Control

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured frames per second data for Control with the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER shows a clear, predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases. At 1080p High settings, the combo averages 57 FPS. Moving to 1440p High drops that to 43 FPS, a 24.6% reduction. At 4K High, the average falls to 29 FPS, which is roughly half of the 1080p figure. This steep decline is the signature of a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions, where the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are stretched thin. The 4K Ultra preset bottoms out at 25 FPS, confirming the GPU is the primary constraint.

The pattern holds across all settings. At Low, 1080p delivers 91 FPS, 1440p drops to 69 FPS, and 4K manages 46 FPS. The gap between Low and High at each resolution is telling: at 1080p, the difference is 34 FPS (91 vs 57), while at 4K it narrows to 17 FPS (46 vs 29). This compression of performance headroom at higher resolutions indicates that the CPU is not the bottleneck—the Ryzen 5 8400F's six cores and twelve threads are more than adequate to feed the GPU at 1080p, but the GPU's shading units (1408) and texture mapping units (88) simply cannot keep up as pixel counts rise.

Notably, the Medium preset at 4K shows a minimum of 28 FPS and a maximum of 38 FPS, a narrow 10 FPS window. That tight frame pacing suggests the GPU is operating at its sustained limit rather than hitting intermittent spikes. The data does not include min or max values for most rows, but where present, the spread is small—for example, 1080p Medium spans 55 to 74 FPS, a 19 FPS range. This consistency reinforces the conclusion: the GTX 1660 SUPER is the limiting component in this pairing, and resolution scaling behaves exactly as expected for a mid-range Turing architecture card.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database's measured results for Control, this specific combination—AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER—ranks 3176 out of 3720 tested combos. That places it in the 14.6th percentile overall, meaning roughly 85% of the tested CPU-GPU pairings achieve higher average frame rates in this game. This is not a surprising position given the GPU's age and market segment; the GTX 1660 SUPER launched in 2019 and is now end-of-life, while the CPU is a 2024 release.

The ranking context matters more when viewed against the individual component percentiles. The Ryzen 5 8400F sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs in general benchmark scores, with an average benchmark score of 25005. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (deltaPct 0.2), Intel Core i7-11850H (deltaPct 0.3), and Intel Core i7-13620H (deltaPct 0.4), all within a fraction of a percent. The GPU, by contrast, is at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 12986, and its nearest rivals—NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (deltaPct 0.4), AMD Radeon RX 580 (deltaPct 0.4), and AMD Radeon 740M (deltaPct 0.9)—are similarly clustered. This delta between CPU and GPU percentiles (77 vs 53) is the crux: the processor is comfortably above average, while the graphics card is merely middling, and in Control's GPU-heavy rendering, the weaker component drags the combo's rank down.

The combo rank of 3176/3720 is not a verdict on the CPU, which is clearly capable. It is a statement about the pairing's overall balance. A stronger GPU would lift the rank substantially, as the CPU has headroom—its 3DMark 16-thread score of 6091 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851 indicate it can drive far more demanding graphics hardware. For this specific configuration, the rank reflects the GPU's ceiling, not the CPU's.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a six-core, twelve-thread processor built on the Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Phoenix) using a 4 nm process from TSMC. Its base clock is 4.20 GHz, boosting to 4.70 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The CPU's benchmark results are strong for its class: 3DMark single-thread score of 951, 2-thread score of 1874, 4-thread score of 3563, 8-thread score of 5275, and max-thread score of 6165. Cinebench R23 scores are 2943 single-core and 20851 multi-core. These numbers place it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 25005 is within 0.4% of the AMD EPYC 9474F, a far more expensive server chip.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls, physics, and game logic. Control is an action-adventure title that uses heavy particle effects and destructible environments, which can tax the CPU, but this pairing shows no evidence of CPU limitation. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 91 FPS, and the frame rate scales down smoothly as resolution increases—a behavior that would not occur if the CPU were the bottleneck. If the Ryzen 5 8400F were struggling, we would expect to see similar FPS numbers across all resolutions at a given setting, but that is not the case. The 1080p Low to 4K Low drop of 45 FPS (91 to 46) is entirely attributable to the GPU.

The CPU's 16 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB L2 per core are sufficient for Control's streaming and AI workloads. The processor also has no integrated graphics, so all rendering falls to the GTX 1660 SUPER—a configuration that is appropriate for a desktop gaming build. The 8400F's 4 nm process and 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die indicate a modern, efficient design that runs cool enough for a stock cooler, though the data does not specify cooling. Its 4.70 GHz boost clock gives it strong single-thread performance, which is relevant for Control's main-thread-heavy game logic. The 3DMark 2-thread score of 1874 and single-thread score of 951 confirm that lightly threaded workloads are well handled.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). All figures are average FPS unless otherwise noted.

1920x1080:

• Low: 91 FPS
• Medium: 64 FPS (min 55, max 74)
• High: 57 FPS
• Ultra: 50 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: 69 FPS
• Medium: 49 FPS (min 41, max 56)
• High: 43 FPS
• Ultra: 38 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: 46 FPS
• Medium: 33 FPS (min 28, max 38)
• High: 29 FPS
• Ultra: 25 FPS

The 1080p data shows that Low settings are eminently playable at 91 FPS, while Medium at 64 FPS is a solid choice for a 60 Hz display. High drops to 57 FPS, still acceptable for many, but Ultra at 50 FPS begins to feel less fluid. At 1440p, only Low (69 FPS) and Medium (49 FPS) approach playable territory; High at 43 FPS and Ultra at 38 FPS are borderline. At 4K, every preset fails to hit 60 FPS, with the best case being Low at 46 FPS and the worst being Ultra at 25 FPS. The Medium preset's min FPS at 4K (28) is below the 30 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for playability.

The delta between Low and Ultra at each resolution is instructive: 1080p has a 41 FPS spread (91 to 50), 1440p has a 31 FPS spread (69 to 38), and 4K has a 21 FPS spread (46 to 25). At higher resolutions, the GPU is so saturated that even dropping to Low settings cannot restore high frame rates—the pixel fill rate (85.68 GPixel/s) and texture fill rate (157.1 GTexel/s) are the hard limits. The GTX 1660 SUPER's 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is simply not enough for 4K gaming in a demanding title like Control.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but only at 1080p with Low settings (91 FPS) or Medium settings (64 FPS). At 1440p, Low hits 69 FPS but Medium drops to 49 FPS. No 4K preset reaches 60 FPS; the best is Low at 46 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in Control?

A: The GPU is the bottleneck at all resolutions above 1080p Low. The CPU's 77th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 53rd percentile, combined with the smooth FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K, indicates the GTX 1660 SUPER limits performance. The Ryzen 5 8400F has ample headroom.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p gaming?

A: Low at 69 FPS is the only 1440p preset that consistently exceeds 60 FPS. Medium at 49 FPS is playable but not smooth enough for fast-paced action. High (43 FPS) and Ultra (38 FPS) are below 45 FPS and may feel stuttery.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals in raw GPU benchmarks?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 12986, placing it at the 53rd percentile. Its closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 580 (deltaPct 0.4) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (deltaPct 0.4). The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 is slightly faster (deltaPct -0.7), while the AMD Radeon 740M is slower (deltaPct 0.9).

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 8400F a strong CPU for gaming?

A: Yes. It ranks in the 77th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 25005. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, is only 0.2% faster. The 8400F's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851 and single-core score of 2943 show it can handle demanding titles without bottlenecking modern GPUs.

Q: Does the game run better at 4K with Low settings versus 1080p with Ultra?

A: No. 4K Low (46 FPS) is slower than 1080p Ultra (50 FPS). The 4K resolution forces the GPU to render four times the pixels of 1080p, and the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit bus are insufficient for 4K in Control. For the best visual quality per frame rate, 1080p Ultra is superior.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data supports a clear hierarchy of choices depending on the target display. For a 1080p 60 Hz monitor, the Medium preset is the sweet spot: 64 FPS average with a minimum of 55 FPS, which ensures no frame drops below the refresh rate. High at 57 FPS is also viable, but the margin to 60 FPS is thin, and the 7 FPS difference between Medium and High is not worth the risk of stutter. Ultra at 50 FPS is only recommended for players who prioritize visual fidelity over smoothness and can tolerate sub-60 performance.

For 1440p, the options are more constrained. Low at 69 FPS is the only preset that stays above 60 FPS, but it sacrifices most of the game's visual effects—Control's atmosphere relies heavily on shadows, reflections, and particles, which are heavily reduced at Low. Medium at 49 FPS is a better balance of visual quality and playability for single-player action, where 50 FPS is acceptable. High (43 FPS) and Ultra (38 FPS) are not recommended for 1440p, as they dip below the 45 FPS threshold where most players notice judder.

At 4K, no preset is fully playable. The highest average is Low at 46 FPS, which is below 60 FPS and will feel sluggish in combat. Medium at 33 FPS is the minimum for a cinematic experience but is not suitable for action sequences. The data suggests that 4K is not a viable target for this combo in Control—players should either drop to 1440p or upgrade the GPU. The GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB VRAM is also a concern at 4K, as textures may exceed capacity in Control's large environments.

The best overall experience, balancing frame rate and visual quality, is 1080p Medium. It delivers 64 FPS average and stays above 55 FPS in the measured minimum, which is comfortable for most displays. If the player has a 144 Hz monitor, 1080p Low at 91 FPS provides the highest frame rate available from this combo, albeit with reduced graphical fidelity. For users with a 1440p 60 Hz panel, the choice is between Low (69 FPS) for smoothness and Medium (49 FPS) for visuals—there is no preset that achieves both. Given Control's action-heavy gameplay, prioritizing frame rate with Low at 1440p is the safer recommendation, as the game's fast-paced combat benefits from consistent 60+ FPS rather than higher detail at lower rates.