Control

Control on the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT pairing shows a system that is heavily GPU-bound at higher resolutions, while the CPU’s six cores and twelve threads provide a solid foundation for 1080p play. The measured data across three resolutions and four settings presets reveals a performance curve that drops sharply as pixel count climbs, with the gap between Low and Ultra widening from 1080p to 4K. This combo ranks 2363rd out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database, yet the frame rates at 1080p and 1440p suggest a capable experience for this action-adventure title.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies. At 1080p Low, the combo delivers 124 FPS, which falls to 94 FPS at 1440p and then to 63 FPS at 4K—a drop of 30 FPS from 1080p to 1440p and another 31 FPS from 1440p to 4K. This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor once resolution increases, as the CPU has enough headroom to feed the Radeon RX 7600 XT at lower pixel counts.

Moving through Medium settings, the same trend holds: 88 FPS at 1080p, 67 FPS at 1440p, and 45 FPS at 4K. The percentage decline from 1080p to 4K is roughly 49% at Medium, versus 49% at Low as well, showing a consistent resolution penalty regardless of preset. At High settings, the numbers are 78 FPS, 59 FPS, and 40 FPS respectively, with the 4K result dipping below the 60 FPS threshold that many players target. Ultra settings push the 4K average down to 35 FPS, which is barely playable for a game like Control that relies on fast-paced action.

The delta between Low and Ultra at each resolution is also revealing. At 1080p, the spread is 56 FPS (124 vs 68), at 1440p it is 43 FPS (94 vs 51), and at 4K it is 28 FPS (63 vs 35). This shrinking gap at higher resolutions confirms that the GPU becomes saturated, and tweaking settings yields diminishing returns—the pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth of the 16 GB GDDR6 buffer are the deciding factors, not the CPU’s 2.90 GHz base clock or 4.30 GHz boost clock.

The data suggests that 1440p is the sweet spot for this combo, as even Ultra maintains 51 FPS, while High hits 59 FPS and Medium reaches 67 FPS. At 4K, only Low settings cross the 60 FPS line, and that comes at a significant visual cost. The RX 7600 XT’s 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 128-bit bus are adequate for 1080p and 1440p, but the 22.57 TFLOPS of FP32 compute struggles to keep up with 3840x2160 pixel counts in Control’s dense environments.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo in Control?

A: Based on the measured FPS, 2560x1440 offers the best balance. At High settings, the combo averages 59 FPS, and Medium reaches 67 FPS, both close to or above the 60 FPS target. At 1920x1080, all presets exceed 68 FPS, but the visual fidelity gain from 1440p is substantial given the GPU’s headroom.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra settings?

A: The average FPS is 35, which is well below the 60 FPS standard for smooth gameplay. Even at High settings, 4K only reaches 40 FPS, meaning players would need to drop to Low (63 FPS) or Medium (45 FPS) to approach playable frame rates, and even then, Medium falls short of 60 FPS.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-10400F a bottleneck for the RX 7600 XT?

A: The data shows no evidence of CPU limitation at 1080p, where the combo hits 124 FPS on Low and 88 FPS on Medium. The CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads, along with a 12 MB shared L3 cache, are sufficient to keep the GPU fed. The CPU’s 68th percentile ranking among all processors and its 3DMark single-thread score of 688 support this interpretation.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at Medium settings?

A: The measured data includes minimum and maximum FPS for Medium presets. At 1080p, the range is 75 to 101 FPS (average 88), at 1440p it is 57 to 76 FPS (average 67), and at 4K it is 38 to 52 FPS (average 45). These ranges indicate moderate variance, with the 4K result showing a 14 FPS spread that could cause noticeable stutter.

Q: How does this combo rank against all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2363rd out of 3720 total combinations, placing it in the 63rd percentile of tested systems. This is a mid-to-low position, reflecting that while the GPU is a modern RDNA 3.0 part, the CPU is a 10th Gen Intel model that trails newer processors in multithreaded workloads.

Q: Does the 16 GB VRAM help at 4K?

A: The RX 7600 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, which is ample for Control’s textures, but the 4K results suggest memory capacity is not the limiting factor. The GPU’s 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, combined with 64 ROPs, are more likely constraints, as FPS drops consistently across all presets at 3840x2160.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F brings six cores and twelve threads from the Comet Lake architecture, built on Intel’s 14 nm process. Its base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz provide a modest single-thread performance profile, reflected in a 3DMark single-thread score of 688 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1451. In Control, this translates to sufficient processing power for the game’s physics and AI systems, which rarely saturate more than a few threads.

The CPU’s multithreaded capabilities are more robust—Cinebench R23 multicore hits 10283, and PassMark multithread reaches 12115—but the game’s measured FPS shows that resolution scaling has a far larger impact than CPU load. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 124 FPS, which suggests the CPU can drive frame rates well above 100 in lighter scenes. However, when the resolution rises to 4K, the CPU’s role diminishes as the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck.

The 10400F’s memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s via dual-channel DDR4 is adequate for this workload, and its PCIe Gen 3, 16-lane interface matches the RX 7600 XT’s PCIe 4.0 x8 bus without causing a measurable penalty in the data. The CPU’s 65W TDP and lack of integrated graphics mean it relies entirely on the discrete GPU, which is the correct configuration for gaming. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 4748 and 4-thread score of 2560 indicate that scaling between 4 and 16 threads is efficient, but Control’s engine appears to favor fewer, faster cores, which is why the single-thread score of 688 matters more for frame pacing.

Compared to the CPU’s nearest rivals in the database, the 10400F sits within a narrow band: the Intel Xeon 6756E is 0.2% ahead, the Intel Core 7 160UL is 0.3% behind, and the AMD EPYC 7552 is 0.5% ahead. This clustering shows that the 10400F is a mid-pack performer in synthetic benchmarks, but in Control, the measured FPS at 1080p High (78 FPS) suggests it is not holding back the GPU. The CPU’s 68th percentile ranking versus all processors further confirms that it is a competent, if not exceptional, gaming chip for this title.

How This Combo Ranks

With a rank of 2363 out of 3720 tested combos, this pairing sits in the lower 36% of the database. That ranking places it well behind top-tier configurations, but the context matters: Control is a demanding game, and the combo’s absolute frame rates at 1440p are respectable. The GPU’s own benchmark percentile is 60th among all GPUs, with an average score of 17083, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, which is 0.7% ahead, and the GTX 690, which is 0.3% behind. This indicates the RX 7600 XT is a solid mid-range card, but not a high-end one.

The CPU’s rank is not directly comparable to the combo rank, but the 10400F’s 68th percentile suggests it is less of a liability than the GPU’s 60th percentile. In practical terms, this means the combo’s 2363rd position is driven more by the GPU’s limitations at higher resolutions than by CPU deficiencies. The measured FPS data supports this: at 1080p, the combo outperforms many lower-ranked configurations, but at 4K, it falls into the range of systems with older or weaker GPUs.

The combo rank of 2363 also implies that roughly 1360 tested combinations perform better, which includes systems with faster CPUs and more powerful GPUs. However, the rank does not account for price or efficiency, and the data shows that for a mid-range pairing, the FPS at 1440p High (59 FPS) is within striking distance of 60 FPS, making it a viable choice for players willing to adjust settings. The rank is a relative measure, and the absolute numbers in the measured FPS table are more useful for setting expectations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 124 FPS, which is well above any refresh rate target. Medium settings average 88 FPS, with a minimum of 75 FPS and a maximum of 101 FPS, indicating smooth frame pacing. High settings average 78 FPS, and Ultra averages 68 FPS, meaning even the highest preset clears the 60 FPS mark. This resolution is clearly GPU-bound, but the RX 7600 XT has enough headroom to handle Control’s visual effects without dropping below playable thresholds.

At 2560x1440, performance scales down predictably. Low settings average 94 FPS, still excellent for competitive play. Medium averages 67 FPS, with a min of 57 FPS and a max of 76 FPS, which introduces occasional dips below 60 FPS. High averages 59 FPS, just shy of the 60 FPS target, while Ultra averages 51 FPS. The 1440p data shows that players should stick to Medium or High for a consistent experience, as Ultra’s 51 FPS average may feel sluggish during intense combat scenes.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 63 FPS, which is the only preset to cross the 60 FPS line. Medium averages 45 FPS, with a min of 38 FPS and a max of 52 FPS, indicating significant frame drops. High averages 40 FPS, and Ultra averages 35 FPS. The 4K results make it clear that this combo is not designed for native 4K gaming in Control, and players would need to rely on upscaling or reduced settings to achieve smoother performance.

The Medium preset’s min-max data across all resolutions provides the only frame time variability metrics in the pack. At 1080p, the 26 FPS spread (75 to 101) is moderate, while at 1440p, the 19 FPS spread (57 to 76) is tighter, and at 4K, the 14 FPS spread (38 to 52) is the narrowest in absolute terms but the most impactful relative to the average. These numbers suggest that the GPU’s workload becomes more consistent at higher resolutions, but the lower averages make any dip more noticeable.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting 60 FPS, the 1080p resolution is the only one where every preset meets or exceeds that threshold. Ultra at 1080p averages 68 FPS, so there is no need to compromise on visual quality. At 1440p, the choice narrows: Medium averages 67 FPS and is the recommended preset, as it provides a 60+ FPS experience with better visuals than Low. High at 1440p sits at 59 FPS, which is close but may dip below 60 in demanding scenes, while Ultra at 51 FPS is best avoided for competitive play.

At 4K, the data suggests that only Low settings (63 FPS) offer a smooth experience, but that comes with significant visual downgrades. Medium at 4K averages 45 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target and may be acceptable for slower-paced exploration but not for combat. High and Ultra at 4K are not recommended, as their 40 FPS and 35 FPS averages respectively will likely cause noticeable stutter.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is 1440p Medium, which balances the 67 FPS average with a min of 57 FPS, keeping the experience mostly smooth. For players with 1080p monitors, Ultra at 68 FPS is the clear choice, as it delivers the full visual experience without sacrificing frame rate. For those with 1440p displays, Medium is the sweet spot, while 4K users should accept Low settings or consider lowering resolution to 1440p for a better experience. The data does not include ray tracing or DLSS/FSR options, so these recommendations are based solely on the native rendering results.