Control

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 delivers a solid, if not spectacular, experience in Control, with performance that scales predictably across resolutions and presets. The data shows a combination that is well-suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, while 4K requires significant compromises in visual fidelity. This analysis examines the benchmark results in detail, exploring how this setup compares to similar hardware, where it ranks among tested combos, and which settings offer the best balance of smoothness and quality.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The benchmark data places this specific CPU and GPU combination in a well-populated performance tier, with both components having close rivals. For the Intel Core i5-14400F, its average benchmark score of 32279 places it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong overall performance. The nearest rivals are remarkably close in their aggregate scores. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U scores 32233, a mere 0.1% behind, while the Intel Core i9-11900 scores 32226, just 0.2% off the pace. On the other side, the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS scores 32354, which is 0.2% ahead, and the Intel Core i7-12800H scores 32121, trailing by 0.5%. These minuscule deltas mean that in synthetic workloads, a user swapping between any of these processors would see virtually identical performance, suggesting that the i5-14400F is operating at the top of its expected tier.

The AMD Radeon RX 9060, with an average benchmark score of 16014, sits in the 59th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, which scores 16129, a 0.7% advantage for the NVIDIA card. Interestingly, the AMD Radeon R9 370X and AMD Radeon RX 7700 both score nearly the same as the RX 9060, with scores of 15862 and 15852, respectively, showing deltas of 1.0% and 1.0% behind. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 trails slightly more, at 15679, which is 2.1% slower. This data indicates that while the RX 9060 is a competent card, its performance is closely matched by a range of other options, including a notably older R9 series card, which is curious given the architectural differences.

The implications for gaming are that a system built with any of these rival components would likely produce very similar frame rates in Control, assuming other factors like memory and storage are equal. The CPU and GPU are both in the mid-to-upper tier, but neither is a standout performer that would dominate its class. The 0.2% delta between the i5-14400F and the i9-11900, for instance, is far below the threshold of perceptible difference in real-world gameplay. Similarly, the 0.7% gap between the RX 9060 and RTX 3060 Ti would translate to a difference of less than one frame per second in most scenarios.

How This Combo Ranks

In the specific context of Control, this hardware pairing achieves a combo rank of 2152 out of 3720 tested combinations. This places it in the upper portion of the field, but it is not a top-tier performer. The rank indicates that a significant number of other CPU and GPU pairings deliver higher frame rates in this particular game. This is an important distinction, as a component's performance in synthetic benchmarks does not always translate directly to in-game performance, which can be influenced by specific engine optimizations and bottlenecks.

The fact that the combo is ranked 2152nd suggests that while the i5-14400F and RX 9060 are capable of running Control well at certain settings, there are many other systems that can do so with higher average frame rates or at higher quality presets. This could be due to the GPU's 8 GB of memory being a limiting factor at higher resolutions, or it could be that the game favors other architectures. The data shows that the combination is still within the playable range for the majority of users, but it is not a configuration that would be considered high-end for this title. The rank also implies that for users prioritizing maximum performance in Control, there are more potent combinations available, even if the individual components are solid choices for general use.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and preset combination for a smooth 60 FPS experience?

A: The data indicates that for a guaranteed 60 FPS experience, the 1920x1080 resolution is the safest bet. At this resolution, the High, Medium, and Ultra presets all achieve average frame rates above 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 71 FPS. At 2560x1440, the High and Medium presets are viable, with averages of 62 and 70 FPS respectively. At 3840x2160, only the Low preset averages above 60 FPS, hitting 66 FPS.

Q: Can this system handle Ultra settings at 2560x1440?

A: The benchmark results show that at 2560x1440 with Ultra settings, the system averages 54 FPS. This falls short of the 60 FPS playable threshold, indicating that while the game will run, it will not be as smooth as at lower settings. The data suggests that High settings, which average 62 FPS, are the most demanding preset that consistently clears the 60 FPS bar at this resolution.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more of a limiting factor in Control?

A: The frame rate scaling across resolutions points to the GPU being the primary constraint. For instance, when moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on High settings, the average frame rate drops from 82 FPS to 62 FPS, a 24% reduction. The drop from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 on High settings is even more severe, falling from 62 FPS to 42 FPS, a 32% reduction. This pattern indicates that the GPU is struggling to keep up with the increasing pixel count, while the CPU has sufficient headroom.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the difference is substantial. The Low preset averages 130 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 71 FPS. This represents a 45% reduction in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest quality settings. This shows that the visual enhancements at Ultra come at a significant cost to frame rate, even at the least demanding resolution.

Q: Does the system provide a consistent frame rate or are there noticeable dips?

A: The data provides minimum and maximum frame rate figures for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1920x1080, the frame rate fluctuates between 78 and 106 FPS. At 2560x1440, it ranges from 59 to 80 FPS. At 3840x2160, the range is 40 to 54 FPS. These figures show that frame pacing is generally stable, but the minimum frame rates at 1440p and 4K are close to or below the 60 FPS threshold, which could lead to occasional stutters.

Q: How does this combo compare to the average performance of other systems?

A: The combo rank of 2152 out of 3720 indicates that this system performs better than the median combination in this database. It is not in the top tier, but the ranking confirms it is a capable setup for Control. The individual component percentiles, 83rd for the CPU and 59th for the GPU, suggest that the processor is relatively stronger than the graphics card when compared to other parts.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly indicates that this PC can run Control, but the experience varies significantly by resolution. At 1920x1080, the system is fully capable of delivering a smooth and immersive experience across all presets. The most demanding preset, Ultra, averages 71 FPS, which is comfortably above the 60 FPS playable threshold. This is the ideal resolution for this configuration, as it allows users to maximize visual quality without sacrificing performance.

Moving to 2560x1440, the system remains playable, but with some limitations. The High and Medium presets both clear the 60 FPS bar, with averages of 62 and 70 FPS, respectively. However, the Ultra preset falls short at 54 FPS, meaning users will need to dial back the settings to maintain a consistent 60 FPS. At 3840x2160, the situation becomes more restrictive. Only the Low preset achieves a playable average frame rate of 66 FPS. The Medium, High, and Ultra presets all fail to reach 60 FPS, with averages of 47, 42, and 36 FPS respectively. In summary, the PC is a solid 1080p performer, a good 1440p machine with some settings compromises, and only suitable for 4K gaming on the lowest settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results reveal a clear division of labor between the CPU and GPU in Control. The CPU, Intel Core i5-14400F, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, appears to have ample processing power for this game. This is evidenced by the fact that at 1920x1080, the system can achieve very high frame rates, such as 130 FPS on Low and 92 FPS on Medium. If the CPU were a bottleneck, these numbers would likely cap out at a lower value, regardless of the GPU's capabilities.

The GPU, AMD Radeon RX 9060, is the component that dictates performance scaling. This is most apparent when analyzing the frame rate drops as resolution increases. For example, on High settings, the average FPS falls from 82 at 1080p to 62 at 1440p, and then to 42 at 4K. This steep decline is characteristic of a GPU that is becoming increasingly saturated with pixel work. The 8 GB of VRAM on the RX 9060 is likely a contributing factor, as higher resolutions and texture quality settings demand more memory, potentially leading to performance degradation when the limit is reached.

At 2560x1440, the GPU is still the main influence, but the CPU's role becomes slightly more significant. The gap between Medium (70 FPS) and High (62 FPS) settings is 8 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra (54 FPS) is also 8 FPS. This suggests that the GPU is still the primary constraint, but the CPU is being tasked with more draw calls and physics calculations as the settings increase. At 3840x2160, the GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck, as all presets except Low struggle to maintain playable frame rates. The CPU is clearly not the limiting factor at this resolution, as even the demanding Ultra preset only yields 36 FPS, which is a GPU-bound result.

Best Settings per Resolution

For users targeting a consistent 60 FPS experience, the data suggests the following optimal settings at each resolution. At 3840x2160, the only option is to use the Low preset, which delivers an average frame rate of 66 FPS. This is the sole preset that clears the playable threshold at this resolution, as Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the High preset is the best choice for balancing visual fidelity with performance, as it averages 62 FPS. While the Medium preset achieves a higher average of 70 FPS, the visual upgrade to High is often worth the minor performance cost, and it still remains above the 60 FPS target. The Ultra preset is not recommended, as its average of 54 FPS dips below the threshold.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is the most demanding option that still maintains a playable frame rate, averaging 71 FPS. This allows users to experience the game with all visual features enabled while enjoying smooth gameplay. All presets at this resolution are playable, with even the High setting offering a comfortable 82 FPS average.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following is a detailed breakdown of the measured average frame rates for the Intel Core i5-14400F and AMD Radeon RX 9060 combination in Control, organized by resolution and settings preset.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best performance. The Low preset averages 130 FPS, providing an exceptionally smooth experience. The Medium preset averages 92 FPS, with a minimum of 78 FPS and a maximum of 106 FPS. The High preset averages 82 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 71 FPS. All presets at this resolution provide frame rates well above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, performance remains strong but begins to show the GPU's limitations. The Low preset averages 98 FPS. The Medium preset averages 70 FPS, with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 80 FPS. The High preset averages 62 FPS, which is just above the playable threshold. The Ultra preset averages 54 FPS, which misses the 60 FPS target.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The Low preset is the only playable option, averaging 66 FPS. The Medium preset averages 47 FPS, with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 54 FPS. The High preset averages 42 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 36 FPS. These lower frame rates indicate that the system is not suited for 4K gaming at higher quality settings.