Control

Can Intel Core i5-9400 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti run Control? The recorded data indicates this combination is highly capable across the tested resolutions, with the playable threshold set at 60 FPS. The benchmark results show that the pairing delivers smooth performance in most configurations, with the primary limitation appearing only at the most demanding preset in 4K. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS, the combination's standing among tested systems, and how the CPU and GPU divide the workload.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the database records the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the best playable setting is High, delivering an average of 61 FPS. The Ultra preset falls below the threshold at 57.1 FPS, while Medium (71.8 FPS) and Low (98.1 FPS) also remain playable. High is the optimal choice here because it provides the highest visual fidelity while still clearing the 60 FPS bar, if only by a single frame.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the best playable setting is Ultra, with an average of 78.2 FPS. All four presets are above 60 FPS at this resolution, so the maximum quality option is viable. The gap between Ultra and the next step down, High at 94.9 FPS, is substantial, but Ultra remains comfortably smooth.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the best playable setting is Ultra, with an average of 108 FPS. This is the most forgiving resolution for the combo, allowing full graphical settings without approaching the playability limit. The headroom here is large enough that even the heaviest workload stays well above the threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this specific CPU and GPU pairing at rank 1041 out of 3720 tested combos for Control. This positions the combination in the upper third of all recorded systems, roughly in the 72nd percentile. While not a top-tier configuration, it outperforms the majority of tested hardware in this title.

The ranking reflects a balance between the CPU's modest multi-core capabilities and the GPU's high-end performance. The CPU sits at the 47th percentile among all processors in synthetic benchmarks, while the GPU ranks at the 83rd percentile among all graphics cards. The composite result for this game is stronger than the CPU alone would suggest, indicating that the GPU carries much of the load in Control, especially at higher resolutions.

Relative to other combos in the database, this pairing is solidly mid-to-upper tier. The 4K Ultra result dipping below 60 FPS is the main factor preventing a higher rank. If the Ultra preset at 4K had cleared the threshold, the rank would likely improve, but as recorded, the system's best 4K showing is capped at High settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS scaling across resolutions and presets reveals which component limits performance in Control.

At 1080p, the CPU has a more prominent role. The average frame rate at Low settings is 160.1 FPS, while at Ultra it drops to 108 FPS, a 32.5% reduction. This scaling shows that the GPU is still doing heavy work, but the CPU is capable of feeding it enough frames to reach very high output. The CPU's 6 cores and 6 threads, with a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, are sufficient to avoid bottlenecking at this resolution, as evidenced by the triple-digit averages even at Ultra.

Moving to 1440p, the GPU begins to dominate. The Low preset averages 144.5 FPS, falling to 78.2 FPS at Ultra, a 45.9% reduction. The larger drop compared to 1080p indicates that the GPU's workload is increasing faster than the CPU's ability to keep up, but the CPU is not yet the limiting factor. The RTX 3080 Ti's 12 GB of GDDR6X memory and 384-bit bus provide ample bandwidth for the higher pixel count.

At 4K, the GPU is clearly the primary constraint. The Low preset averages 98.1 FPS, while Ultra drops to 57.1 FPS, a 41.8% reduction from Low. More telling is the comparison between 4K Ultra and 1440p Ultra: the frame rate falls from 78.2 to 57.1, a 27% decrease, while the pixel count increases by 125%. This nonlinear scaling points directly at the GPU's rendering limits, not the CPU. The CPU's performance remains consistent across resolutions, as its workload does not scale with pixel count.

The data shows a clear pattern: at 1080p, the CPU and GPU are balanced, with the CPU able to push high frame rates. At 1440p, the GPU takes over as the main driver. At 4K, the GPU is entirely responsible for the performance ceiling, and the CPU has spare capacity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded FPS values for this combo are as follows, with all figures representing average frame rates:

1920x1080:

• Low: 160.1 FPS
• Medium: 139.6 FPS
• High: 124 FPS
• Ultra: 108 FPS

The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline of roughly 10-20 FPS per step. The largest single drop is from Low to Medium, a 20.5 FPS reduction. The gap from High to Ultra is 16 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset's added effects are costly but manageable.

2560x1440:

• Low: 144.5 FPS
• Medium: 102.1 FPS
• High: 94.9 FPS
• Ultra: 78.2 FPS

The drop from Low to Medium is steep at 42.4 FPS, suggesting that medium-quality textures and lighting have a significant impact. The decline from Medium to High is smaller at 7.2 FPS, while the drop from High to Ultra is 16.7 FPS. The Ultra preset at 1440p still clears 60 FPS with 18.2 FPS of headroom.

3840x2160:

• Low: 98.1 FPS
• Medium: 71.8 FPS
• High: 61 FPS
• Ultra: 57.1 FPS

At 4K, the scaling is more pronounced. The Low to Medium drop is 26.3 FPS, and Medium to High is 10.8 FPS. The High to Ultra drop is only 3.9 FPS, but that small difference is enough to push the average below the 60 FPS threshold. The data indicates that Ultra at 4K is just barely unplayable by the database's standard, with High being the borderline playable option.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database's nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide context for what other hardware would behave similarly in this game.

For the Intel Core i5-9400, the closest alternatives based on average benchmark scores are:

• Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (avg score 2259, 0.2% higher than the i5-9400's 2254)
• Intel Core i7-10710U (avg score 2248, 0.3% lower)
• AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (avg score 2246, 0.4% lower)
• Intel Core i3-10305 (avg score 2264, 0.4% higher)

These CPUs are within 0.4% of the i5-9400's synthetic average, meaning in Control they would likely produce nearly identical frame rates at 1080p where the CPU has more influence. The Ryzen 5 PRO 1500, with similar multi-core performance, would show comparable scaling at lower resolutions. The i7-1068NG7 and i3-10305 are slightly faster on paper, but the difference is negligible in real-world gaming at higher resolutions.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, the nearest rivals are:

• AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (avg score 40870, 0.8% lower than the RTX 3080 Ti's 41187)
• NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB (avg score 41707, 1.2% higher)
• NVIDIA Tesla M40 (avg score 41897, 1.7% higher)
• NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (avg score 40377, 2% lower)

The Radeon Pro 5300 and RTX 5070 would produce slightly lower frame rates in Control, likely pushing the 4K High preset below 60 FPS. The Tesla M40 variants score higher in synthetic benchmarks, but they are compute-oriented cards without the gaming optimizations of the RTX 3080 Ti, so real-world gaming results may diverge. The RTX 5070, being 2% slower on average, would likely deliver around 59-60 FPS at 4K High, making it a borderline alternative.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo playable at 4K with max settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 57.1, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best playable setting at 4K is High, averaging 61 FPS.

Q: What is the best setting for 1440p gaming?

A: The Ultra preset is playable at 2560x1440, averaging 78.2 FPS. All four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) remain above 60 FPS at this resolution, so Ultra is the recommended choice.

Q: How much performance drops when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: At Ultra settings, the average FPS falls from 108 at 1920x1080 to 57.1 at 3840x2160, a 47.1% reduction. At High settings, it falls from 124 to 61, a 50.8% reduction.

Q: Which component limits performance in Control at 4K?

A: The GPU is the primary constraint at 3840x2160. The CPU's workload does not scale with resolution, while the GPU's rendering load increases dramatically, as shown by the 27% FPS drop from 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra despite the massive pixel count increase.

Q: Is the CPU strong enough for this game?

A: Yes. The Intel Core i5-9400 ranks at the 47th percentile among all CPUs, but in Control it allows the GPU to reach 160.1 FPS at 1080p Low. The CPU does not bottleneck the GPU until very high frame rates are achieved.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: It ranks 1041 out of 3720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the upper third of the database. The GPU's high percentile (83rd) compensates for the CPU's mid-range position (47th).