Control

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti delivers a solid 1080p and 1440p experience in Control, but 4K requires significant compromises. This combination ranks 1833rd out of 3720 tested combos for this game, placing it in the upper-middle tier of systems. The data shows a clear pattern: at 1080p and 1440p, every preset from Low to Ultra clears the 60 FPS playable threshold, while at 4K only the Low preset manages to stay above 60 FPS. This analysis breaks down exactly what settings to use, where the bottleneck lies, and what the measured frame rates mean for your gameplay.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which delivers an average of 79.2 FPS. This is the best-case scenario for visual quality without sacrificing smoothness. The gap between Ultra and the next step down, High at 93.9 FPS, is noticeable but not enormous — you have headroom to spare at this resolution.

For 2560x1440, the answer is also Ultra, with an average of 62.4 FPS. This sits just barely above the 60 FPS threshold, so you are right at the edge of playable territory. If you prefer a safety margin, dropping to High gives you 71.5 FPS average, which is a more comfortable buffer against demanding scenes. The data indicates Ultra is technically playable, but expect occasional dips below 60 in heavy combat sequences given the slim margin.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes dramatically. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, producing an average of 76.6 FPS. This is a massive visual downgrade from what the hardware can handle at lower resolutions. Medium drops to 54.7 FPS, which fails the 60 FPS threshold, and High falls further to 46.2 FPS. If you own a 4K display, you are essentially locked into Low settings to maintain playability — or you should consider playing at a lower resolution instead.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals that this game is heavily GPU-bound at higher resolutions, but the CPU becomes more relevant as resolution drops. At 3840x2160, the scaling between presets is steep: Low yields 76.6 FPS, Medium drops to 54.7 FPS (a 28.6% reduction), and High falls to 46.2 FPS (39.7% below Low). This dramatic drop-off with each preset tier indicates the GPU is the limiting factor — the RTX 3060 Ti simply cannot push enough pixels at 4K with higher settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low produces 111.7 FPS, Medium 76.2 FPS, High 71.5 FPS, and Ultra 62.4 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 31.8% decrease, but the gap between Medium and High narrows to just 6.2%. This convergence suggests the GPU is still the primary constraint, but the CPU begins to show its capability — the Core i5-14400F with 10 cores and 16 threads can keep up with the GPU's output at this resolution without becoming a bottleneck.

At 1920x1080, the CPU's role becomes more evident. Low hits 148.9 FPS, Medium 102.3 FPS, High 93.9 FPS, and Ultra 79.2 FPS. The massive 148.9 FPS figure at Low shows the GPU is not saturated at this resolution with minimal settings — the CPU is capable of feeding frames fast enough. However, the drop from Low to Medium (30.8% reduction) and the continued decline through Ultra indicate that the GPU's shading and texture work becomes the limiting factor once settings increase. The Core i5-14400F, with its 20 MB of shared L3 cache and boost clock of 4.70 GHz, provides enough single-thread performance to avoid holding back the RTX 3060 Ti at 1080p.

Comparing resolution scaling, the data shows that dropping from 1080p to 1440p costs about 21.3% performance at Ultra (79.2 to 62.4 FPS), while dropping from 1440p to 4K costs 35.6% at Ultra (62.4 to 40.2 FPS). This non-linear scaling confirms the GPU's memory bandwidth and pixel throughput are the binding constraints at higher resolutions — the RTX 3060 Ti's 448.0 GB/s bandwidth and 133.2 GPixel/s pixel rate simply run out of headroom.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Low: 148.9 FPS average — this is the absolute ceiling for this hardware at 1080p, showing no meaningful CPU limitation.
• Medium: 102.3 FPS average — a 31.3% drop from Low, indicating the GPU starts working harder.
• High: 93.9 FPS average — a further 8.2% reduction, with diminishing returns between Medium and High.
• Ultra: 79.2 FPS average — the most demanding preset, still comfortably above 60 FPS.

2560x1440:

• Low: 111.7 FPS average — still very high, proving the CPU can drive this resolution with minimal GPU load.
• Medium: 76.2 FPS average — a 31.8% drop from Low, the steepest single-preset decline at this resolution.
• High: 71.5 FPS average — only 6.2% below Medium, showing the preset curve flattening.
• Ultra: 62.4 FPS average — just clears the 60 FPS threshold, with minimal headroom.

3840x2160:

• Low: 76.6 FPS average — the only playable preset at 4K, and it barely qualifies as comfortable.
• Medium: 54.7 FPS average — a 28.6% drop from Low, falling below the playable threshold.
• High: 46.2 FPS average — another 15.5% reduction, making the game feel sluggish.
• Ultra: 40.2 FPS average — the worst case, nearly half the performance of Low.

The absence of min and max FPS data means these averages should be interpreted as central tendencies — actual frame pacing may vary, especially during Control's physics-heavy combat sequences. The data is measured, not estimated, which adds confidence to the relative comparisons between presets and resolutions.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, but the experience depends heavily on your display resolution. At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS on every preset, with Ultra averaging 79.2 FPS — this is the sweet spot for this hardware. You get full visual fidelity with a comfortable performance margin.

At 2560x1440, the system also clears 60 FPS on every preset, but Ultra at 62.4 FPS leaves little room for error. The verdict is "playable" but not "smooth" in the most demanding scenes. High at 71.5 FPS is the safer recommendation if you want consistent performance.

At 3840x2160, the system only clears 60 FPS on Low (76.6 FPS). Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below the threshold at 54.7 FPS, 46.2 FPS, and 40.2 FPS respectively. If you are gaming on a 4K display, you must accept Low settings or reduce the resolution — there is no way around the GPU's pixel throughput limits.

The overall verdict is that this is a capable 1080p and 1440p machine for Control, but a poor 4K performer. The RTX 3060 Ti's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory is sufficient for this game's needs, but the 256-bit bus and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth cannot sustain high preset 4K frame rates. The Core i5-14400F is never the limiting factor at any resolution — its 10-core, 16-thread configuration provides ample processing power for Control's action-adventure gameplay.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals, based on average benchmark scores, include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (0.1% higher score), Intel Core i9-11900 (0.2% higher), AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (0.2% lower), and Intel Core i7-12800H (0.5% higher). These deltas are all within 0.5% of the Core i5-14400F, meaning any of these processors would produce virtually identical frame rates in Control. If you already own one of these CPUs, the gaming performance difference is negligible — the bottleneck remains the GPU at higher settings.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (0.7% higher score), AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (1.4% lower), AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (1.4% lower), and AMD Radeon R9 370X (1.7% higher). The RX 5700 XT is a particularly relevant comparison — it has similar average scores, so you would expect nearly identical FPS values in Control at all resolutions and presets. The RX 9060 is marginally faster on paper, but the 0.7% difference would translate to roughly 0.5 FPS at 4K Ultra — imperceptible in practice.

If you are considering an upgrade path, the data suggests that replacing the GPU would yield far larger gains than swapping the CPU. At 1080p Ultra, moving from the RTX 3060 Ti to a hypothetical GPU with 20% higher performance would push frame rates from 79.2 FPS toward 95 FPS, while a CPU upgrade within the nearest rival group would change nothing measurable.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1440p with all settings maxed out?

A: Yes, but barely. At 2560x1440 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 62.4, which clears the 60 FPS threshold by only 2.4 FPS. The data marks Ultra as playable at this resolution, but you should expect occasional dips below 60 in demanding scenes given the slim margin.

Q: What is the best 4K setting for this hardware?

A: Low is the only playable option at 3840x2160, delivering 76.6 FPS average. Medium drops to 54.7 FPS, which fails the 60 FPS threshold, so you must use Low settings to maintain smooth gameplay at 4K.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals for this game?

A: The Core i5-14400F's nearest rivals — the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, Intel Core i9-11900, AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS, and Intel Core i7-12800H — all score within 0.5% of it in average benchmarks. For Control, this means no measurable difference in frame rates; the GPU determines performance.

Q: Is 1080p Ultra the best experience this PC can deliver?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings you get 79.2 FPS average, which is both visually maximal and well above the 60 FPS threshold. Lower presets offer higher frame rates — Low reaches 148.9 FPS — but Ultra provides the best balance of quality and smoothness.

Q: Does the GPU have enough video memory for Control?

A: The RTX 3060 Ti has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 256-bit bus and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The measured data shows no memory-related performance collapse at any resolution or preset, so 8 GB is sufficient for this game.

Q: What percentage of all tested CPU and GPU combos does this system outperform?

A: This combo ranks 1833rd out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the upper half of all systems tested for Control. The CPU itself sits in the 83rd percentile against all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 59th percentile against all GPUs.