Control

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is a capable combination for Control, but the playable experience depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080 and 2560x1440, this combo delivers smooth frame rates at the highest settings, while 3840x2160 requires a significant settings reduction to maintain 60 FPS. The data indicates that this system is best suited for 1440p Ultra gaming, where it averages 62.2 FPS, and it can handle 1080p Ultra at 83.8 FPS average. At 4K, only Low settings keep the frame rate above the 60 FPS threshold, with an average of 75.8 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low. The measured average frame rate at this setting is 75.8 FPS. Moving up to Medium drops the average to 51.7 FPS, which falls below the playable threshold. High settings average 45.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 40.4 FPS. Therefore, for a fluid 4K experience, users must accept Low settings, which still provides a substantial margin above the 60 FPS target.

At 2560x1440, the system can handle the highest preset, Ultra, while maintaining an average of 62.2 FPS. This is above the 60 FPS threshold, making Ultra the best playable setting at this resolution. The other presets also clear the threshold: High averages 70.9 FPS, Medium averages 79.9 FPS, and Low averages 110 FPS. The data shows that 1440p is the sweet spot for this hardware, allowing full graphical fidelity without sacrificing smoothness.

At 1920x1080, all presets exceed 60 FPS, and the best settings are Ultra, which achieves an average of 83.8 FPS. The High preset averages 97.1 FPS, Medium averages 108.8 FPS, and Low averages 148.8 FPS. This resolution provides the most headroom, with even Ultra delivering a frame rate substantially above the playable threshold, ensuring a highly responsive experience.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results across resolutions and presets reveal how the CPU and GPU share the workload in Control. At 1920x1080, the frame rate scales significantly with settings, from 148.8 FPS on Low to 83.8 FPS on Ultra, a drop of 65 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at this resolution, as lowering graphical fidelity directly translates to higher frame rates. The Intel Core i5-13400F, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, has sufficient processing power to keep up with the GPU’s output at 1080p, as evidenced by the high frame rates even at Low settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rate scaling with settings becomes more moderate. The difference between Low (110 FPS) and Ultra (62.2 FPS) is 47.8 FPS. This suggests that while the GPU is still the dominant factor, the increased pixel count begins to strain the graphics card more heavily. The CPU still provides adequate support, as the frame rates remain high across all presets. The i5-13400F’s single-thread performance, reflected in its 3dmark_single_thread score of 960, ensures that the game’s logic and draw calls are processed efficiently.

At 3840x2160, the GPU’s role becomes even more pronounced. The frame rate drops from 75.8 FPS on Low to 40.4 FPS on Ultra, a reduction of 35.4 FPS. This larger relative drop compared to 1440p indicates that the RX 6750 XT is heavily stressed at 4K, and the CPU has less impact on the final frame rate. The data shows that the GPU’s memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s and 12 GB of GDDR6 memory are sufficient for the game’s textures, but the raw compute power, at 13.31 TFLOPS, is the limiting factor at this resolution.

The scaling between resolutions at the same settings further clarifies the component roles. For example, at Ultra settings, the frame rate goes from 83.8 FPS at 1080p to 62.2 FPS at 1440p, and then to 40.4 FPS at 4K. This consistent decline is primarily attributed to the GPU’s rendering load. The CPU’s role is more visible at lower resolutions and settings, where the frame rates are high enough to expose any CPU limitations. The i5-13400F’s passmark_multithread score of 25032 and cinebench_r23_multicore score of 22604 indicate strong multi-threaded capability, but Control does not appear to be heavily multi-threaded based on the performance patterns. The GPU is the clear bottleneck at all resolutions, with the CPU providing a solid foundation that does not hinder performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are as follows: Low settings produce 148.8 FPS, Medium settings produce 108.8 FPS, High settings produce 97.1 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 83.8 FPS. The data shows a clear progression, with each settings tier reducing the frame rate by a noticeable margin. The difference between Low and Medium is 40 FPS, indicating a significant performance cost for the first step up in graphical quality. Between Medium and High, the drop is 11.7 FPS, and between High and Ultra, the drop is 13.3 FPS. This suggests that the most impactful settings change is from Low to Medium.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates are lower across the board. Low settings average 110 FPS, Medium averages 79.9 FPS, High averages 70.9 FPS, and Ultra averages 62.2 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 30.1 FPS, which is smaller than at 1080p but still substantial. The difference between Medium and High is 9 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 8.7 FPS. The data indicates that the performance cost of each settings tier is more consistent at 1440p, with the GPU being the limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates are the lowest. Low settings average 75.8 FPS, Medium averages 51.7 FPS, High averages 45.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 40.4 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 24.1 FPS, which is a significant reduction. The subsequent drops are smaller: 5.9 FPS from Medium to High, and 5.4 FPS from High to Ultra. This pattern shows that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily loaded that even minor settings changes have a large impact, and the performance headroom is minimal. The lack of min and max FPS data in the measured results means only average frame rates are available for analysis, but these averages clearly demonstrate the performance envelope of this hardware.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the Intel Core i5-13400F sits among several rivals with similar average benchmark scores. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS has an average score of 25284, which is essentially identical to the i5-13400F’s 25292, with a deltaPct of 0. This means that in synthetic benchmarks, these two processors perform almost exactly the same, and in a game like Control, they would likely produce similar frame rates when paired with the same GPU. The Intel Core 5 120 has an average score of 25362, which is 0.3% higher than the i5-13400F. This negligible difference suggests that the Core 5 120 would behave nearly identically in gaming workloads. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D also scores 25365, again 0.3% higher, offering a comparable level of performance. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H has a score of 25201, which is 0.4% lower, indicating a very slight performance deficit. For Control, any of these CPUs would provide similar CPU-side performance, meaning the frame rates would be nearly indistinguishable from the i5-13400F when paired with the RX 6750 XT.

For the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT has an average benchmark score of 26011. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M395X with a score of 25891, which is 0.5% lower. This is a very small difference, so the R9 M395X would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Control. The AMD FirePro W7100 scores 25856, 0.6% lower, and the AMD FirePro D700 scores 25842, 0.7% lower. These professional-grade cards would also behave similarly to the RX 6750 XT in this game, though their driver optimizations for gaming may differ. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile scores 25740, which is 1.1% lower than the RX 6750 XT. Despite being a mobile part, its performance is close enough that users would see comparable frame rates. The data indicates that these alternatives would all fall within a very tight performance band around the RX 6750 XT, meaning the gaming experience in Control would be similar in terms of average FPS across all settings and resolutions.

The Verdict

Based on the verdictByResolution data, this PC can run Control, but the playable settings vary significantly by resolution. At 1920x1080, the system is fully capable, with all four settings presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—clearing the 60 FPS threshold. The best experience is at Ultra, which averages 83.8 FPS, providing a smooth and visually rich experience. The data confirms that 1080p is not a challenge for this hardware.

At 2560x1440, the system also passes the 60 FPS test across all presets. The Ultra setting averages 62.2 FPS, which barely clears the threshold but is still playable. The High setting offers a more comfortable margin at 70.9 FPS, while Medium and Low provide even higher frame rates of 79.9 FPS and 110 FPS, respectively. For users prioritizing frame rate stability over maximum visual fidelity, dropping to High at 1440p would be a sensible choice, as the 8.7 FPS gain over Ultra is modest but provides more headroom.

At 3840x2160, the situation is different. The only playable preset is Low, which averages 75.8 FPS. All other presets—Medium at 51.7 FPS, High at 45.8 FPS, and Ultra at 40.4 FPS—fall below the 60 FPS threshold and are not considered playable according to the data. Therefore, 4K gaming is only viable with significant graphical compromises. The verdict is clear: this combo is a strong 1080p and 1440p performer, but it is not suited for high-settings 4K gaming.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT ranks 1702 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. This places it in the upper half of all tested systems, indicating that it performs above the median for this game. The percentileVsAllCpus of 77 for the CPU and percentileVsAllGpus of 71 for the GPU further contextualize this ranking. The CPU is in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms 77% of tested processors, while the GPU is in the 71st percentile of all GPUs. This suggests that the CPU is relatively stronger than the GPU in this pairing, which aligns with the earlier analysis showing the GPU as the primary bottleneck in Control.

The rank of 1702 out of 3720 means that a significant number of combinations perform better, likely those with higher-end GPUs that can handle 4K Ultra settings. However, the ranking also shows that this combo outperforms the majority of systems, particularly in the 1080p and 1440p segments. The data indicates that for users targeting 1440p or 1080p gaming, this combination provides a competitive level of performance. The rank is a composite measure, and the actual gaming experience is better understood through the measured FPS data, which shows strong performance at these resolutions. The similarity of the CPU and GPU to their nearest rivals suggests that swapping either component for a close alternative would not dramatically change the ranking or the in-game frame rates. Overall, this combo ranks as a solid mid-to-upper tier solution for Control, with clear strengths at lower resolutions and a defined limitation at 4K.