Control

The Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT lands at rank 1659 out of 3720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the upper-middle tier of all possible system configurations. This position suggests a balanced pairing capable of solid performance, but the data reveals notable headroom and resolution-dependent behavior that merits closer inspection.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 1659 out of 3720 places it in the 44th percentile of all tested combinations, meaning roughly 56% of possible pairings perform better. This is not a top-tier enthusiast setup, but it sits comfortably above the median. The CPU itself holds a percentile rank of 72 among all processors, while the GPU ranks at 71 among all graphics cards — both components are individually above-average, yet the combined rank in this specific game suggests that Control's engine does not fully exploit the theoretical potential of this hardware pairing.

The data indicates that the RX 6750 XT is the more influential component for this title. The GPU’s average benchmark score of 26011 dwarfs the CPU’s 18683 average, and the gap widens when considering gaming-specific workloads. The CPU’s 3DMark scores — 5873 in the 16-thread test and 910 single-thread — are respectable for a 6-core/12-thread part, but the GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 20700 demonstrates where the real graphical muscle lies. This rank suggests that users seeking higher frame rates should prioritize GPU upgrades over CPU changes, as the i5-12400 provides sufficient computational headroom for most scenarios.

CPU and GPU Roles

Benchmark results indicate a clear division of labor that shifts with resolution. At 1920x1080, the CPU’s role is more pronounced — the jump from Low to Ultra settings shows a 63.3 FPS difference (147.6 down to 84.3), which reflects the CPU’s ability to feed frames at lower graphical loads. The 1080p Low result of 147.6 FPS versus the 1440p Low result of 110.9 FPS (a 33% drop) suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU becomes a more significant factor, though it never becomes a hard bottleneck.

Moving to 2560x1440, the GPU begins to dominate. The scaling from Low (110.9 FPS) to Ultra (60.1 FPS) represents a 45.8% performance penalty, which is steeper than the 42.9% penalty seen at 1080p. This trend accelerates at 3840x2160, where the Low preset yields 74 FPS but Ultra drops to 42.4 FPS — a 42.7% reduction. The 4K data shows the GPU hitting its limits: even Medium settings only reach 54 FPS, and High falls to 46.2 FPS. The CPU’s influence at 4K is minimal; the performance curve is almost entirely dictated by the RX 6750 XT’s rendering capabilities.

The scaling between resolutions at the same preset reinforces this. At High settings, moving from 1080p (94.8 FPS) to 1440p (74 FPS) costs 21.9% performance, while moving from 1440p to 4K (46.2 FPS) costs 37.6%. This non-linear degradation points to the GPU’s memory bandwidth (432.0 GB/s) and 12 GB VRAM becoming increasingly stressed at higher pixel counts. The CPU’s 18 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel memory support are sufficient for the game’s physics and AI workloads, but they are not the limiting factor at 4K.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that maintains at least 60 FPS is Low, which delivers an average of 74 FPS. Medium drops to 54 FPS, High falls to 46.2 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 42.4 FPS — all below the 60 FPS playability threshold. This makes 4K gaming viable only with significant graphical compromises, and even then, the visual fidelity will be notably reduced.

For 2560x1440, the situation improves dramatically. Ultra settings achieve an average of 60.1 FPS, just barely clearing the 60 FPS bar. This is the best playable preset, with High at 74 FPS, Medium at 82.4 FPS, and Low at 110.9 FPS all providing comfortable margins. The fact that Ultra scrapes past 60 FPS suggests that minor in-game tweaks could provide a more stable experience, but the raw data shows this resolution is the sweet spot for this combo.

At 1920x1080, Ultra runs at 84.3 FPS average, which is the most demanding preset that stays above 60 FPS. High (94.8 FPS), Medium (108.1 FPS), and Low (147.6 FPS) all offer increasingly higher headroom. The 1080p Ultra result represents the best balance of visual quality and performance for this system, with a 40.3% margin above the playability threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU’s nearest rivals, based on average benchmark scores, include the AMD EPYC 7643 (0.1% slower), Intel Core i7-1355U (0.3% slower), AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 (0.7% slower), and Intel Core i3-14100F (0.9% faster). These processors would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Control, as the game’s CPU demands are moderate. The i3-14100F, despite being a lower-tier part, edges out the i5-12400 in synthetic benchmarks, suggesting that Control may not heavily utilize the extra cores and threads of the i5.

On the GPU side, the Radeon RX 6750 XT’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (0.5% slower), AMD FirePro W7100 (0.6% slower), AMD FirePro D700 (0.7% slower), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (1.1% slower). These comparisons are notable because the mobile RTX 3080 Ti, despite being a laptop part, performs within 1.1% of the desktop RX 6750 XT. This suggests that users with these alternative GPUs would see nearly identical frame rates in Control — the differences are well within run-to-run variance. The R9 M395X and FirePro cards are older workstation parts, yet their benchmark scores align closely, indicating that the RX 6750 XT’s performance level is achievable by a range of hardware.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with high settings?*

A: No. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average FPS is 46.2, which falls below the 60 FPS playability threshold. Only the Low preset (74 FPS) achieves playable frame rates at 4K.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: 2560x1440 with Ultra settings provides 60.1 FPS average, making it the highest resolution and preset combination that maintains 60 FPS. At 1920x1080, Ultra runs at 84.3 FPS, offering more headroom.

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

A: The i5-12400 performs within 0.9% of the Intel Core i3-14100F (which is faster), and within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 (which is slower). All rivals are within a 1.6% performance band, making them functionally interchangeable for this game.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more important for this game?

A: The GPU dominates performance, especially at higher resolutions. At 4K, the frame rate drops by 31.6 FPS between Low and Ultra (74 to 42.4), while at 1080p the drop is 63.3 FPS (147.6 to 84.3), showing the CPU’s greater influence at lower resolutions.

Q: What settings should I use for a stable 60 FPS experience?

A: For 4K, use Low (74 FPS). For 1440p, Ultra works (60.1 FPS). For 1080p, Ultra provides 84.3 FPS. Any preset above these at each resolution will drop below 60 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: It ranks 1659 out of 3720 combinations, placing it in the 44th percentile. The CPU ranks in the 72nd percentile among processors, and the GPU ranks in the 71st percentile among graphics cards.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control at 60 FPS or higher, but the playable envelope is clearly defined. At 1920x1080, all four presets — Low (147.6 FPS), Medium (108.1 FPS), High (94.8 FPS), and Ultra (84.3 FPS) — exceed the 60 FPS threshold. The system has substantial headroom at 1080p, making it ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. At 2560x1440, all presets also clear 60 FPS, with Ultra barely making the cut at 60.1 FPS. This resolution offers the best balance of visual quality and performance.

At 3840x2160, the system is only playable on Low settings (74 FPS). Medium (54 FPS), High (46.2 FPS), and Ultra (42.4 FPS) all fail to reach 60 FPS. The verdict is clear: this is a 1440p-class machine for Control, with 1080p being the optimal resolution for maximum fidelity and smoothness. Users targeting 4K will need to accept significant visual compromises or consider a more powerful GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Low: 147.6 FPS average
• Medium: 108.1 FPS average
• High: 94.8 FPS average
• Ultra: 84.3 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 110.9 FPS average
• Medium: 82.4 FPS average
• High: 74 FPS average
• Ultra: 60.1 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 74 FPS average
• Medium: 54 FPS average
• High: 46.2 FPS average
• Ultra: 42.4 FPS average

The data shows a consistent pattern: each resolution step down (from 4K to 1440p to 1080p) yields roughly a 30-40% performance increase at the same preset. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows as resolution increases — 63.3 FPS at 1080p, 50.8 FPS at 1440p, and 31.6 FPS at 4K — indicating that the GPU becomes the sole bottleneck at higher pixel counts. The lack of min/max FPS data in the measurements means frame-time consistency cannot be assessed, but the average FPS figures provide a reliable baseline for expected performance.