Control

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Control with the Intel Core i5-12400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 shows a pattern that is heavily dependent on both resolution and quality preset. At 3840x2160, the highest average frame rate is 27.9 FPS on Low settings, which is the only preset to break past 25 FPS at 4K. Medium at 4K delivers 22.8 FPS, High drops to 20.7 FPS, and Ultra falls to 14.3 FPS. These numbers indicate that 4K is not viable for smooth play, as even the lowest settings stay well below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains below playability. Low settings produce an average of 41.2 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium follows at 29.2 FPS, High at 24.4 FPS, and Ultra at 22.1 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is notable: 12 FPS, which suggests that the GTX 1650 has a steep performance cliff when moving off the lowest preset. None of these averages approach 60 FPS, so 1440p is not a viable target for this combo.

At 1920x1080, the data shows the closest approach to playable performance. Low settings yield 53.9 FPS, which is just 6.1 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium drops to 38.3 FPS, High to 36.3 FPS, and Ultra to 31.7 FPS. The pattern is consistent with lower resolutions: Low is the only preset that comes within striking distance of 60 FPS, and even then it falls short. The delta between Low and Medium at 1080p is 15.6 FPS, which is the largest preset gap recorded across all resolutions. This indicates that Control's medium settings impose a significant load increase on this GPU.

Across all resolutions, the scaling from Low to Ultra is steep. At 1080p, Low to Ultra costs 22.2 FPS, a 41% reduction. At 1440p, the same comparison costs 19.1 FPS, and at 4K it costs 13.6 FPS. The absolute numbers are low everywhere, but the relative losses shrink at higher resolutions because the GPU is already bottlenecked. The data shows no min or max FPS values recorded, so the analysis relies entirely on averages. For a game like Control with frequent physics-heavy scenes, average FPS below 40 at 1080p Medium suggests that frame pacing and dips would be noticeable, even if the average looks marginally better than the 4K results.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-12400F, based on average benchmark scores, include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS with an average score of 19047 and a delta of 0%, meaning they are effectively tied. The Intel Core 3 201E scores 19056, which is 0.1% higher, while the Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18982, 0.3% lower. The AMD EPYC 7773X also scores 18979, 0.3% lower. These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, so in gaming scenarios the CPU differences would be imperceptible. For Control, which is not known for being CPU-bound at these settings, the i5-12400F's performance level is functionally identical to these alternatives. If a builder already has one of those CPUs, swapping to the i5-12400F would not change frame rates in this game.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447 (0.3% higher), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (0.6% higher). The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1% lower. These are all very close in raw compute, but the GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and a 128-bit bus, which matters for Control's texture streaming. The integrated graphics options like UHD 750 would likely struggle more with driver overhead and memory bandwidth in real gameplay, even if their synthetic scores are close. The Arc A310's 1% lower score suggests it would perform nearly the same in average FPS, but its driver maturity for a 2019 game like Control could be a wildcard. For practical purposes, any of these GPUs would land in the same 30 to 55 FPS range at 1080p depending on settings, so the experience would be similar: playable only on Low, and only at 1080p.

The CPU's percentile rank of 73 among all CPUs places it well above the median, while the GPU's percentile rank of 40 puts it below the median. This mismatch is important: the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo. Swapping the GPU to a faster model would yield larger gains than upgrading the CPU. Conversely, pairing the GTX 1650 with a weaker CPU would not change Control's frame rates much, because the GPU is already saturated at most settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific CPU and GPU combination for Control at position 3630 out of 3720 tested combos. That puts it in the bottom 2.4% of all configurations. This is a low rank, but it is not the absolute worst. The rank reflects that most tested combos, even modest ones, can exceed the GTX 1650's performance in this game. The combo's percentile rank for the GPU (40) is lower than the CPU's percentile rank (73), and the game's high system requirements push this pairing down. For context, a combo ranking in the 3600s out of 3720 means there are roughly 90 combos that perform worse, but the vast majority of systems tested do better.

The measured FPS data supports this ranking. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 53.9 FPS, which is close to the 60 FPS threshold but not over it. At any higher preset or resolution, the frame rate drops well below playable. The rank of 3630 is consistent with a GPU that sits in the 40th percentile for all GPUs; many other GPUs in the database are faster, and Control scales heavily with GPU load. The CPU's high percentile does not rescue the ranking because the game is not CPU-limited at these settings. The data shows that this combo is at the edge of playability, and its rank reflects that precarious position.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Control? Based on the recorded data, the answer is no, not at the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for any resolution. At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 27.9 on Low, which is far below 60. At 2560x1440, the best is 41.2 on Low, still short. At 1920x1080, the best is 53.9 on Low, which is the closest result but still misses the threshold by 6.1 FPS. No settings are listed as playable at any resolution, meaning the combo never reaches 60 FPS in this game.

The practical takeaway is that this system can run Control, but not smoothly. At 1080p Low, the 53.9 FPS average could be acceptable for a player who tolerates occasional dips, but the lack of min FPS data means we cannot confirm how bad the lows get. The data does not support claiming a "playable" experience under the database's 60 FPS standard. If the player lowers expectations to 30 FPS as a target, then 1080p Low and Medium (38.3 FPS) become viable, and 1440p Low (41.2 FPS) also crosses that lower bar. But the strict 60 FPS verdict is a clear miss. For a game like Control, which has intense combat with destructible environments, playing at 53.9 FPS average will likely produce noticeable stutter during heavy scenes. The recommendation is to either reduce resolution to 1080p and stick to Low, or accept that this game requires a GPU upgrade for a comfortable experience.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows a clear division of labor between the Intel Core i5-12400F and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in Control. The CPU has a percentile rank of 73 and scores 12380 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is strong for a 6-core, 12-thread part. The GPU has a percentile rank of 40 and a Passmark G3D score of 7880, which is modest. The measured FPS scaling across resolutions and presets points to the GPU as the dominant bottleneck.

At 1080p, the frame rate drops by 15.6 FPS when moving from Low to Medium, and another 6.6 FPS from High to Ultra. This steep preset scaling is a classic sign of GPU saturation. The CPU is not the limiting factor because even at 1080p Low, where the GPU load is lightest, the combo only reaches 53.9 FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rate to stay relatively flat across presets, but it does not. At 1440p, the same pattern holds: Low to Medium costs 12 FPS, and Ultra drops to 22.1 FPS. At 4K, the GPU is so overwhelmed that even Low only hits 27.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 14.3 FPS.

The resolution scaling reinforces the GPU-bound conclusion. From 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the frame rate drops from 53.9 to 41.2, a 12.7 FPS loss. From 1440p Low to 4K Low, it drops to 27.9, another 13.3 FPS loss. These losses track with pixel count increases, which is exactly what happens when the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's role becomes more relevant at lower resolutions and lower presets, but even at 1080p Low, the GPU still cannot reach 60 FPS. If the CPU were causing the shortfall, we would see the frame rate plateau at a higher value when the GPU has less work. That does not happen.

For a builder, this means that upgrading the GPU should be the first priority. A faster GPU would raise the 1080p Low result past 60 FPS and make Medium or High playable. Keeping the i5-12400F would not hold back such an upgrade, since the CPU has ample headroom. Conversely, replacing the CPU with a stronger model while keeping the GTX 1650 would produce no meaningful improvement in Control, because the GPU is already the limiting factor at every resolution and preset.

FAQ

Q: What is the best frame rate this combo can achieve in Control?

A: The highest recorded average FPS is 53.9 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other resolution or preset reaches that level. The next best is 41.2 FPS at 2560x1440 Low.

Q: Is this system playable for Control at 1080p?

A: No, not under the 60 FPS standard. The best result is 53.9 FPS at Low settings, which is 6.1 FPS short of the playable threshold. If the player accepts a 30 FPS target, then 1080p Low and Medium (38.3 FPS) are usable, but the database verdict lists no playable settings at any resolution.

Q: Why does the frame rate drop so much when moving from Low to Medium?

A: The data shows a 15.6 FPS drop at 1080p and a 12 FPS drop at 1440p when switching from Low to Medium. This is a large preset scaling gap, indicating that Control's Medium settings significantly increase the GPU load. The GTX 1650 has only 4 GB of VRAM and a 128-bit memory bus, which likely contributes to this steep cliff.

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

A: The Intel Core i5-12400F has an average benchmark score of 19039, which is within 0.3% of its closest rivals: the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, Intel Core 3 201E, Intel Core i5-1335U, and AMD EPYC 7773X. These deltas are negligible for gaming, so the CPU would not be a differentiating factor in Control.

Q: Should I upgrade the CPU or GPU to improve Control performance?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The GTX 1650 ranks in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU ranks in the 73rd percentile. The frame rate scales strongly with resolution and preset, which is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck. Upgrading the GPU would yield the largest gains.

Q: Does this combo rank well compared to other tested systems?

A: No, it ranks 3630 out of 3720 combos for Control. That places it in the bottom 2.4% of tested configurations. The low rank is driven by the GPU's modest performance, not the CPU, which is relatively strong.