Control

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 presents a stark illustration of CPU-GPU imbalance in modern gaming. The processor is a high-end desktop part with strong multi-threaded capabilities, while the graphics solution is a low-power integrated part that anchors the entire system's gaming performance. The recorded data for Control shows a combination that struggles to maintain playable frame rates at any resolution, with the GPU acting as the definitive bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: What is the average frame rate at 1920x1080 with Low settings?

A: The average frame rate at 1920x1080 with Low settings is 59 FPS. This is the highest recorded average for this combination, yet it still falls just short of the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Does this system achieve 60 FPS at any resolution or preset in Control?

A: No. According to the verdict by resolution, there are no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The best recorded average is 59 FPS at 1080p Low, which is below the playable threshold of 60 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. This is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, which scores 1186 (a 0.2% difference), and the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which scores 1190 (a 0.5% difference). The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, which is 0.7% higher, and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking of the Intel Arc B370?

A: The Intel Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs in the database, indicating it performs better than only a small fraction of recorded graphics hardware.

Q: How much faster is the CPU compared to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F has an average benchmark score of 32279. It is 0.1% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32233), 0.2% faster than the Intel Core i9-11900 (32226), and 0.5% faster than the Intel Core i7-12800H (32121). The AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS scores 32354, which is 0.2% faster.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 2560x1440?

A: The average frame rate drops from 45 FPS at Low settings to 25 FPS at Ultra settings at 2560x1440. The Medium preset records 32 FPS, and High records 28 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database records no playable settings for this combination at any resolution, as the playable threshold is defined at 60 FPS and every recorded average falls below that mark. Therefore, the best settings per resolution are defined by the maximum average FPS achievable, even though they do not meet the playability threshold.

At 3840x2160, Low settings deliver the highest average at 30 FPS. Medium averages 21 FPS, High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra drops to 17 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Low settings again provide the best results with an average of 45 FPS. Medium records 32 FPS, High records 28 FPS, and Ultra records 25 FPS.

At 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average of 59 FPS. The Medium preset averages 42 FPS, High averages 37 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. None of these configurations reach the 60 FPS threshold, but 1080p Low is the only setup that comes within a single frame of it.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-14400F and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3436 out of 3720 tested combos in Control. That places it in the bottom 8% of all recorded system configurations for this game. The ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU: the Arc B370's percentile ranking of 5 places it in the lowest tier of graphics hardware, while the CPU's percentile ranking of 83 shows it is a high-performing processor. The data indicates that in this pairing, the GPU's limitations dominate the overall gaming experience, dragging the entire system down to a position near the bottom of the database rankings.

The frame rate scaling across resolutions reinforces this conclusion. Dropping from 3840x2160 to 1920x1080 at Low settings improves the average frame rate from 30 FPS to 59 FPS, a gain of 29 FPS. This near-doubling of performance when reducing pixel count is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, as the CPU has ample headroom to feed the graphics pipeline at lower resolutions.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-14400F provide context for its processing power. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, Intel Core i9-11900, AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS, and Intel Core i7-12800H all achieve average benchmark scores within 0.5% of the i5-14400F. Any of these CPUs would likely produce nearly identical frame rates when paired with a similarly weak GPU, as they all sit in the same performance class.

On the graphics side, the Intel Arc B370's benchmark score of 1184 places it alongside the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168). These GPUs, with performance deltas ranging from 0.2% to 1.4%, represent the closest matches in the database. A system using any of these graphics chips with the Core i5-14400F would be expected to deliver very similar frame rates in Control, all of which would fall below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results show a clear division of labor in this pairing. The Intel Core i5-14400F, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, records an average benchmark score of 32279 and sits at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. This is a capable desktop processor. The Intel Arc B370, by contrast, is an integrated graphics solution with a 25 W TDP, and its average benchmark score of 1184 places it at the 5th percentile of all GPUs.

The frame rates in Control are dictated almost entirely by the GPU. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra presets is 27 FPS (59 FPS down to 32 FPS). This scaling with graphical settings is a direct result of the GPU's workload increasing as more effects are enabled. The CPU is not the limiting factor here; a processor with a fraction of the i5-14400F's power would likely deliver similar frame rates.

Resolution scaling further demonstrates the GPU bottleneck. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at Low settings drops the average from 59 FPS to 45 FPS, a reduction of 14 FPS. Moving up to 3840x2160 at Low settings drops it further to 30 FPS. This steep decline with increasing resolution is the signature of a graphics-bound system. The CPU's workload does not scale with resolution in the same way; it remains relatively constant, while the GPU must render significantly more pixels.

The data suggests that upgrading the GPU would be the only meaningful path to improved performance. The i5-14400F has ample processing headroom, as evidenced by its high benchmark scores, to support a much stronger graphics card. In this specific configuration, the CPU's role is to provide stable frame pacing and physics calculations, but the Arc B370's limited pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s constrain the final output.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Control? Based on the recorded data, no. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080, and the playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the best average frame rate is 30 FPS on Low settings. At 2560x1440, the best average is 45 FPS on Low settings. At 1920x1080, the best average is 59 FPS on Low settings. Every other preset and resolution combination records lower averages. The game is unplayable at all settings according to the 60 FPS standard.

The Intel Core i5-14400F proves itself as a strong processor, ranking in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs and beating several close rivals in benchmark scores. The Intel Arc B370, however, is a severe limitation. Its performance ranking at the 5th percentile of all GPUs places it in the lowest tier of graphics hardware, and the benchmark results for Control reflect this. The system's rank of 3436 out of 3720 combinations places it in the bottom portion of the database, underscoring the GPU's drag on overall performance.

For a game like Control, an action adventure title from 2019, this hardware combination is insufficient. The measured frame rates, capped at 59 FPS at 1080p Low, do not meet the standard for smooth gameplay. Users seeking to play this game would need to consider a substantially more powerful graphics solution; the current pairing leaves the capable CPU effectively wasted.