Control

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the Intel Arc B580 delivers a playable experience in Control at 1080p across all tested presets, but the data shows that 1440p and 4K require significant compromises. At 1920x1080, the combination clears the 60 FPS threshold in every setting tier, with Ultra averaging 62.5 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, only the Low preset remains playable at 83.1 FPS, while High and Medium fall just short at 54.5 FPS and 59 FPS respectively. At 3840x2160, no setting achieves 60 FPS; the best result is Low at 55.7 FPS, followed by Medium at 40.7 FPS, High at 35.1 FPS, and Ultra at 32.2 FPS. This places the combo at rank 2855 out of 3720 tested combinations for this game, indicating a mid-to-lower tier standing among all tested systems.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 1080p with maximum settings?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 62.5, which exceeds the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdict data confirms Ultra is listed as a playable setting at this resolution, with High (72.5 FPS), Medium (80.7 FPS), and Low (111.9 FPS) all also clearing the bar.

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

A: The only playable setting at 1440p is Low, which averages 83.1 FPS. Medium (59 FPS) and High (54.5 FPS) fall just below the 60 FPS threshold, while Ultra (45.5 FPS) is further behind. The verdict designates Low as the best settings option at this resolution.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, none of the four tested presets reach 60 FPS. The closest is Low at 55.7 FPS, followed by Medium at 40.7 FPS, High at 35.1 FPS, and Ultra at 32.2 FPS. The verdict lists no playable settings for this resolution.

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

A: The i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25292, placing it at the 77th percentile among all CPUs. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS, scores 25284 (0% delta), while the Intel Core 5 120 scores 25362 (-0.3% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25365 (-0.3% delta). The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H is 0.4% slower at 25201.

Q: What GPU performance class does the Arc B580 belong to?

A: The Arc B580 has an average benchmark score of 23021 and sits at the 68th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP at 23061 (-0.2% delta), with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 at 22895 (0.6% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 at 23172 (-0.7% delta) being similarly close.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU hold back performance more in Control?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 1080p, raising settings from Low to Ultra drops FPS from 111.9 to 62.5, a 44% reduction, while at 4K the same settings change drops from 55.7 to 32.2, a 42% reduction. The CPU's strong multi-threaded scores (Cinebench R23 multicore 22604) suggest it is not the bottleneck in this title.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the Intel Core i5-13400F, benchmark data shows near-identical performance from several alternatives. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS matches with a 0% delta and an average score of 25284. The Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D both score slightly higher at 25362 and 25365 respectively, each with a -0.3% delta, meaning the i5-13400F is marginally slower. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H trails by 0.4% with a score of 25201. All four rivals fall within 0.4% of the i5-13400F's 25292 average, so swapping between them would yield virtually indistinguishable results in Control or any other game.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B580's average score of 23021 places it in a tight cluster. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP is effectively tied at 23061 (-0.2% delta). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 22895 (0.6% delta), making it slightly slower, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 scores 23172 (-0.7% delta), making it slightly faster. The NVIDIA P106-100 at 23249 (-1% delta) is the fastest of the group. For Control specifically, any of these GPUs would produce similar frame rates, though the RTX 3080's small edge might push 1440p Medium from 59 FPS to just above the 60 FPS threshold.

When considering a full system swap, a builder replacing the i5-13400F with the Ryzen 5 5600X3D would see no meaningful change in CPU-bound scenarios, as the scores are within 0.3%. Similarly, swapping the Arc B580 for an RTX 2080 would cost about 0.6% performance, potentially shifting 1440p Medium from 59 FPS to roughly 58.6 FPS — still below the playable mark. The RTX 3080 alternative, being 0.7% faster, might push that same setting to approximately 59.4 FPS, still short of 60 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the Intel Core i5-13400F and Intel Arc B580 produce the following average frame rates across four presets: Low delivers 111.9 FPS, Medium delivers 80.7 FPS, High delivers 72.5 FPS, and Ultra delivers 62.5 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 49.4 FPS, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium at 31.2 FPS. The step from Medium to High costs 8.2 FPS, while High to Ultra costs 10 FPS. All four presets exceed the 60 FPS playable threshold, giving the user full freedom to choose visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the same four presets yield: Low at 83.1 FPS, Medium at 59 FPS, High at 54.5 FPS, and Ultra at 45.5 FPS. Only Low clears the 60 FPS bar. Medium misses by 1 FPS, which is within run-to-run variance but still fails the stated threshold. The drop from Low to Medium is 24.1 FPS, followed by a 4.5 FPS drop to High, and a 9 FPS drop to Ultra. The gap between 1080p and 1440p at the same preset is substantial: Low loses 28.8 FPS, Medium loses 21.7 FPS, High loses 18 FPS, and Ultra loses 17 FPS.

At 3840x2160, all presets fall below 60 FPS: Low averages 55.7 FPS, Medium averages 40.7 FPS, High averages 35.1 FPS, and Ultra averages 32.2 FPS. Low comes closest to the threshold, missing by 4.3 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is severe: Low drops from 83.1 to 55.7 FPS (27.4 FPS loss), Medium from 59 to 40.7 FPS (18.3 FPS loss), High from 54.5 to 35.1 FPS (19.4 FPS loss), and Ultra from 45.5 to 32.2 FPS (13.3 FPS loss). The data shows that 4K gaming is only possible with settings below Low, which were not tested.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control at 1920x1080 with every preset clearing the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdict data confirms all four settings — High, Low, Medium, and Ultra — are marked playable at this resolution, with Ultra averaging 62.5 FPS. This gives users complete freedom to enable maximum visual features while maintaining smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the system is only playable on the Low preset, which averages 83.1 FPS. Medium (59 FPS) and High (54.5 FPS) fall just short of the 60 FPS mark, meaning users must accept reduced visual quality to maintain frame rates. Ultra at 45.5 FPS is not viable for smooth play. The verdict designates Low as the best settings option at this resolution, a significant step down from the 1080p experience.

At 3840x2160, the verdict lists no playable settings. The best result is Low at 55.7 FPS, which is 4.3 FPS below the threshold. Medium (40.7 FPS), High (35.1 FPS), and Ultra (32.2 FPS) are all well below playable levels. For 4K owners, this combination requires either a resolution reduction to 1440p or 1080p, or acceptance of sub-60 FPS performance. The practical recommendation is clear: run Control at 1080p Ultra for the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, or drop to 1440p Low if higher resolution is preferred.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals that the GPU is the dominant factor in Control's performance scaling across resolutions and presets. Looking at 1080p, the CPU's multi-threaded capability (Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22604) is more than sufficient, as evidenced by the 111.9 FPS result at Low settings. When the preset is raised to Ultra, the FPS drops to 62.5, a reduction driven by increased GPU workload rather than CPU limitations. The CPU's single-thread score of 3191 in Cinebench R23 also indicates strong per-core performance for game logic.

At 1440p, the GPU bottleneck becomes more pronounced. The i5-13400F's performance remains constant, but the Arc B580's output drops by 18-28 FPS compared to 1080p depending on the preset. The fact that Low at 1440p (83.1 FPS) is faster than Ultra at 1080p (62.5 FPS) demonstrates that resolution scaling impacts the GPU more heavily than settings changes. The 24.1 FPS drop from Low to Medium at 1440p further confirms that the GPU is saturated, as the CPU has ample headroom.

At 4K, the GPU is unequivocally the limiting component. The CPU's 77th percentile ranking among all CPUs means it can feed frames far faster than the Arc B580 can render them at this resolution. The 55.7 FPS at Low is the GPU's maximum output, and adding visual features (Medium at 40.7 FPS, High at 35.1 FPS, Ultra at 32.2 FPS) only reduces that ceiling. In practical terms, users upgrading from a weaker CPU would see no improvement in 4K performance with this GPU, while a stronger GPU would unlock higher frame rates at every resolution. For 1080p and 1440p, the CPU is sufficient, but the GPU's 68th percentile ranking means it is the component to upgrade first for better Control performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-13400F + Intel Arc B580 combination ranks 2855 out of 3720 tested combos in Control, placing it in the lower quarter of all systems in the benchmark database. This rank reflects the GPU's mid-tier position (68th percentile among all GPUs) combined with the CPU's solid but not elite standing (77th percentile among all CPUs). The ranking suggests that roughly 865 tested combinations perform better in this specific game, while about 76% of tested systems score lower.

The rank of 2855 means this combo is closer to the bottom of the distribution than the top. For context, the GPU's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, is only 0.7% faster in synthetic benchmarks, yet that small margin could be the difference between playable and unplayable at 1440p Medium. Similarly, the CPU's near-tie with the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (0% delta) means CPU choice has minimal impact on this ranking.

The combination's rank is consistent with its measured FPS results: it handles 1080p well across all settings, struggles at 1440p beyond Low, and cannot manage 4K. Users comparing against other combos in the database should expect this system to outperform roughly 23% of tested configurations in Control, based on the rank of 2855 out of 3720. The practical takeaway is that this is a competent 1080p gaming system for Control, but it does not offer the headroom needed for higher resolutions or future demanding titles.