Control

Control with an Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT presents a compelling dataset for a 2019 Action Adventure title, showing a system that scales predictably across resolutions and presets. The measured frames per second indicate that this combination is capable of high refresh rate gaming at 1080p, solid 60+ performance at 1440p, and playable frame rates at 4K, with the balance between the 6-core Comet Lake processor and the RDNA 3.0 graphics card shifting as resolution increases.

Settings Recommendations

The data suggests that the High preset offers the most balanced experience across all tested resolutions. At 1920x1080, High yields an average of 110 FPS, which is a significant jump from Ultra's 96 FPS while remaining visually demanding. Moving to 2560x1440, High delivers 83 FPS, comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. Even at 3840x2160, High maintains a playable 56 FPS average.

For users prioritizing maximum visual fidelity, Ultra is viable, but the cost is steep. At 4K, Ultra drops to 49 FPS, which may introduce noticeable stutter on standard 60Hz displays. At 1440p, Ultra produces 72 FPS, which is excellent for high refresh rate monitors, but the 11 FPS gain over High at 1080p (from 96 to 110 FPS) suggests diminishing returns for the extra GPU load.

The Medium preset is a strong alternative for those seeking higher frame rates without the stark visual compromises of Low. At 1080p, Medium averages 124 FPS, with a minimum of 105 FPS and a maximum of 142 FPS, providing a consistent experience. At 1440p, Medium hits 94 FPS, and at 4K, it maintains 63 FPS with a minimum of 54 FPS, making it the only preset other than High that stays above 60 FPS at 4K.

The Low preset is strictly for maximum performance. It produces 170 FPS at 1080p, 132 FPS at 1440p, and 89 FPS at 4K. While these numbers are impressive, the visual downgrade is substantial. The data indicates that High is the sweet spot for this hardware combination, offering the best compromise between image quality and frame rate across all three resolutions.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to use with this CPU and GPU combo for a 60 FPS target?

A: For a consistent 60 FPS experience, 2560x1440 on High settings averages 83 FPS, while 3840x2160 on High averages 56 FPS. The data shows 1440p High is the most reliable choice, as 4K High dips below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How much of a performance jump is there from Ultra to Low at 1080p?

A: The difference is substantial. At 1920x1080, Ultra averages 96 FPS, while Low averages 170 FPS, representing a 74 FPS increase. This indicates that the game is highly sensitive to the preset level, likely due to the GPU load from visual effects.

Q: Does the RX 7800 XT bottleneck the i5-10400F at 1080p?

A: No, the data does not indicate a CPU bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 170 FPS, and at High it hits 110 FPS, suggesting the GPU is still the primary limiting factor. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient to feed the GPU at these frame rates.

Q: Is the RX 7800 XT capable of 4K gaming in this title?

A: Yes, but with caveats. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset averages 49 FPS, while High averages 56 FPS. For a smooth 4K experience, the Medium preset is recommended, as it averages 63 FPS with a minimum of 54 FPS.

Q: How does the i5-10400F compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163) and 0.5% higher than the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115). It is 0.3% lower than the Intel Core 7 160UL (14232).

Q: What is the frame time consistency like for the Medium preset?

A: The Medium preset shows the only recorded minimum and maximum FPS values in the dataset. At 1080p, the range is 105 to 142 FPS; at 1440p, it is 80 to 108 FPS; and at 4K, it is 54 to 73 FPS. This indicates a stable frame pacing relative to the average.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT, based on the Navi 32 chip and RDNA 3.0 architecture, is the dominant component in this configuration for Control. The GPU's 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is ample for the textures and assets in this title. The clock speeds are notable: a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2430 MHz, with a game clock of 2124 MHz, indicating the card sustains high frequencies under load.

The benchmark results for the GPU show a percentile ranking of 51 against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 11627. In comparison to its nearest rivals, the RX 7800 XT is 0.5% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11680) and 1.8% slower than the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11842), but it is 0.9% faster than the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11528). These synthetic scores suggest the card is positioned in the mid-range tier, yet the measured FPS in Control shows it punching above that weight.

The GPU's role becomes clearer when analyzing the FPS scaling. At 1080p Low, the system produces 170 FPS, which is a 77% increase over 4K Low (89 FPS). This scaling is typical of a GPU-bound scenario where resolution increases the pixel fill rate demand. The card's 96 ROPs and 233.3 GPixel/s pixel rate are directly responsible for this behavior. The 37.32 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power ensures that the game's physics and particle effects are processed efficiently, allowing the High preset to maintain 110 FPS at 1080p without issue.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system demonstrates its peak performance. The Low preset averages 170 FPS, Medium averages 124 FPS with a minimum of 105 FPS and a maximum of 142 FPS, High averages 110 FPS, and Ultra averages 96 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 74 FPS, showing a wide performance envelope.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high but begin to show the GPU's workload. Low averages 132 FPS, Medium averages 94 FPS (min 80, max 108), High averages 83 FPS, and Ultra averages 72 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 60 FPS, indicating that the resolution increase is compressing the performance differences between presets.

At 3840x2160, the system stays playable but the strain is evident. Low averages 89 FPS, Medium averages 63 FPS (min 54, max 73), High averages 56 FPS, and Ultra averages 49 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is now 40 FPS, and no preset reaches the 90 FPS mark seen at lower resolutions. The 4K Medium preset is the only one that consistently holds above 60 FPS, with a minimum of 54 FPS.

The data shows a consistent hierarchy: Low is always fastest, followed by Medium, High, and Ultra. The only preset with recorded min/max values is Medium, which provides the most detailed frame pacing information across all resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is significant and reveals the limiting component. At High settings, the average FPS goes from 110 at 1080p to 83 at 1440p (a 24.5% drop) and then to 56 at 4K (a 32.5% drop from 1440p). This steep decline indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as the pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K.

At Low settings, the scaling is similar but with higher absolute numbers: 170 FPS at 1080p, 132 FPS at 1440p (a 22.4% drop), and 89 FPS at 4K (a 32.6% drop from 1440p). The consistent percentage drops across presets suggest that the rendering resolution is the dominant factor, not the CPU's ability to prepare frames.

The CPU's role in this scaling is minimal. The i5-10400F has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with 6 cores and 12 threads. Its single-thread performance in Cinebench R23 is 1451, and multi-core is 10283. These scores indicate adequate headroom for the GPU at lower resolutions, but as the resolution increases, the GPU's rendering time grows, making it the clear limiting component. The 4K High average of 56 FPS versus the 1080p High average of 110 FPS shows a 49% performance loss, which aligns with the GPU's pixel throughput limitations rather than CPU frame generation.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Comet Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores show a percentile ranking of 68 against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14185.

In Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system achieves 170 FPS, which is a high frame rate that could stress a weaker processor. However, the i5-10400F's multi-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283) and single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1451) are sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the RX 7800 XT at these settings.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks provide context. The i5-10400F is 0.2% faster than the Intel Xeon 6756E and 0.5% faster than the AMD EPYC 7552, but 0.3% slower than the Intel Core 7 160UL and 0.6% slower than the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C. These margins are negligible, indicating that the CPU's performance is consistent with its peer group.

The measured FPS data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo. At 1080p High, the system produces 110 FPS, which is a 35 FPS increase over 4K High (56 FPS). If the CPU were the bottleneck, the 1080p and 4K frame rates would be closer together. Instead, the wide gap confirms that the GPU's rendering workload scales with resolution, while the CPU maintains a steady frame production rate. The 12 threads are particularly useful for handling the game's background tasks and physics, ensuring that the GPU is never starved for data, even at the highest preset levels.