Control

The Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti combination delivers a starkly tiered performance profile in Control, with playability sharply divided by resolution. At 1920x1080, the combo is unequivocally strong, posting an average of 76.6 FPS on High settings and 67.7 FPS on Ultra, making the game fully playable at maximum fidelity. Moving to 2560x1440, the system remains capable but requires preset discipline: High settings dip to 58 FPS, just under the 60 FPS threshold, while Medium holds at 64.5 FPS. At 3840x2160, the hardware falls short of playability across all tested presets, with even Low settings averaging only 57.6 FPS against a 60 FPS playability bar. The data shows a consistent scaling pattern where each step up in resolution costs a significant chunk of average frame rate, while the gap between Low and Ultra presets widens as resolution increases.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four quality presets, with average frame rates recorded for each combination. Minimum and maximum frame rates were not captured, so the analysis relies on average FPS as the primary performance metric.

1920x1080: At the lowest tested resolution, the combo shows strong headroom. Low settings produce an average of 118.8 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded across the entire test matrix. Medium settings follow at 85.4 FPS, representing a 28% drop from Low. High settings deliver 76.6 FPS, and Ultra settings close the gap at 67.7 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 51.1 FPS, indicating that the GPU has ample compute headroom at this resolution, with the CPU likely becoming a more significant factor at the very low preset.

2560x1440: Performance scales down predictably at this resolution. Low settings average 87.3 FPS, which is still well above the playability threshold. Medium settings drop to 64.5 FPS, just barely clearing the 60 FPS bar. High settings fall to 58 FPS, missing the threshold by a narrow 2 FPS margin. Ultra settings average 50 FPS, which is 16.7% below the playability target. The delta between Low and Ultra here is 37.3 FPS, showing that the GPU is now more constrained than at 1080p.

3840x2160: This resolution is the hardest test for the combo. Low settings average 57.6 FPS, which is the only preset that comes close to playable, but it still falls short of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings drop to 44.2 FPS, High settings to 38.7 FPS, and Ultra settings to 33.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 23.9 FPS, and no preset achieves the 60 FPS target. The data indicates that the RTX 3060 Ti’s 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for this game at 4K, regardless of quality settings.

Across all resolutions, the scaling from Low to Medium is consistent, but the performance cost of Ultra settings grows disproportionately at higher resolutions. At 1080p, Ultra is only 43% slower than Low, while at 1440p it is 42.7% slower, and at 4K it is 41.5% slower. The absolute frame rates, however, make 4K unplayable even at Low, while 1440p requires Medium or lower, and 1080p can handle Ultra.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 60 FPS on Ultra settings at 1920x1080?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 1080p Ultra is 67.7 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playability threshold by a comfortable 7.7 FPS margin. The verdict data confirms Ultra is listed among the playable settings at this resolution.

Q: What is the best playable preset at 2560x1440?

A: Medium settings are the highest preset that maintains 60 FPS or above, averaging 64.5 FPS. High settings fall short at 58 FPS, so Medium is the recommended maximum for smooth gameplay at 1440p.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with the RTX 3060 Ti in Control?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even Low settings average only 57.6 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The verdict data shows no playable settings at this resolution, with Ultra averaging just 33.7 FPS.

Q: How much performance is lost when going from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 76.6 at 1080p to 58 at 1440p, a decline of 18.6 FPS or roughly 24.3%. At Low settings, the drop is from 118.8 to 87.3 FPS, a 26.5% reduction.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance more at lower resolutions?

A: The data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 118.8 FPS, which is close to the CPU’s 3dmark_max_threads score of 5890 suggesting a balanced workload. The GPU’s passmark_g3d score of 20349 indicates it has more relative headroom, so the CPU likely becomes the bottleneck at very high frame rates, though the measured FPS does not explicitly isolate this.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested systems for this game?

A: The combo ranks 2529 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. This places it in the upper-mid tier, meaning it outperforms roughly 32% of tested systems but trails the top 68% in this specific title.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling across resolutions reveals how the Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti share the workload in Control. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 118.8 FPS on Low settings, which is the highest frame rate recorded. This suggests that at this resolution, the CPU’s single-thread performance, evidenced by a 3dmark_single_thread score of 910 and a passmark_single_thread score of 3456, is sufficient to feed the GPU. The GPU, with a passmark_g3d score of 20349, does not appear to be the limiting factor at Low settings, as the frame rate is high enough that the CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads are likely managing the game’s physics and draw calls.

As resolution increases to 2560x1440, the GPU becomes the primary constraint. Low settings drop to 87.3 FPS, which is still high, but the gap between Low and Ultra narrows in relative terms. The RTX 3060 Ti’s 16.20 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 253.1 GTexel/s texture rate are taxed more heavily, and the 8 GB VRAM begins to matter for texture streaming. At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck. The average FPS at Low (57.6) is less than half of the 1080p Low result, indicating that the GPU’s memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s and pixel rate of 133.2 GPixel/s cannot sustain the pixel workload. The CPU’s role diminishes at 4K because the GPU is so far behind the 60 FPS target that no amount of CPU headroom can compensate.

The scaling between presets further clarifies the split. At 1080p, going from Low to Ultra costs 51.1 FPS, which is a 43% reduction. At 1440p, the same preset change costs 37.3 FPS (42.7% reduction), and at 4K it costs 23.9 FPS (41.5% reduction). The absolute frame rate at 4K Ultra (33.7 FPS) is so low that the GPU is saturated, while at 1080p Low (118.8 FPS), the CPU is likely nearing its limit. The data indicates that for this game, the RTX 3060 Ti is the dominant factor at 1440p and 4K, while the i5-12400 provides sufficient headroom at 1080p to let the GPU stretch its legs.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 2529 out of 3720 tested systems places it in the 32nd percentile of all combinations tested for Control. This is a mid-pack position, reflecting the fact that the RTX 3060 Ti is a capable but not top-tier GPU, while the i5-12400 is a solid mainstream CPU. The GPU’s percentileVsAllGpus score of 59 indicates it outperforms 59% of all GPUs in the database, while the CPU’s percentileVsAllCpus of 72 shows it beats 72% of all CPUs. The combination underperforms relative to its individual components, which suggests that Control’s specific engine workload does not perfectly utilize the strengths of this pairing.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the i5-12400’s average benchmark score of 18683 is nearly identical to the AMD EPYC 7643 (18697, -0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i7-1355U (18730, -0.3% delta). It sits just above the Intel Core i3-14100F (18519, +0.9% delta) and below the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 (18811, -0.7% delta). For the GPU, the RTX 3060 Ti’s average score of 16129 is close to the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (16014, +0.7% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16351, -1.4% delta). These rival comparisons show that the combo is competitive with its immediate peers, but in Control specifically, the rank suggests that other combinations with similar component scores achieve better frame rates, likely due to differences in CPU-GPU balance.

The rank of 2529 out of 3720 means that roughly 1191 tested combos perform worse, while 2528 perform better in this game. This is not a poor result, but it indicates that for Control, a system with a stronger GPU would see more benefit than one with a stronger CPU, given the game’s scaling patterns. The data shows that the combo is adequate for 1080p and 1440p Medium, but it is not a top-tier performer for this title.

The Verdict

The verdict data is clear: this PC can run Control, but only at specific resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, all four presets — Low (118.8 FPS), Medium (85.4 FPS), High (76.6 FPS), and Ultra (67.7 FPS) — clear the 60 FPS playability threshold. The best settings at this resolution are Ultra, which delivers 67.7 FPS, confirming that the combo can handle the game at maximum quality with playable frame rates.

At 2560x1440, the playable settings are limited to Low (87.3 FPS) and Medium (64.5 FPS). High settings average 58 FPS, which is just under the 60 FPS bar, and Ultra drops to 50 FPS. The best playable setting is Medium, with an average of 64.5 FPS, which offers a reasonable balance of visual quality and performance.

At 3840x2160, the verdict is unequivocal: no settings are playable. The highest average FPS across all presets is 57.6 at Low, which falls short of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium (44.2 FPS), High (38.7 FPS), and Ultra (33.7 FPS) are all significantly below playable levels. Users with a 4K display would need to reduce resolution or accept sub-60 FPS performance.

Overall, the combo is a solid 1080p performer and a capable 1440p system for Medium settings, but it is not suited for 4K gaming in Control. The playable threshold of 60 FPS is met at 1080p across the board and at 1440p for Low and Medium, but not at 4K.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is identified based on the measured data.

1920x1080: Ultra settings are the best choice, averaging 67.7 FPS. This clears the 60 FPS threshold by 7.7 FPS, providing a comfortable margin for visual quality. High settings (76.6 FPS) and Medium (85.4 FPS) are also viable, but Ultra offers the highest fidelity while remaining playable.

2560x1440: Medium settings are the most demanding playable preset, averaging 64.5 FPS. This is 4.5 FPS above the threshold, leaving a small but sufficient buffer. High settings at 58 FPS are not recommended, as they fall below the 60 FPS target. Low settings (87.3 FPS) are also playable but offer reduced visual quality.

3840x2160: No preset meets the 60 FPS threshold. Low settings come closest at 57.6 FPS, but this is still 2.4 FPS short. Since the verdict data lists no playable settings at this resolution, users must either lower the resolution or accept frame rates below 60 FPS. The best possible average FPS at 4K is 57.6 on Low, which is not playable by the defined standard.