down significantly.

The combo's rank indicates that the majority of tested hardware configurations outperform it in Control. Given that only one preset (1080p Low) achieves playable FPS, this ranking is consistent with the measured data. The gap between this combo and higher-ranked ones is primarily attributable to GPU performance, as Control's rendering demands scale heavily with resolution and preset quality. The recorded FPS at 1080p Ultra (33.4) versus 1080p Low (60.6) shows that this combo is only viable at the lowest graphical settings, which explains its position in the lower quartile of the database.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Control? The data says yes, but with strict limitations. At 1920x1080, the combination achieves 60.6 FPS on Low settings, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. This is the only resolution and preset combination that meets the playable criteria. At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS, with the best being Low at 47.8 FPS. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse, with Low at 29.9 FPS and all other presets below 23 FPS.

Therefore, this PC can run Control at 1080p Low with an average of 60.6 FPS, which is playable. Users who want to play at higher resolutions or with better visual quality will need to upgrade the GPU, as the CPU has sufficient headroom for more demanding presets if the GPU could deliver. The verdictByResolution data confirms: 1080p Low is playable, while 1440p and 4K have no playable settings.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, there is no preset that reaches 60 FPS, so no best settings are recommended. The closest is Low at 29.9 FPS, but it falls short by a wide margin.

At 2560x1440, similarly, no preset clears 60 FPS. Low achieves 47.8 FPS, which is the highest recorded at this resolution, but it remains below the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the only playable preset is Low, with an average of 60.6 FPS. This is the best settings choice for this resolution, as it is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. Medium (43.4 FPS), High (38.4 FPS), and Ultra (33.4 FPS) all fall short.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded average FPS values are: Low 29.9, Medium 21.7, High 22.9, and Ultra 21.0. The difference between Low and Ultra is 8.9 FPS, showing that the GPU is severely limited at this resolution. The data shows no min or max FPS values recorded for any 4K preset.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 47.8, Medium 36.0, High 31.2, and Ultra 26.9. The scaling from Low to Ultra is a 20.9 FPS drop, indicating that the RX 580's pixel rate (42.88 GPixel/s) and texture rate (193.0 GTexel/s) are insufficient for high-detail rendering at this resolution. Again, no min or max FPS values are recorded.

At 1920x1080, the averages are: Low 60.6, Medium 43.4, High 38.4, and Ultra 33.4. This is the only resolution where a preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The gap between Low and Medium is 17.2 FPS, which is substantial and suggests that Medium adds significant rendering complexity that the GPU cannot handle. No min or max FPS values are recorded for 1080p either, so only average FPS is available for analysis.

The overall pattern across all resolutions is consistent: the RX 580's performance degrades predictably as resolution and preset quality increase, and the CPU's contribution remains stable. The lack of min/max FPS data means that frame-time consistency cannot be assessed, but the averages alone are sufficient to determine playability. The highest recorded average FPS in the entire dataset is 60.6 at 1080p Low, which is barely above the threshold, leaving little margin for demanding scenes within Control's action sequences.