Control

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 represents a common mid-range desktop combination, but Control is a demanding title that stresses the GPU heavily. The recorded data shows this combo struggles to reach the 60 FPS threshold at any tested resolution, with the best result being 56 FPS at 1080p Low settings. This analysis walks through the measured performance, how it ranks against other tested combinations, and what settings are realistic for playable frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the most common gaming resolution, the combo produces its highest scores. Low settings deliver an average of 56 FPS, which is the only recorded result within striking distance of the 60 FPS playable threshold, falling short by 4 FPS. Medium settings drop the average to 39.9 FPS, a significant 29.3 percent reduction compared to Low. High settings yield 38.4 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 32.4 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 41.9 percent, indicating that moving through the preset tiers costs roughly 10 FPS per step in the higher range.

At 2560x1440, performance declines noticeably across all presets. Low settings average 44 FPS, which is 12 FPS lower than the same preset at 1080p. Medium averages 30.8 FPS, High drops to 26.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 21.7 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra at 1440p is 50.7 percent, showing a steeper penalty for quality settings at this resolution compared to 1080p. None of these results approach the 60 FPS target, with the best case (Low) sitting 16 FPS below playable.

At 3840x2160, the combo is clearly out of its depth. Low settings average 26.9 FPS, Medium averages 20.3 FPS, High averages 19.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 15.5 FPS. Even the lowest preset falls 33.1 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold. The progression from Low to Ultra at 4K is 42.4 percent, and every setting produces frame rates that would be considered stuttery for action gameplay. The data shows no min or max FPS values recorded for any resolution, so the analysis relies solely on averages, which already indicate severe performance limitations.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this combination at rank 3548 out of 3720 tested combos for Control. That puts it in the bottom 4.6 percent of all configurations measured, meaning the vast majority of tested hardware delivers higher average frame rates in this game. The low ranking is consistent with the GPU’s overall position in the database, where the GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs. The CPU, by contrast, ranks at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, showing a substantial imbalance between the two components in this pairing.

The ranking reflects that Control is heavily GPU-bound for this configuration. A CPU that performs in the upper quartile of all processors cannot compensate for a GPU that sits in the lower half of the performance distribution. The combination’s rank in the bottom 5 percent of tested combos is driven almost entirely by the graphics card’s limitations, which become more pronounced as resolution increases. The data indicates that this pairing is best suited for older or less demanding titles, not for a game like Control with its physics-heavy environments and particle effects.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-13400F are all processors with similar average benchmark scores. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS scores 25284, a negligible 0 percent difference from the i5-13400F’s 25292 average. The Intel Core 5 120 scores 25362, which is 0.3 percent higher. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D also scores 25365, again 0.3 percent higher. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H scores 25201, 0.4 percent lower. In Control, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical performance when paired with the same GTX 1650, because the game’s frame rate is constrained by the GPU, not the processor.

For the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, the nearest rivals are all significantly weaker or similarly positioned GPUs. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, a 0.3 percent difference from the GTX 1650’s 7472. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, 0.4 percent lower. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, 0.6 percent lower. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1 percent higher. These alternatives would produce frame rates within 1 percent of the GTX 1650 in Control, meaning users with any of these GPUs would see essentially the same playability profile: playable only at 1080p Low, and even then slightly below 60 FPS.

The Verdict

The recorded data is unambiguous: this combo cannot run Control at 60 FPS at any tested resolution or setting. At 1920x1080, the best case is Low settings at 56 FPS average, which falls 4 FPS short of the playable threshold. Medium drops to 39.9 FPS, High to 38.4 FPS, and Ultra to 32.4 FPS. At 2560x1440, even Low settings only reach 44 FPS, and all other presets are below 31 FPS. At 3840x2160, the best case is Low at 26.9 FPS, which is less than half the 60 FPS target.

For users with a 1080p monitor, Low settings are the only option that comes close to playable, and it still misses the threshold. Those with 1440p or 4K displays will need to accept sub-30 FPS performance at most settings, which is generally considered too choppy for a game like Control that requires precise aiming and timing. The verdict is that this PC can run the game, but not at the 60 FPS standard. It is playable in a technical sense at 1080p Low, but users seeking smooth performance will need to lower resolution further or upgrade the GPU. The database shows no playable settings at any resolution, confirming that this combination is below the performance level required for a comfortable experience.

CPU and GPU Roles

Control is heavily GPU-bound for this configuration, and the scaling between resolutions confirms this. At 1080p, the CPU has enough headroom to push the GTX 1650 to its limits, with Low settings producing 56 FPS. Moving to 1440p, the same Low preset drops to 44 FPS, a 21.4 percent reduction that can only be attributed to the GPU’s inability to handle the increased pixel count. At 4K, Low settings fall to 26.9 FPS, a 38.9 percent drop from 1080p. The GPU is the sole bottleneck at higher resolutions.

The CPU’s role becomes more apparent at 1080p, where the gap between presets is smaller than at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 41.9 percent, but at 1440p that gap widens to 50.7 percent, and at 4K it reaches 42.4 percent. The compression of frame rates at 4K, where even Low struggles to reach 27 FPS, shows that the GPU is saturated regardless of settings. The CPU, which ranks in the 77th percentile, is never the limiting factor in this pairing. Users with a stronger GPU would see substantial gains, but users with a weaker CPU would see little change in Control.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 60 FPS on a 1080p monitor?

A: No. The highest recorded average at 1920x1080 is 56 FPS on Low settings, which is 4 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. All other presets at this resolution are below 40 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset for this combo at 1440p?

A: The best recorded result at 2560x1440 is Low settings at 44 FPS. No preset at this resolution reaches 60 FPS, so the most playable option is Low, though it still falls 16 FPS short of the target.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations for Control?

A: The database places this pairing at rank 3548 out of 3720 tested combos, putting it in the bottom 4.6 percent of all configurations measured for this game.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in Control?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The Intel Core i5-13400F ranks in the 77th percentile among CPUs, while the GTX 1650 ranks in the 40th percentile among GPUs. Resolution scaling shows the GPU limiting performance at every setting.

Q: Would a different CPU improve frame rates with this GPU?

A: No meaningful improvement would occur. The nearest CPU rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS and Intel Core 5 120, have benchmark scores within 0.4 percent of the i5-13400F. Control is GPU-bound, so the frame rate would remain unchanged.

Q: Are there GPUs similar to the GTX 1650 that perform better in Control?

A: The closest rival is the Intel Arc A310, which scores 1 percent higher in benchmarks. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M and Intel UHD Graphics 750 score slightly lower. None of these would produce a meaningful difference in frame rates.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that comes closest to 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 56 FPS. This is the only configuration at any resolution that approaches playable performance, though it still misses the threshold by 4 FPS. Medium settings at 39.9 FPS and High at 38.4 FPS are significantly lower, and Ultra at 32.4 FPS is the worst option. For users who prioritize frame rate at 1080p, Low is the only viable choice, and even then the result is below the 60 FPS standard.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low settings provide the best result at 44 FPS, followed by Medium at 30.8 FPS, High at 26.8 FPS, and Ultra at 21.7 FPS. The most demanding preset that stays closest to playable is Low, but the 16 FPS shortfall makes this resolution impractical for smooth gameplay. Users at 1440p should consider lowering resolution to 1080p for any chance at acceptable performance.

At 3840x2160, all presets are below 27 FPS. Low settings average 26.9 FPS, Medium 20.3 FPS, High 19.5 FPS, and Ultra 15.5 FPS. None of these are playable by any reasonable standard. The database records no playable settings at 4K, and the best option, Low, still produces frame rates that are less than half the 60 FPS target. This resolution is not viable for this combination in Control, regardless of settings.