Control

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 60 FPS in 1080p?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080, every recorded preset clears the 60 FPS threshold. The lowest average is 69.5 FPS on Ultra settings, with High at 77.1 FPS, Medium at 86 FPS, and Low at 121.8 FPS.

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

A: Medium is the best preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at 2560x1440, delivering 67 FPS on average. High drops to 57 FPS, and Ultra falls to 48.5 FPS, so both fail the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: Only on Low settings. At 3840x2160, Low yields 64.3 FPS on average. Medium and High both drop below 60 FPS (42.5 and 41.2 FPS respectively), and Ultra is only 32.7 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-9400 compare to nearby CPUs?

A: The i5-9400 sits at the 47th percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score is 2254. Its closest rival, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, scores 2259, a delta of -0.2%, meaning the i5-9400 trails by only 0.2%. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, a 0.4% gap, so the i5-9400 is slightly ahead.

Q: What about the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT versus similar GPUs?

A: The RX 6650 XT ranks in the 65th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 19765. The NVIDIA Tesla K40m scores 19885, a delta of -0.6%, so the RX 6650 XT is 0.6% behind. The AMD FirePro D300 scores 19637, a 0.7% gap, meaning the RX 6650 XT is 0.7% ahead.

Q: Does the game favor the CPU or GPU more?

A: The recorded data shows the GPU is the primary bottleneck. At 3840x2160, dropping from High to Low raises the average FPS from 41.2 to 64.3, a 56% improvement. At 1920x1080, the same settings change moves from 77.1 to 121.8 FPS, a 58% gain. The CPU remains constant across all runs, so the variance comes from GPU load.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data for Control with the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT reveals a clear division of labor. The CPU, a six-core, six-thread Coffee Lake part with a 2.90 GHz base clock and 4.10 GHz boost clock, provides a stable foundation. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 6629, and its single-core score is 935. The GPU, an RDNA 2.0 part with 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, delivers the bulk of the rendering performance. Its FP32 throughput is 10.79 TFLOPS.

At 1920x1080, the GPU has enough headroom that even Ultra settings maintain 69.5 FPS. The CPU is not the limiting factor here. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 52.3 FPS (121.8 versus 69.5), which represents a 75% drop in frame rate when maxing out settings. This scaling is characteristic of GPU-bound workloads.

Moving to 2560x1440, the GPU load increases. Low settings produce 92.2 FPS, Medium drops to 67 FPS, High falls to 57 FPS, and Ultra reaches only 48.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra widens to 43.7 FPS, a 90% performance penalty for the highest preset. The CPU, however, still has no trouble feeding the GPU at these frame rates. The i5-9400's multi-threaded performance, as measured by Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 2784, is sufficient for the game's demands.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes severely strained. Low settings yield 64.3 FPS, but Medium drops to 42.5 FPS, High to 41.2 FPS, and Ultra to 32.7 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra is a 49% reduction in average FPS. This is a textbook example of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU's role is minimal at this resolution, as the RX 6650 XT's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 280.3 GB/s bandwidth are overwhelmed by the pixel count.

The data indicates that the GPU determines playability across all resolutions. At 1080p, the RX 6650 XT is strong enough to handle any preset. At 1440p, it can manage Medium but not High or Ultra. At 4K, only Low is viable. The CPU's 47th percentile ranking among all CPUs does not change the outcome, as Control does not appear to demand more than six threads at these settings. The recorded FPS values show no signs of CPU-induced stutter or frame pacing issues, even at the highest frame rates.

For practical purposes, a builder should focus on the GPU when considering this game. The i5-9400 is adequate, but the RX 6650 XT is the component that dictates whether the game runs smoothly. If the goal is 1440p High or Ultra, this GPU will fall short. If the goal is 1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, it will succeed.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-9400, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, which scores 2259 (a -0.2% delta), the Intel Core i7-10710U at 2248 (a +0.3% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 at 2246 (a +0.4% delta), and the Intel Core i3-10305 at 2264 (a -0.4% delta). In practical terms, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Control. The i5-9400 sits within a 0.8% band of these alternatives, so the game's performance would be indistinguishable.

For the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla K40m, which scores 19885 (a -0.6% delta), the AMD FirePro D300 at 19637 (a +0.7% delta), the AMD FirePro W7000 at 19905 (a -0.7% delta), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 at 19602 (a +0.8% delta). These deltas are all under 1%, meaning the RX 6650 XT and these GPUs are essentially equivalent in raw compute terms. However, the measured FPS in Control would likely be similar, though driver optimizations and memory bandwidth could cause minor variations.

In the context of this game, a user considering a CPU swap would see no meaningful change. The i5-9400's six cores and six threads are matched by the rivals listed, and the benchmark scores are within noise. For the GPU, the same logic applies. The RX 6650 XT's nearest rivals are all within 0.8% of its average score, so swapping to any of them would not alter the playability verdict at any resolution.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT can run Control, but only under specific conditions. The verdict by resolution is clear.

At 1920x1080, the system passes the 60 FPS threshold on all four presets. High, Low, Medium, and Ultra are all playable. The best setting is Ultra, with an average FPS of 69.5. This means a 1080p monitor can run the game at maximum visual quality without sacrificing smoothness.

At 2560x1440, the system passes on Low and Medium. Low averages 92.2 FPS, and Medium averages 67 FPS. High falls to 57 FPS, and Ultra drops to 48.5 FPS, both below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best playable setting is Medium, with 67 FPS.

At 3840x2160, only Low is playable, averaging 64.3 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all fail, with averages of 42.5, 41.2, and 32.7 FPS respectively. The best playable setting is Low, with 64.3 FPS.

Overall, this hardware combination is a solid 1080p Ultra machine for Control, a capable 1440p Medium machine, and a restricted 4K Low machine. The GPU's 65th percentile ranking and the CPU's 47th percentile ranking align with these results. The combo ranks 2465 out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the upper third of all systems tested for this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded measurements cover three resolutions and four settings each. All values are average FPS, with min and max not recorded.

At 3840x2160, the results are as follows:

• Low: 64.3 FPS
• Medium: 42.5 FPS
• High: 41.2 FPS
• Ultra: 32.7 FPS

The gap between Low and Medium is 21.8 FPS, a 51% drop. High is nearly identical to Medium, with only a 1.3 FPS difference. Ultra costs another 8.5 FPS compared to High.

At 2560x1440:

• Low: 92.2 FPS
• Medium: 67 FPS
• High: 57 FPS
• Ultra: 48.5 FPS

Low to Medium is a 25.2 FPS drop, a 27% reduction. Medium to High costs 10 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 8.5 FPS. The settings scaling is more gradual here than at 4K.

At 1920x1080:

• Low: 121.8 FPS
• Medium: 86 FPS
• High: 77.1 FPS
• Ultra: 69.5 FPS

Low to Medium is a 35.8 FPS drop, a 29% reduction. Medium to High costs 8.9 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 7.6 FPS. The system has ample headroom at 1080p, with even Ultra staying above 60 FPS.

The data shows that the RX 6650 XT scales predictably with resolution. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings reduces FPS by roughly 20-30%, depending on the preset. Moving from 1440p to 4K incurs an even larger penalty, as the GPU's memory bus width of 128 bit and bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s become limiting factors.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS is the recommended choice.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra, with an average FPS of 69.5. This is the highest quality preset available, and the system clears the playable threshold by 9.5 FPS. There is no reason to lower settings at this resolution, as even Ultra provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are Medium, with an average FPS of 67. This preset is 7 FPS above the threshold. High would be preferable for visual quality, but at 57 FPS it fails to meet the 60 FPS requirement. Medium strikes the right balance, offering 67 FPS while still providing improved detail over Low.

At 3840x2160, the best settings are Low, with an average FPS of 64.3. This is the only preset that clears 60 FPS at 4K. Medium drops to 42.5 FPS, which is not playable by the standard. Low settings will require visual compromises, but the frame rate is smooth enough for gameplay.

In summary, a user should run Control at 1080p Ultra, 1440p Medium, or 4K Low to maintain a consistent 60 FPS experience. Any higher preset at 1440p or 4K will result in dropped frames and a less fluid experience. The data does not include min or max FPS values, so the analysis relies solely on averages, but the margins are sufficient to recommend these settings with confidence.