Control

Control launched in 2019 and quickly became one of the most demanding action-adventure games to benchmark, thanks to its heavy use of destruction physics and real-time lighting effects. Pairing it with the Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT creates an interesting middleweight combination: a Raptor Lake CPU sitting in the 77th percentile of all tested processors, and an RDNA 2 GPU in the 72nd percentile of all tested graphics cards. The measured data below answers the core question — where this combo sits in the global rankings, which component bottlenecks the game, and exactly which settings trade off against frame rate at each resolution.

FAQ

Q: Can the i5-13400F + RX 6700 XT run Control at 1080p?

A: Yes, comfortably. Every preset from Low through Ultra averages at or above 60 FPS at 1920x1080. Even Ultra manages 75.3 FPS average, meaning the full visual experience is available without dropping to a lower preset.

Q: Is 4K playable with this combo?

A: Only partially. At 3840x2160, only the Low preset clears the 60 FPS threshold, averaging 73.8 FPS. Medium averages 51.3, High averages 49, and Ultra averages 41.8 — all below the playable bar.

Q: What's the best preset for 1440p?

A: High. It averages 68.2 FPS at 2560x1440, the most demanding preset that stays above 60 FPS. Ultra slips to 58.6 FPS average, just missing the cutoff.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested hardware pairings in Control?

A: It ranks 1960 out of 3720 tested combos, placing it in the top half of results — slightly above the median pairing for this game.

Q: How close are rival CPUs to the i5-13400F?

A: Extremely close. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS scores within 0% (dead even), the Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D are both within -0.3%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H is within 0.4% of its average benchmark score.

Q: Is the data here synthetic estimates or real measurements?

A: All frame rate figures are measured results, not extrapolated from spec sheets.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3720 tested hardware combinations in Control, this pairing ranks 1960th. That places it almost exactly at the halfway point of the distribution — slightly on the better side, since 1760 combos rank above it while 1959 rank below. For a game that pushes hardware as hard as Control does, mid-pack positioning is reasonable for a CPU in the 77th percentile and a GPU in the 72nd percentile of their respective categories.

What does that near-median rank imply? Control is a game where the spread between top and bottom combos is enormous, because its engine scales aggressively with GPU power. A mid-tier pairing landing mid-pack suggests the game's demands grow roughly in proportion to hardware capability, rather than plateauing. It also hints that neither component here is dramatically over- or underpowered relative to the other — an imbalanced pairing would likely rank lower than either part's individual percentile might suggest.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling data tells a clear story: this is a GPU-bound game at every resolution tested with this combo. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at Ultra drops the average from 75.3 to 58.6 FPS — a substantial fall driven entirely by resolution, since the CPU load doesn't change when you add pixels. Pushing further to 4K Ultra lands at 41.8 FPS. If the i5-13400F were the limiting factor, raising the resolution would have little effect on frame rate; the steep decline instead points squarely at the RX 6700 XT running out of headroom.

Consider the Low preset numbers: 139.8 FPS at 1080p, 105.7 at 1440p, and 73.8 at 4K. Even at the least demanding settings, frame rate falls as resolution climbs — the classic signature of GPU limitation. Notably, at no point does the frame rate flatten out at a fixed ceiling, which would indicate the CPU capping performance. The i5-13400F, with its 10 cores, 16 threads, and 4.60 GHz boost clock, keeps pace throughout. Its single-thread score of 1996 in Geekbench and 3191 in Cinebench R23 suggest it handles Control's per-frame workloads without becoming the choke point.

The preset-to-preset scaling reinforces this. At 1080p, going from Low to Ultra costs 64.5 FPS — a large swing, showing the game's visual features (likely its lighting and particle effects, given the genre) weigh heavily on the GPU's shaders and ray tracing hardware. The RX 6700 XT has 40 ray tracing cores, and Control is famously ray tracing-heavy, which likely explains part of the steep preset penalty.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Control — with resolution-dependent caveats.

At 1920x1080, it's a clean sweep: all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) average above 60 FPS, with Ultra delivering 75.3 FPS. This is the resolution where the combo has the most headroom.

At 2560x1440, three presets clear the bar — Low (105.7 FPS), Medium (75.7 FPS), and High (68.2 FPS). Ultra misses at 58.6 FPS average, falling just short of the threshold.

At 3840x2160, only Low is playable, averaging 73.8 FPS. Medium (51.3), High (49), and Ultra (41.8) all fall below 60 FPS.

The practical takeaway: 1080p players get the game at maximum fidelity, 1440p players sacrifice one preset tier from the top, and 4K players must accept minimal settings. The 58.6 FPS Ultra result at 1440p is tantalizingly close — but the data is the data, and it sits below the threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

On the CPU side, the nearest rivals are remarkably tightly clustered. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS matches the i5-13400F's average benchmark score exactly (0% delta), and the Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D sit just -0.3% away. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H rounds out the group at +0.4% relative to this chip. Any of these processors would produce broadly similar CPU-side behavior in Control — which matters little here anyway, given the GPU-bound nature of the results.

On the GPU side, the field is more eclectic. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile is effectively equivalent (0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 is within -0.5%, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell within 1.1%, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 within -1.5%. Swapping the RX 6700 XT for any of these would be expected to yield nearly identical Control performance, since their aggregate benchmark scores differ by less than two percent. That's a curious finding in itself — a mobile part and a professional-grade part landing in the same performance neighborhood as this desktop Radeon speaks to how compressed the mid-to-upper GPU bracket has become.

Best Settings per Resolution

Based on the measured data and the 60 FPS playable threshold:

• 1920x1080 — Ultra, 75.3 FPS average. The most demanding preset available still clears the bar with room to spare.
• 2560x1440 — High, 68.2 FPS average. Ultra drops to 58.6 FPS here, so High is the ceiling. Medium offers more margin at 75.7 FPS if consistency matters.
• 3840x2160 — Low, 73.8 FPS average. The only preset above 60 FPS at 4K. Medium falls to 51.3 FPS.

The pattern is linear in an interesting way: each resolution step up costs roughly one preset tier of headroom. 1080p handles everything; 1440p handles all but the top preset; 4K handles only the bottom preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

| Preset | Avg FPS |

|---|---|

| Low | 139.8 |

| Medium | 99.1 |

| High | 89.8 |

| Ultra | 75.3 |

2560x1440:

| Preset | Avg FPS |

|---|---|

| Low | 105.7 |

| Medium | 75.7 |

| High | 68.2 |

| Ultra | 58.6 |

3840x2160:

| Preset | Avg FPS |

|---|---|

| Low | 73.8 |

| Medium | 51.3 |

| High | 49.0 |

| Ultra | 41.8 |

A few observations worth noting. First, the gap between Low and Medium is consistently the largest single jump at every resolution — 40.7 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 22.5 FPS at 4K. Medium-to-High and High-to-Ultra transitions cost far less. This suggests Medium is where the heaviest GPU features (likely ray tracing effects, given the game) kick in, and that players sensitive to frame rate should think of the presets as "Low, then everything else."

Second, the High-to-Medium gap at 4K is nearly nonexistent — 51.3 versus 49.0 FPS, a difference of just 2.3 FPS. At 4K, once past Low, preset choice barely changes frame rate, implying the GPU is saturated regardless of settings and the resolution itself is the dominant cost.

Third, 1080p Low at 139.8 FPS confirms substantial untapped headroom at lower resolutions — enough that the combo could drive high-refresh play at 1080p if that's the priority. Minimum and maximum frame rates were not captured in this dataset, so average figures are the basis for all thresholds here; frame time consistency under heavy physics load may vary, and Control's destruction-heavy combat is exactly the kind of scenario that can produce dips below average.