Control

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Control with the Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 shows a system that is consistently below the 60 FPS playable threshold across every resolution and settings combination recorded. The absolute best result appears at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the average FPS reaches 58, which is just 2 FPS short of the playable threshold. This is the only measurement that comes close to smooth gameplay, and even then, it does not clear the 60 FPS bar.

At 1920x1080, the full settings ladder reveals a steep performance curve. Low settings produce an average of 58 FPS, Medium drops to 38.5 FPS, High falls further to 35.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 30.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is particularly severe, a drop of 19.5 FPS, which suggests that the transition from Low to Medium introduces a significant rendering load that this GPU cannot absorb. The difference between Medium and High is only 3 FPS, and High to Ultra is another 4.8 FPS decline, indicating that the upper settings tiers are more closely packed in cost.

At 2560x1440, all four settings fall well below the playable threshold. Low settings yield an average of 40.9 FPS, Medium produces 30.1 FPS, High drops to 26.4 FPS, and Ultra reaches only 23.8 FPS. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 17.1 FPS, which highlights how heavily the resolution increase taxes the GTX 1650's 4 GB memory buffer and 128-bit bus. The pattern across settings is similar to 1080p, but every value is lower by a substantial margin.

At 3840x2160, the system is essentially overwhelmed. Low settings average 28.2 FPS, Medium drops to 17.5 FPS, High falls to 16.4 FPS, and Ultra manages only 13.9 FPS. None of these results approach playability, and even the Low preset at 4K is more than 30 FPS below the threshold. The data shows that this combination is not viable at 4K for any settings level, and the min and max FPS values were not recorded in the database, which suggests that frame pacing was likely erratic enough to make those measurements unreliable.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank in the database places this system at 3644 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. That places it in the bottom 2 percent of all tested configurations, a position that aligns with the measured FPS results. The combination of a mid-range 12th Gen Intel CPU and an entry-level GTX 1650 is one of the weaker pairings in the database for this specific title, and the rank reflects that.

The CPU itself, the Core i5-12400, sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 18683. That is a respectable standing for a desktop processor. The GPU, however, sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. The mismatch between a 72nd percentile CPU and a 40th percentile GPU means the graphics card is the limiting factor in almost every scenario. The database rank of 3644 out of 3720 confirms that, for Control, this pairing produces results near the bottom of the tested field.

The implications of this rank are straightforward. Any combination that places this low in the distribution will struggle with demanding titles, and Control is no exception. The game's physics-heavy combat and destructible environments place a sustained load on the GPU, and the GTX 1650 simply does not have the throughput to maintain high frame rates at common resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results indicate that the GPU is the dominant constraint at every resolution and settings level. The Core i5-12400 has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, and its benchmark scores show strong single-thread and multi-thread performance. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15989 and single-core score of 2257 place it well above the level needed to feed a GTX 1650 in most games. The GPU, by contrast, has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with a boost clock of 1665 MHz and a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. Those specifications place it firmly in entry-level territory.

The scaling between resolutions confirms this GPU-bound behavior. At 1080p Low, the system averages 58 FPS. At 1440p Low, that drops to 40.9 FPS, a 29.5 percent reduction. At 4K Low, it falls to 28.2 FPS, another 31 percent drop from 1440p. This consistent decline as resolution increases is the signature of a GPU-limited system. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would stay relatively flat across resolutions because the CPU workload would not change much, but the data shows a steep and steady decline.

Settings scaling tells the same story. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra reduces the average FPS from 58 to 30.7, a 47 percent loss. At 1440p, the same settings change drops the average from 40.9 to 23.8, a 41.8 percent loss. The GPU is responsible for the majority of this scaling, as higher settings increase pixel shading, texture filtering, and post-processing loads, all of which land directly on the graphics card. The CPU's role in this pairing is to stay out of the way, and the data suggests it does, since the FPS drops track the GPU's workload rather than any CPU limitation.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals in the database for the Core i5-12400 are the AMD EPYC 7643, the Intel Core i7-1355U, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330, and the Intel Core i3-14100F. The EPYC 7643 has an average score of 18697, which is 0.1 percent higher than the i5-12400's 18683, making it effectively identical in aggregate performance. The Core i7-1355U scores 18730, 0.3 percent higher. The Ryzen AI 5 330 scores 18811, 0.7 percent higher. The Core i3-14100F scores 18519, 0.9 percent lower. For Control, any of these CPUs would behave similarly to the i5-12400, since the game is not CPU-bound in this configuration. Swapping the i5-12400 for any of these alternatives would not change the measured FPS in any meaningful way, because the GTX 1650 remains the limiting component.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, the Intel UHD Graphics 750, the AMD Radeon R7 350, and the Intel Arc A310. The Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, which is 0.3 percent higher than the GTX 1650's 7472. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, 0.4 percent higher. The Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, 0.6 percent higher. The Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1 percent lower. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning that in practice, all of these GPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Control. A user with any of these graphics cards paired with the i5-12400 should expect the same playability profile, which is to say, no settings combination at any resolution clears the 60 FPS threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

The verdict data in the database shows no playable settings at any resolution. The playable settings list is empty for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, and the best settings field is null for all three. This means that the recorded data does not include a single resolution and settings combination where the average FPS reaches or exceeds 60.

The closest result is 1080p Low with an average of 58 FPS. That is 2 FPS below the playable threshold, but it is the best recorded outcome. At 1440p, the best result is Low at 40.9 FPS, which is 19.1 FPS below the threshold. At 4K, the best result is Low at 28.2 FPS, which is 31.8 FPS below the threshold. The database records no min or max FPS values for any of these measurements, so it is not possible to state whether the frame rate was stable or subject to dips, but the average values alone are sufficient to rule out 60 FPS playability.

Given the data, there is no "best settings" recommendation that meets the 60 FPS target. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist for this combination. If forced to identify the most playable configuration, it would be 1080p Low at 58 FPS, but that still falls short of the threshold. Lowering the resolution below 1080p is not covered in the database, so no further recommendations can be made based on the recorded measurements.

The Verdict

Can the Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 run Control? Based on the recorded data, the answer is no, not at the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdict by resolution is uniform: no playable settings at 3840x2160, no playable settings at 2560x1440, and no playable settings at 1920x1080. Every measured configuration falls below 60 FPS, and the best result, 1080p Low at 58 FPS, misses the mark by a narrow but definitive margin.

This is a system that can render the game, and the 1080p Low result is close enough that a user might consider it playable despite the shortfall, but the database's playable threshold is fixed at 60 FPS, and the data does not support a claim of playability. At higher resolutions, the situation is unambiguous. The 1440p results range from 23.8 to 40.9 FPS, and the 4K results range from 13.9 to 28.2 FPS, all of which are far below smooth gameplay.

The Core i5-12400 is not the problem. Its percentile ranking and benchmark scores show it is a capable processor, and its nearest rivals in the database are all within a single percentage point of its average score. The GTX 1650, however, sits at the 40th percentile among GPUs, and its nearest rivals are a mix of integrated graphics and low-end discrete cards. The GPU's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, 128-bit bus, and 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are simply insufficient for Control at modern resolutions.

The database rank of 3644 out of 3720 tested combos places this pairing near the very bottom of the field. That rank is consistent with the FPS measurements, and it should be the primary takeaway for anyone evaluating this hardware for Control. The system can launch the game and produce playable-looking frame rates only at 1080p Low, and even then, it does not hit the 60 FPS target. For a smooth 60 FPS experience, this combination would need a significantly stronger GPU, but that is outside the scope of the recorded data. As measured, the i5-12400 and GTX 1650 combination cannot run Control at the playable threshold at any resolution in the database.