Control

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti ranks 1328 out of 3720 tested combos in Control. That places it in the upper third of all configurations in the database, roughly the 64th percentile of tested systems. This is a strong position, but not a dominant one. The ranking reflects a balanced pairing where the GPU is clearly the more capable component, while the CPU sits closer to the middle of the pack. The CPU itself ranks at the 47th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks at the 75th percentile among all graphics cards. The gap between those two percentiles explains why this combo performs well but does not top the charts: the CPU is adequate, the GPU is the star, and the game’s frame rates are largely dictated by the graphics card.

In practical terms, this combo sits ahead of the majority of systems tested, but it is not in the top tier. The data shows that the RTX 3070 Ti is capable of pushing very high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, and even at 4K it can hold playable levels with adjusted settings. The i5-9400, with its six cores and six threads, does not bottleneck the GPU in this title at most settings, but it is not a high-end part either. The benchmark scores for the CPU, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6629 and a Geekbench single-core score of 1389, indicate a solid mid-range processor. The GPU, by contrast, delivers a PassMark G3D score of 23356 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 139541, which is well above average. The combination is therefore one where the GPU does the heavy lifting, and the CPU is sufficient to keep up.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings for this combo to achieve 60 FPS or higher?

A: At 1920x1080, all four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) run above 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 90 FPS. At 2560x1440, all presets also clear 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 71.3 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low and Medium are playable, with Medium averaging 60.5 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 3070 Ti compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 3070 Ti has an average benchmark score of 29945. The closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile, which scores 29928, a delta of 0.1 percent. The AMD Radeon RX 6800 scores 30095, which is 0.5 percent higher. The RTX 2080 Ti scores 29783, 0.5 percent lower. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 scores 30433, 1.6 percent higher.

Q: How does the i5-9400 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254. Its closest rival, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, scores 2259, a delta of -0.2 percent. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, 0.3 percent lower. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, 0.4 percent lower. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, -0.4 percent higher.

Q: Is this combo better suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming?

A: Both resolutions are fully playable at every preset. At 1080p, the frame rates range from 163.2 FPS on Low to 90 FPS on Ultra. At 1440p, the range is from 125.9 FPS on Low to 71.3 FPS on Ultra. The combo is strong at both, but the 1440p Ultra setting at 71.3 FPS is the highest visual quality that still clears the 60 FPS threshold comfortably.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Control?

A: Yes, but with limitations. At 3840x2160, Low averages 84.3 FPS and Medium averages 60.5 FPS. High drops to 52.3 FPS and Ultra to 48.8 FPS. So 4K is playable only on Low or Medium settings.

Q: What is the playable threshold used in the database?

A: The playable threshold is 60 FPS. Any preset that averages at or above this value is considered playable.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which delivers an average of 90 FPS. This is the highest visual quality available in the game, and the combo handles it with a large margin above the threshold.

At 2560x1440, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is also Ultra, with an average of 71.3 FPS. This is still above the 60 FPS threshold, though the margin is narrower than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 60.5 FPS. This is just barely above the threshold. High and Ultra both fall below 60 FPS, at 52.3 and 48.8 respectively, so they are not recommended for a smooth experience at this resolution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

If the Intel Core i5-9400 were replaced with a similar-performing CPU, the frame rates would remain nearly identical. The closest rivals are the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, which scores 2259 on average, just 0.2 percent higher, and the Intel Core i3-10305, which scores 2264, 0.4 percent higher. The Intel Core i7-10710U and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 score slightly lower, at 2248 and 2246 respectively. In practice, any of these processors would produce within a fraction of a percent of the same CPU-bound performance in Control. The game is not heavily CPU-dependent at the settings tested, so the differences would be imperceptible.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti has an average score of 29945. The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile, which scores 29928 (0.1 percent lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6800, which scores 30095 (0.5 percent higher). The RTX 2080 Ti scores 29783 (0.5 percent lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 scores 30433 (1.6 percent higher). All of these cards would produce very similar frame rates in Control, with differences of roughly one to two percent at most. Users with any of these GPUs paired with a similarly ranked CPU should expect essentially the same performance profile as the i5-9400 and RTX 3070 Ti combination.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured average frame rates are as follows: Low runs at 84.3 FPS, Medium at 60.5 FPS, High at 52.3 FPS, and Ultra at 48.8 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline, with Ultra being about 42 percent slower than Low. The gap between Medium and High is 8.2 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 3.5 FPS, indicating that the performance cost of the highest settings is relatively moderate compared to the jump from Low to Medium.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates are: Low at 125.9 FPS, Medium at 89 FPS, High at 82.5 FPS, and Ultra at 71.3 FPS. Here, the drop from Low to Medium is steep, at 36.9 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High is only 6.5 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 11.2 FPS. This suggests that the Medium preset is a significant step up in visual quality but carries a large performance cost, while the difference between Medium and High is relatively small.

At 1920x1080, the frame rates are: Low at 163.2 FPS, Medium at 120.6 FPS, High at 108.3 FPS, and Ultra at 90 FPS. The Low preset is extremely fast, and even Ultra remains well above the 60 FPS threshold. The scaling between presets is consistent, with each step down in quality adding roughly 12 to 42 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 42.6 FPS, between Medium and High is 12.3 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 18.3 FPS.

When comparing resolutions, the performance cost of moving from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 20 to 30 percent depending on the preset. Moving from 1440p to 4K costs another 30 to 40 percent. For example, High at 1080p runs at 108.3 FPS, at 1440p it drops to 82.5 FPS, and at 4K it drops to 52.3 FPS. This scaling is typical for a GPU-bound title like Control.

The Verdict

The data shows that this PC can run Control at 60 FPS or higher in most scenarios. At 1920x1080, every preset clears the threshold, with Ultra averaging 90 FPS. At 2560x1440, every preset also clears the threshold, with Ultra averaging 71.3 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low and Medium are playable, with Medium averaging 60.5 FPS, which is just above the threshold. High and Ultra at 4K fall short, at 52.3 and 48.8 FPS respectively.

The verdict by resolution is clear: 1080p and 1440p are fully playable at maximum settings, while 4K requires turning the settings down to Medium for a smooth experience. The combo is well-balanced for this game, with the GPU providing ample headroom at lower resolutions and the CPU keeping up without introducing significant bottlenecks. Users who prioritize visual fidelity at 4K should consider lowering settings to Medium, while those at 1440p can enjoy the game at Ultra without compromise.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data indicates that Control is heavily GPU-bound, especially at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU is more involved, but the frame rates are so high (90 FPS at Ultra, 163 FPS at Low) that the i5-9400 is clearly not the limiting factor. The CPU’s six cores and six threads are sufficient for this title, and its benchmark scores, such as 935 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 6629 in multi-core, confirm that it is a capable mid-range part.

At 1440p, the GPU begins to dominate the frame rate. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is noticeable across all presets, with average frame rates falling by roughly 20 to 30 percent. This is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering resolution is the primary driver of performance. The CPU’s role diminishes further at 4K, where the frame rates are almost entirely determined by the GPU. At 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra is 35.5 FPS, a larger absolute gap than at 1440p or 1080p, which underscores the GPU’s dominance.

The scaling between presets also reveals the GPU’s importance. At each resolution, the performance cost of moving from Low to Ultra is substantial, and this cost grows with resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 73.2 FPS. At 1440p, it is 54.6 FPS. At 4K, it is 35.5 FPS. The absolute frame rate differences shrink as resolution rises because the GPU is already saturated, but the percentage impact of settings remains significant. This indicates that the RTX 3070 Ti is the component that determines playability, while the i5-9400 provides a stable foundation without becoming a bottleneck. For users who want to maximize frame rates, the GPU is the component to upgrade; for those who want to increase resolution, the GPU is again the deciding factor. The CPU’s role is secondary, and its performance headroom is sufficient for the game’s demands at all tested settings.