Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title that stresses both the CPU and GPU depending on the resolution and quality preset. The recorded data for the Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti shows a clear pattern: at 1080p the system is balanced, but as resolution climbs to 1440p and 4K, the GPU becomes the decisive component. The measured frame rates at 1920x1080 with Low settings reach 117.5 FPS average, while the same settings at 2560x1440 drop to 90.1 FPS, and at 3840x2160 fall to 58.8 FPS. This scaling indicates that the RTX 3060 Ti is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the i5-9400 with its six cores and six threads is sufficient to feed the GPU at 1080p. The gap between Low and Ultra presets at each resolution further confirms the GPU-bound nature of the title, with the 4K Ultra setting producing only 33.1 FPS average.

The CPU’s benchmark profile shows a 47th percentile ranking among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 2254. The i5-9400’s nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, which scores 2259 and is 0.2% faster, and the Intel Core i7-10710U, which scores 2248 and is 0.3% slower. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246 and is 0.4% slower, while the Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264 and is 0.4% faster. These small deltas mean that swapping the i5-9400 for any of these alternatives would produce nearly identical CPU performance in Control, as the game’s frame rate at higher resolutions is not limited by processor throughput. The GPU, by contrast, sits at the 59th percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 16129. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 at 16014 (0.7% slower), the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M at 16351 (1.4% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT at 16361 (1.4% faster), and the AMD Radeon R9 370X at 15862 (1.7% slower). These figures place the RTX 3060 Ti in a tight performance cluster, meaning users with any of these GPUs would see similar frame rates in Control at the same settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra presets is substantial, but the system still maintains playable frame rates across all settings. The Low preset averages 117.5 FPS, Medium averages 85.9 FPS, High averages 73.3 FPS, and Ultra averages 64.5 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 53 FPS, which indicates that the GPU is doing most of the heavy lifting for visual effects, ray tracing, and texture quality. The i5-9400, with its 2.90 GHz base clock and 4.10 GHz boost clock, is capable of keeping up with the RTX 3060 Ti at this resolution, as evidenced by the fact that even the most demanding preset stays above 60 FPS. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see the frame rate plateau regardless of graphics settings, but the data shows a steady decline from Low to Ultra, confirming a GPU-bound scenario.

Moving to 2560x1440, the scaling becomes steeper. The Low preset averages 90.1 FPS, Medium drops to 65.6 FPS, High drops to 54.6 FPS, and Ultra falls to 49.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 40.6 FPS, but the more important observation is that the High preset drops below the 60 FPS threshold while Medium stays above it. This resolution places a heavier load on the RTX 3060 Ti’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, and the data shows that the GPU is now the clear bottleneck. The CPU’s performance is less relevant at this resolution, as the frame rates are driven by pixel count and shading complexity rather than draw calls or physics calculations.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmingly dominant in determining performance. The Low preset averages 58.8 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS target, Medium averages 44.8 FPS, High averages 36.2 FPS, and Ultra averages 33.1 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is severe: Low drops from 90.1 to 58.8 FPS, a reduction of 31.3 FPS, while Ultra drops from 49.5 to 33.1 FPS, a reduction of 16.4 FPS. This is classic GPU-bound behavior, where the number of pixels rendered at 4K overwhelms the RTX 3060 Ti’s 16.20 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 133.2 GPixel/s pixel rate. The i5-9400’s role is reduced to feeding the GPU with data, and its six cores are more than adequate for this task. The data indicates that at 4K, the CPU contributes almost nothing to the frame rate differences between presets; all the variation comes from the GPU’s handling of the increased resolution and quality settings.

The preset scaling also reveals the CPU’s importance at lower resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 53 FPS, which is larger than the 40.6 FPS gap at 1440p and the 25.7 FPS gap at 4K. This suggests that at 1080p, the CPU has headroom to process the additional draw calls and physics computations that come with higher presets, allowing the GPU to show its full range. At 4K, the GPU is so heavily loaded that even lowering the preset from Ultra to Low only recovers 25.7 FPS, and the system still cannot reach 60 FPS. For users aiming for 60 FPS, the data clearly shows that 1080p is the sweet spot for this hardware combination, with 1440p requiring a reduction to Medium settings and 4K being unplayable at any preset.

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data shows that this system cannot maintain 60 FPS at 3840x2160 with any of the four tested presets. The closest is Low, which averages 58.8 FPS, just 1.2 FPS short of the playable threshold. Medium averages 44.8 FPS, High averages 36.2 FPS, and Ultra averages 33.1 FPS. None of these meet the 60 FPS target, so there is no recommended setting for 4K in this configuration. The verdict data confirms this, listing no playable settings at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the system achieves playable frame rates on Low and Medium presets. Low averages 90.1 FPS, well above the threshold, and Medium averages 65.6 FPS, still above 60 FPS. The High preset drops to 54.6 FPS and Ultra falls to 49.5 FPS, both below the target. The best playable setting is Medium, with an average of 65.6 FPS. This is the highest preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, and the data shows it provides a comfortable margin of 5.6 FPS over the threshold. Users who prefer higher visual quality could attempt High, but the 54.6 FPS average means they would experience drops below 60 FPS, which may be noticeable in fast-paced combat.

At 1920x1080, all four presets are playable. Low averages 117.5 FPS, Medium averages 85.9 FPS, High averages 73.3 FPS, and Ultra averages 64.5 FPS. The best playable setting is Ultra, with an average of 64.5 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, and it provides a margin of 4.5 FPS over the threshold. The data shows that the RTX 3060 Ti has enough headroom at 1080p to handle the full visual feature set of Control, including the highest quality shadows, reflections, and post-processing effects. The i5-9400 does not hold the system back at this resolution, as the Ultra preset still maintains an average above 60 FPS.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-9400 sits in a narrow performance band with several other processors. The nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, which has an average benchmark score of 2259, just 0.2% higher than the i5-9400’s 2254. This means that in Control, the i7-1068NG7 would deliver nearly identical frame rates at all resolutions and presets, as the game is not CPU-bound at 1440p or 4K. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, which is 0.4% faster, and would also behave almost exactly the same in this title. On the slower side, the Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, 0.3% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, 0.4% lower. Any of these processors would produce frame rates within a fraction of a percent of the i5-9400, meaning users upgrading or downgrading within this cluster would see no meaningful change in Control performance. The CPU’s 47th percentile ranking indicates that it is a mid-range part, but the game’s GPU-bound nature at higher resolutions means this does not limit the experience.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti has an average benchmark score of 16129, and its nearest rivals are all within 1.7% of that figure. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 16361, which is 1.4% faster, making it the closest higher-performing alternative. In Control, this would translate to roughly 1 to 2 FPS difference at each preset, which is within the margin of error for the measured data. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M also scores 16361, also 1.4% faster, and would behave identically to the RX 5700 XT. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 scores 16014, 0.7% slower, and the AMD Radeon R9 370X scores 15862, 1.7% slower. For example, at 1080p Ultra, the RTX 3060 Ti averages 64.5 FPS; a 1.4% faster GPU would average roughly 65.4 FPS, while a 1.7% slower GPU would average roughly 63.4 FPS. These differences are trivial in practice, so any of these cards would provide a similar experience in Control. At 1440p Medium, the RTX 3060 Ti averages 65.6 FPS, and the same small deltas would apply, keeping all these alternatives at or near the 60 FPS threshold. The GPU’s 59th percentile ranking places it above the midpoint of all graphics cards, and its 8 GB of VRAM is sufficient for Control’s texture demands at 1080p and 1440p, though the 4K results show that raw compute power, not memory capacity, is the limiting factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates for this system cover three resolutions and four settings, with average FPS recorded for each combination. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 117.5 FPS average, which is the highest frame rate recorded across the entire test suite. The Medium preset averages 85.9 FPS, High averages 73.3 FPS, and Ultra averages 64.5 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a consistent decline of roughly 12 to 32 FPS per step, indicating that each quality tier adds a measurable load to the GPU. The Ultra preset, while playable, leaves only a small margin above the 60 FPS threshold, so users who prioritize frame rate stability might prefer High at 73.3 FPS for more headroom.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 90.1 FPS, which is still well above 60 FPS but 27.4 FPS lower than the same preset at 1080p. The Medium preset averages 65.6 FPS, keeping the system playable but with a reduced margin. The High preset drops to 54.6 FPS, and Ultra falls to 49.5 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 40.6 FPS, which is smaller than the 53 FPS gap at 1080p, confirming that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor as resolution increases. The Medium preset is the highest playable option, and its 65.6 FPS average suggests that users can enjoy a balanced visual experience without dropping below the target.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 58.8 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset averages 44.8 FPS, High averages 36.2 FPS, and Ultra averages 33.1 FPS. None of these are playable according to the 60 FPS standard, and the data shows that the RTX 3060 Ti cannot handle 4K in Control regardless of quality settings. The drop from 1440p Low to 4K Low is 31.3 FPS, while the drop from 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra is 16.4 FPS. This nonlinear scaling suggests that at 4K, even the Low preset is too demanding for the GPU, and the only way to achieve 60 FPS would be to reduce the resolution or use a more powerful graphics card. The data also shows that min and max FPS were not recorded for any of these configurations, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates.

The overall combination rank for this CPU and GPU pairing in Control is 2638 out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the lower third of all systems. This rank reflects the fact that while the RTX 3060 Ti is a capable mid-range GPU, Control is a demanding title that requires a higher-end card for 4K playability. The i5-9400’s 47th percentile CPU ranking and the RTX 3060 Ti’s 59th percentile GPU ranking combine to produce a system that is well-suited for 1080p gaming and acceptable for 1440p with reduced settings, but not for 4K.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 1080p Ultra is 64.5, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdict data lists High, Low, Medium, and Ultra as playable settings at this resolution.

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

A: The best playable setting is Medium, with an average of 65.6 FPS. Low is also playable at 90.1 FPS, but High (54.6 FPS) and Ultra (49.5 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 58.8 on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS target. Medium, High, and Ultra average 44.8, 36.2, and 33.1 FPS respectively. The verdict data lists no playable settings at this resolution.

Q: How does the RTX 3060 Ti compare to the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT in Control?

A: The RX 5700 XT has an average benchmark score of 16361, which is 1.4% higher than the RTX 3060 Ti’s 16129. This would translate to roughly 1 to 2 FPS difference in Control, so the two GPUs would perform nearly identically at the same settings.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck at 4K?

A: The GPU. At 3840x2160, frame rates range from 33.1 to 58.8 FPS depending on settings, and the CPU’s performance is sufficient to feed the GPU. The RTX 3060 Ti’s compute and pixel throughput are the limiting factors at this resolution.

Q: What is the CPU’s percentile ranking and does it matter for this game?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 is in the 47th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2254. In Control, the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at 1440p or 4K, as the GPU handles the majority of the rendering load.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti can run Control, but the experience depends heavily on the chosen resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the system is fully capable, with all four presets clearing the 60 FPS threshold. The Ultra preset averages 64.5 FPS, making it the best playable setting at this resolution, and even the most demanding visual options remain smooth. At 2560x1440, the system can still deliver playable frame rates, but only on Low (90.1 FPS) and Medium (65.6 FPS) presets. The High and Ultra presets fall to 54.6 and 49.5 FPS respectively, which are below the playable threshold. Users with 1440p monitors should select Medium settings to maintain a consistent 60 FPS experience. At 3840x2160, the system cannot achieve 60 FPS on any preset, with the best result being Low at 58.8 FPS. The verdict data confirms that 4K is not playable with this hardware, and users should stick to 1080p or 1440p for Control. Overall, this combination is a solid choice for 1080p gaming with high settings, a reasonable choice for 1440p with medium settings, and unsuitable for 4K. The RTX 3060 Ti’s launch MSRP is 399 USD, but the performance data speaks for itself: this is a 1080p and entry-level 1440p card for a demanding title like Control. The CPU is not a limiting factor in most scenarios, and its nearest rivals would produce nearly identical results. For players targeting 60 FPS at 1080p with Ultra settings, this system delivers; for 4K, a more powerful GPU is required.