Control

The Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 combination delivers a playable experience in Control, but the headroom is heavily dependent on both resolution and graphical preset. At 1080p, this pairing comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS threshold across most settings, while 1440p requires a drop to Low settings to maintain smooth gameplay. The data shows a clear pattern: this system is best suited for 1080p gaming, with diminishing returns as resolution increases.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 1080p with High settings?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows an average of 70.6 FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest playable preset at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, only Low settings clear the 60 FPS threshold, with an average of 82 FPS. Medium settings fall short at 57 FPS.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this combination?

A: No. The verdict data lists no playable settings at 3840x2160. Even Low settings only reach 57.7 FPS, just below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the RX 6600's benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 6600 has an average benchmark score of 19036, placing it nearly identical to the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19030, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19049, -0.1% delta).

Q: What is the CPU's performance percentile among all processors?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 sits at the 47th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2254. Its closest rival, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, scores 2259, a 0.2% difference.

Q: What is the best 1080p preset for maximum visual quality while staying above 60 FPS?

A: High settings at 1920x1080, delivering 70.6 FPS, is the most demanding preset that maintains smooth gameplay. Ultra settings drop to 58.8 FPS, just below the threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals how the balance of CPU and GPU workload shifts across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the system shows significant scaling between presets. Low settings produce 108.1 FPS, while High settings yield 70.6 FPS, a drop of roughly 35%. This indicates that at 1080p, the GPU is the primary bottleneck when visual quality increases, as the CPU has ample headroom to feed the renderer. The i5-9400, with its 6 cores and 6 threads, provides enough processing power to keep frame rates high even at the Low preset, where GPU load is minimal.

Moving to 2560x1440, the scaling pattern shifts. At Low settings, the system manages 82 FPS, but High settings fall to 51.9 FPS. The gap between Low and High at 1440p is larger than at 1080p, suggesting the GPU's rendering load grows disproportionately with resolution. The RX 6600's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth become more critical as pixel count increases. The GPU's percentile rank of 63 places it above average, but it lacks the raw throughput needed for higher presets at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint. Low settings reach only 57.7 FPS, and every other preset falls below 40 FPS. The RX 6600's FP32 throughput of 8.928 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 159.4 GPixel/s are insufficient for 4K rendering at playable frame rates. The CPU's role diminishes here, as the GPU is clearly saturated. The data shows that the i5-9400's single-core performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935, is not the limiting factor; rather, the GPU's memory bandwidth and shader count of 1792 are the constraints.

The CPU's influence is most visible when comparing Low presets across resolutions. From 1080p Low at 108.1 FPS to 1440p Low at 82 FPS, the drop is 24%. From 1440p Low to 4K Low at 57.7 FPS, the drop is 30%. This steady decline indicates that the CPU maintains consistent performance, while the GPU's workload scales with pixel count. The i5-9400's 9 MB shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support at 42.7 GB/s provide adequate data feeding for the GPU, but the GPU's 128-bit memory bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are the eventual bottleneck.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is High, with an average of 70.6 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin above the threshold while offering substantial visual improvements over Medium, which runs at 76 FPS. Ultra settings at 58.8 FPS fall just below the playable line, so High is the recommended maximum for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, only Low settings achieve the 60 FPS target, with an average of 82 FPS. Medium settings at 57 FPS miss the threshold by 3 FPS, and High at 51.9 FPS is further behind. The 1440p Low preset is the only viable option, though it delivers a solid frame rate that leaves room for minor tweaks without dropping below 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The closest is Low at 57.7 FPS, which is 2.3 FPS short. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 40 FPS, with Ultra at 31.7 FPS. The verdict data confirms no playable settings exist at this resolution, so users should avoid 4K for this game with this hardware.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, but the playable range is limited to 1080p and 1440p with specific settings. At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS on High, Medium, and Low presets, with High being the best visual option at 70.6 FPS. At 2560x1440, the only playable setting is Low, which delivers 82 FPS. The 4K resolution is not viable, as no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold, with the best case being Low at 57.7 FPS.

For users prioritizing visual fidelity, 1080p High is the sweet spot. For those needing higher resolution, 1440p Low provides a playable experience but sacrifices most graphical enhancements. The system cannot handle Ultra settings at any resolution above 1080p, and even at 1080p Ultra falls short at 58.8 FPS. Overall, this combination is a capable 1080p machine for Control, with limited 1440p capability and no 4K support.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU each have near-neighbor alternatives that would produce similar frame rates in Control. For the Intel Core i5-9400, the closest performers are the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 with an average score of 2259 (0.2% faster), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 at 2246 (0.4% slower), and the Intel Core i3-10305 at 2264 (0.4% faster). These processors fall within a narrow performance band, meaning swapping the i5-9400 for any of these would yield nearly identical CPU-bound results in the game.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 6600's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 with a score of 19030 (0% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19049 (0.1% faster), and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation at 18954 (0.4% slower). These GPUs would produce similar frame rates in Control, though the RTX 4050 Mobile and RTX 2000 Ada Generation may have different power characteristics. The Quadro K6000, being a workstation card, might exhibit different driver behavior, but the raw benchmark scores suggest comparable rasterization performance.

The tight clustering of these scores, all within 0.4% of each other, indicates that the game's performance is not highly sensitive to small CPU or GPU differences. Users with any of these alternatives can expect roughly the same outcome: playable 1080p, limited 1440p, and no 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 combination ranks 2902 out of 3720 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 22% of all configurations. This ranking reflects the system's limitations at higher resolutions and presets. The CPU's 47th percentile standing among all processors and the GPU's 63rd percentile among all GPUs combine to create a mid-range system that struggles with demanding scenarios.

The rank suggests that while the system handles 1080p well, it falls behind a significant majority of tested hardware when judged across all resolutions and settings. The measured FPS data supports this: the system only achieves playable frame rates on 3 of 12 possible resolution and preset combinations, and those are concentrated in the lower to mid tiers. The 4K results, with all presets below 60 FPS, drag the overall ranking down considerably. For users considering this hardware, the 1080p experience is solid, but the system is not competitive with higher-end configurations for Control at elevated resolutions.