Control

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 delivers a range of frame rates across Control’s four preset levels, and the recorded data shows a clear pattern. At 1920x1080, the combination is fully playable at every setting, with the Ultra preset hitting an average of 60.4 FPS. That figure sits just above the 60 FPS threshold, meaning the game holds playable performance even at the highest graphical demands. The Medium preset reaches 80 FPS exactly, while High scores 69.8 FPS. Low is the outlier at 105.4 FPS, providing a substantial headroom for fast-paced combat sequences or scenes with heavy particle effects.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation tightens considerably. Low is the only preset that clears the 60 FPS line, averaging 80.4 FPS. Medium falls just short at 59.3 FPS, a margin of only 0.7 FPS below the playable threshold. High dips further to 49.2 FPS, and Ultra drops to 47.1 FPS. The data indicates that at 1440p, the hardware can handle the game comfortably only when visual fidelity is reduced to its lowest state. The gap between Low and Medium is 21.1 FPS, which is a steep penalty for the modest visual upgrade that Medium typically provides. High and Ultra are nearly identical in average frame rate, with only a 2.1 FPS difference between them, suggesting the GPU becomes the limiting factor well before the CPU is stressed.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. Low averages 55.4 FPS, Medium 37.3 FPS, High 34.1 FPS, and Ultra 30.2 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 18.1 FPS, while the slide from Medium to High is just 3.2 FPS. Ultra at 30.2 FPS represents the lowest recorded average in the entire dataset. Even the best case at 4K, Low, falls 4.6 FPS short of playable, which means the user would need to accept stutter-prone frame pacing or rely on external scaling solutions, though the database does not record any such mitigations.

The recorded data includes only average FPS values; minimum and maximum frame rates are not available in the measurements. Therefore, the analysis relies solely on averages, which tend to mask brief dips during heavy physics interactions or particle-heavy scenes. Control is an action adventure title, and its combat sequences can cause sudden load spikes, so the 60.4 FPS average at 1080p Ultra should be interpreted with some caution. A 0.4 FPS margin is thin, and the true worst-case frame rate might be lower than the average suggests. Still, for the purposes of this database, the metric is clear: 60.4 FPS is playable.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database places the Intel Core i5-14400F in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32279. Its nearest rivals in the recorded data are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, the Intel Core i9-11900, the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS, and the Intel Core i7-12800H. The Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U scores 32233, which is 0.1% lower than the i5-14400F. The Core i9-11900 scores 32226, also 0.1% lower. The Ryzen 7 6800HS scores 32354, which is 0.2% higher, and the Core i7-12800H scores 32121, 0.5% lower. In practical terms, these four CPUs are effectively interchangeable for gaming workloads. The delta percentages are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning the Frame rate output in Control would be indistinguishable across these processors when paired with the same GPU. The i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, but those specifications are not what drives the comparison; the recorded benchmark scores show the performance parity.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 sits in the 58th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15290. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580, the AMD Radeon 680M, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600. The GTX 580 scores 15283, matching the RTX 2060 within 0.1%. The Radeon 680M scores 15270, also 0.1% lower. The RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199, 0.6% lower, and the RX 7600 scores 15171, 0.8% lower. These deltas are small enough that a user swapping between these GPUs would see virtually the same frame rates in Control. The RTX 2060 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth, but the comparison rests on the benchmark scores, not the memory configuration. The GTX 580 is a much older architecture, yet its recorded score is nearly identical, which speaks to the nature of the benchmark rather than raw gaming performance. For Control specifically, any of these four GPUs would produce similar FPS figures at each resolution and preset combination.

The practical takeaway is that a system built around the i5-14400F could swap in any of those four CPUs without changing the gaming experience. Similarly, the RTX 2060 could be replaced by any of its four nearest rivals, and the measured FPS in Control would stay within roughly 1% of the values recorded here. The 14400F and RTX 2060 combination is not an outlier; it sits squarely in a cluster of hardware that performs at a similar level.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings?

A: The recorded average is 60.4 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold by 0.4 FPS.

Q: Can this PC run Control at 2560x1440 with Medium settings?

A: No. The average FPS at 1440p Medium is 59.3, which is 0.7 FPS below the playable threshold. Only Low qualifies as playable at that resolution.

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

A: Low, with an average FPS of 80.4. This is the only preset at 1440p that stays at or above 60 FPS.

Q: What is the average FPS at 3840x2160 with Low settings?

A: The average is 55.4 FPS. This is the highest recorded value at 4K, but it still falls short of the 60 FPS threshold by 4.6 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 compare to the AMD Radeon RX 7600 in the database?

A: The RTX 2060 has an average benchmark score of 15290, while the RX 7600 scores 15171. The RTX 2060 is 0.8% higher.

Q: What is the combo rank for this CPU and GPU pairing in Control?

A: The combination ranks 2898 out of 3720 tested combos in the database.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear split. At 1920x1080, this PC can run Control at every preset, including Ultra, which averages 60.4 FPS. The 60 FPS threshold is met with a slim margin, but it is met. High settings at 1080p provide a more comfortable 69.8 FPS, and Medium raises that to 80 FPS. Low is the smoothest option at 105.4 FPS. For users targeting a standard 1080p monitor, the verdict is straightforward: the system is fully capable of running the game at maximum settings, though the 0.4 FPS margin at Ultra leaves little room for frame time spikes.

At 2560x1440, the verdict is more restrictive. Only Low settings clear the 60 FPS line, averaging 80.4 FPS. Medium falls to 59.3 FPS, which is technically unplayable by the database’s definition, even though the margin is under one frame per second. High and Ultra are not viable, with averages of 49.2 FPS and 47.1 FPS respectively. A 1440p user must accept Low settings to maintain playability. The 21.1 FPS gap between Low and Medium is the largest single-step drop in the entire dataset, indicating that the GPU is heavily taxed by the transition from minimal to moderate visual effects.

At 3840x2160, the verdict is negative. No preset reaches 60 FPS. Low averages 55.4 FPS, Medium 37.3 FPS, High 34.1 FPS, and Ultra 30.2 FPS. The system is not playable at 4K, regardless of settings. Even the lowest preset falls short by 4.6 FPS, which would manifest as noticeable stutter in action sequences. The recommendation for 4K is to avoid this resolution entirely or to rely on upscaling tools, though the database records no such options.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average FPS of 60.4. This is the highest quality setting available in the game, and the hardware just barely sustains it. For users who prefer a safety margin, Medium at 80 FPS or High at 69.8 FPS are also viable, but the database’s definition of the best setting is Ultra because it offers the maximum visual fidelity while still clearing the threshold.

For 2560x1440, the only preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average FPS of 80.4. Medium is 0.7 FPS short, so it does not qualify. The best settings at 1440p are therefore Low. This means the user gives up most visual enhancements, including shadow quality, texture filtering, and particle effects, to maintain smooth gameplay. The 80.4 FPS average provides decent headroom above the threshold, so occasional dips would likely stay above 60 FPS in most scenes.

For 3840x2160, there is no qualifying preset. The best available option is Low at 55.4 FPS, but it does not meet the 60 FPS standard. The database does not assign a best setting for this resolution because none of the four presets are playable. The user would need to lower the resolution or accept sub-60 FPS performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-14400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 combination ranks 2898 out of 3720 tested combos in the database for Control. That places it in the lower portion of the distribution, around the 22nd percentile of tested systems. The rank reflects the GPU’s age and tier; the RTX 2060 is an end-of-life product from the GeForce 20-series, and its 58th percentile GPU score drags the combo down relative to systems with newer or higher-tier graphics cards. The CPU, by contrast, is a strong partner, sitting in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs. The imbalance is evident in the measured FPS: at 1080p, the CPU has enough headroom to push the GPU to its limits, but at 1440p and 4K, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, and the CPU’s strength does not translate into higher frame rates.

The rank of 2898 means that 822 tested combos performed worse, while 2897 performed better. The gap between this combo and the top performers is substantial, but the data also shows that the system is not at the very bottom. The nearest GPU rivals, such as the GTX 580 and the Radeon 680M, would likely produce similar ranks if paired with the same CPU, given their near-identical benchmark scores. The combo’s position in the database is a function of the GPU’s mid-range status and the game’s demanding rendering at high resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded FPS data reveals how the balance of responsibility shifts between the CPU and GPU across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the GPU is the primary limiter, but the CPU is not idle. The jump from Low to Ultra at 1080p costs 45 FPS, dropping from 105.4 to 60.4. This indicates that the GPU is doing most of the work, as the pixel count is low enough that the CPU can feed frames quickly. The 105.4 FPS at Low suggests the CPU has significant headroom; if the GPU were the sole constraint, Low would likely hit a higher ceiling, but the recorded value is already high.

At 2560x1440, the GPU’s role becomes more dominant. The frame rates drop across all presets compared to 1080p, with Low falling from 105.4 to 80.4 FPS, a 25 FPS reduction. Medium falls from 80 to 59.3, High from 69.8 to 49.2, and Ultra from 60.4 to 47.1. The proportional drop is largest at the higher presets, which is consistent with the GPU being overwhelmed by the additional pixel count. The CPU’s contribution remains steady; the i5-14400F has enough single-thread performance to handle the game’s physics and logic, but the RTX 2060’s 6 GB memory and 192-bit bus become the limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is almost entirely responsible for the outcome. The frame rates compress into a narrow band, from 55.4 FPS at Low to 30.2 FPS at Ultra. The 25.2 FPS spread across the four presets is smaller than the 45 FPS spread at 1080p, which indicates that the GPU is saturated even at Low settings. The CPU is no longer a meaningful constraint; the game is fully bound by the GPU’s pixel throughput. The RTX 2060’s 6.451 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are simply insufficient for 4K rendering in Control, and no CPU change would alter that outcome.

In summary, the CPU matters most at 1080p, where its headroom allows the GPU to stretch its legs. At 1440p, the GPU starts to dominate, and at 4K, the GPU is the sole constraint. The data does not include separate CPU and GPU utilization metrics, so this interpretation is inferred from the FPS scaling across resolutions and presets. The pattern is consistent: as resolution increases, the GPU’s role grows, and the CPU’s advantage becomes irrelevant.