Control

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3529 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. This places the combo in the bottom 5% of all systems measured in the database, indicating a very limited capacity to run this title at acceptable frame rates. The recorded data shows that no resolution, from 1920x1080 up to 3840x2160, achieves the 60 FPS playable threshold at any preset. The highest average FPS recorded across all tests is 56 at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which falls just short of the playable mark.

The percentile data reinforces this position. The CPU sits at the 47th percentile among all processors tested, meaning roughly half of all CPUs in the database deliver higher average benchmark scores. The GPU is weaker still, resting at the 40th percentile among all graphics cards. When combined, these components produce a system that is clearly oriented toward lower-end gaming experiences, and Control, with its demanding real-time action sequences, pushes this hardware well beyond its comfortable operating range. The rank of 3529 out of 3720 is a direct reflection of the measured FPS data: the system simply cannot sustain smooth gameplay in this title.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the Intel Core i5-9400 performs almost identically to several other processors. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 has an average benchmark score of 2259, which is only 0.2% lower than the i5-9400's average score of 2254. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, putting it 0.4% higher. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, just 0.4% lower. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, 0.3% lower. In practical terms, swapping the i5-9400 for any of these chips would produce nearly indistinguishable results in Control, since the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at the settings where this GPU operates.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. The Intel Arc A310 is the closest rival, with a score of 7550, which is 1% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, just 0.3% lower. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, also 0.4% lower. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, 0.6% lower. All of these alternatives would deliver frame rates within a very narrow band of the GTX 1650 in Control, meaning users upgrading from one to another would see no meaningful change in playability. The database's measurements show that this performance tier, regardless of the specific model, consistently fails to hit 60 FPS in this game at any resolution.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data indicates that the GPU is the dominant constraint for this combination in Control, but the CPU also contributes to the overall shortfall. Examining the FPS scaling across resolutions, at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 56. Moving to 2560x1440 with Low settings drops the average to 43.8, a reduction of 12.2 FPS. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average falls to 26.9, another 16.9 FPS lower. This steep decline as resolution increases is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the graphics card's fill rate and memory bandwidth become the limiting factor.

However, the CPU still plays a measurable role. The i5-9400 has six cores and six threads with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. In a game like Control, which features complex physics and AI, the CPU must keep up with the GPU's rendering output. The recorded benchmarks show the CPU's multi-core performance is modest, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6629 and a single-core score of 935. When the GPU is already struggling at 20 to 40 FPS, the CPU is not the main issue, but at 1920x1080 Low settings, where the GPU is less stressed, the CPU's single-threaded performance can influence the final frame rate. The fact that the system still cannot reach 60 FPS even at the lowest settings suggests that both components are operating near their limits, with the GPU being the more severe bottleneck based on the resolution scaling pattern.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1920x1080 with any settings?

A: No. The highest average FPS recorded at 1920x1080 is 56 on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium averages 42.5 FPS, High averages 39.2 FPS, and Ultra averages 28.8 FPS. None of these reach playable levels.

Q: What is the best performance this combo achieves in Control?

A: The best recorded average FPS is 56 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only measurement that comes close to the 60 FPS threshold, but it still remains below it, meaning the game is not considered playable at any tested configuration.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its closest rival, the Intel Arc A310?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has an average benchmark score of 7550, which is 1% higher than the GTX 1650's 7472. In Control, this difference would translate to roughly the same frame rates, meaning the Arc A310 would also fail to reach 60 FPS at any resolution.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the low frame rates in Control?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck, as shown by the steep FPS drops when moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 and then to 3840x2160. However, the CPU also contributes, since even at 1920x1080 Low settings, the system cannot reach 60 FPS, indicating both components are insufficient for this title.

Q: Does the system perform better at lower resolutions?

A: Yes, but not enough to reach playable levels. At 1920x1080 Low, the average is 56 FPS. At 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 43.8 FPS. At 3840x2160 Low, the average is 26.9 FPS. The trend is clear, but even the best case falls short of 60 FPS.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for this CPU and GPU combination?

A: The CPU has an average benchmark score of 2254 across all tests, and the GPU has an average benchmark score of 7472. These scores place the CPU at the 47th percentile and the GPU at the 40th percentile among all tested hardware.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the system delivers its lowest performance. With Low settings, the average FPS is 26.9. Medium settings produce an average of 19.9 FPS. High settings yield 17.8 FPS. Ultra settings give 18.8 FPS. The data shows no minimum or maximum FPS values recorded at this resolution, only averages. The gap between Low and Medium is 7 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 2.1 FPS, and High to Ultra is 1 FPS. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily taxed that preset changes have diminishing returns, and all settings are effectively unplayable.

At 2560x1440, the averages improve notably. Low settings reach 43.8 FPS on average. Medium settings drop to 28.4 FPS. High settings average 28.7 FPS. Ultra settings average 26 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 15.4 FPS, which is the largest jump at this resolution. The difference between Medium and High is just 0.3 FPS, and High to Ultra is 2.7 FPS. While the Low preset gets closer to playable, it still falls 16.2 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold.

At 1920x1080, the best results occur. Low settings average 56 FPS, which is the highest recorded value for the entire combo. Medium settings average 42.5 FPS. High settings average 39.2 FPS. Ultra settings average 28.8 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 13.5 FPS, between Medium and High is 3.3 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 10.4 FPS. The Low preset is the only configuration that approaches playability, but it still misses the 60 FPS mark by 4 FPS on average. The database records no minimum or maximum FPS for any of these tests, so the variance around these averages is not captured.

Best Settings per Resolution

Based on the measured data, no resolution offers a playable configuration, meaning there is no preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and every recorded average falls below it. At 3840x2160, the best average is 26.9 FPS on Low settings, but this is far short of playable. At 2560x1440, the best average is 43.8 FPS on Low settings, still 16.2 FPS below the threshold. At 1920x1080, the best average is 56 FPS on Low settings, which is the closest any configuration comes to playable. However, since 56 is below 60, the database classifies this as not playable, and the verdictByResolution field confirms that no playable settings exist at any resolution.

For users who must play at lower frame rates, the most demanding preset that delivers the highest FPS at each resolution is the Low preset. At 1920x1080, Low gives 56 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low gives 43.8 FPS. At 3840x2160, Low gives 26.9 FPS. All other presets produce lower averages. The data suggests that lowering settings from Ultra to Low provides a significant FPS boost at every resolution, but the system's hardware limits prevent it from ever crossing the playable threshold. The GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus, combined with the i5-9400's six-core design, are simply insufficient for Control's demands at any resolution represented in the database.