Control

Opening

Control, Remedy’s 2019 action-adventure, remains a demanding showcase for GPU-heavy effects like ray tracing and physics-based destruction. In this analysis, we examine the measured performance of the Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 across three resolutions and four quality presets. The data shows a configuration that is firmly GPU-bound at higher resolutions, but the frame rate scaling reveals a nuanced relationship between CPU headroom and visual fidelity. The combo ranks 549th out of 1,636 tested configurations for this title, placing it in the upper third of all pairings. With the RX 9070’s 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 56 RT cores, the system has substantial raw power, yet the i5-10400F’s 6-core, 12-thread Comet Lake architecture occasionally dictates the ceiling at lower settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a predictable but steep decline as resolution increases, confirming that Control scales primarily with GPU load. At 1080p, the average frame rates range from 99.6 FPS at Ultra to 171.1 FPS at Low, indicating a system that can easily push beyond standard 60 Hz displays. Moving to 1440p, the same settings drop to 74.8 FPS and 137.6 FPS respectively, a reduction of approximately 24% and 20% from 1080p. At 4K, the curve flattens dramatically: Ultra falls to 53.2 FPS, and even Low drops to 94.5 FPS, showing a 47% performance loss for Ultra and a 45% loss for Low compared to 1080p.

This scaling pattern is classic evidence of a GPU-limited scenario at 4K. The RX 9070’s 36.13 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 644.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth are being fully saturated, while the i5-10400F’s 12 threads have ample headroom. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 71.5 FPS (171.1 vs 99.6), but at 4K that delta shrinks to 41.3 FPS (94.5 vs 53.2). The compression of frame rates at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck, as the CPU’s ability to feed frames becomes less relevant when pixel throughput dominates. Conversely, at 1080p, the gap between presets is wider, suggesting that the CPU can still keep up with lower settings but the GPU’s fill rate becomes the limiting factor as effects and resolution increase.

The data also shows that the step from Medium to High is consistently more taxing than from Low to Medium at every resolution. At 4K, Medium yields 64 FPS and High yields 59 FPS, a mere 5 FPS difference, while Low to Medium is a 30.5 FPS jump (94.5 to 64). This suggests that the Ultra preset includes effects that disproportionately impact the render pipeline, likely related to ray tracing or volumetric lighting, which stress the 56 RT cores more than the traditional shading units.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience depends heavily on the target display. For 4K users, the High preset at 59 FPS provides the closest to a 60 FPS experience without dipping below playable thresholds, though it is technically 1 FPS short of 60. Ultra at 53.2 FPS is playable but sacrifices smoothness for marginal visual gains; the data shows a 5.8 FPS penalty for that final preset step. Medium at 64 FPS is the best balance for 4K, offering 5 FPS more than High and 10.8 FPS more than Ultra, making it the recommended choice for consistent frame pacing on high-refresh 4K panels.

At 1440p, the situation improves significantly. High at 84.3 FPS is smooth, but Medium at 98.1 FPS provides an 13.8 FPS advantage that is noticeable for fast-paced combat. Ultra at 74.8 FPS remains viable for those prioritizing visual fidelity over frame rate, but the data suggests that Medium offers 23.3 FPS more than Ultra, a substantial margin that outweighs the graphical difference for most players. The Low preset at 137.6 FPS is only useful for competitive play, as the visual downgrade is severe.

For 1080p, every preset exceeds 60 FPS, making the choice purely about visual quality versus refresh rate. Ultra at 99.6 FPS is the best option for high-refresh 120 Hz displays, as it remains above the 60 FPS floor while delivering the full effect suite. High at 112.3 FPS is a safer bet for 144 Hz monitors, offering a 12.7 FPS buffer over Ultra. Medium at 131.4 FPS and Low at 171.1 FPS are progressively less visually rich but provide headroom for future driver overhead. The data indicates that the 1080p Ultra preset is the sweet spot for this CPU-GPU combo, as it leverages the RX 9070’s full capabilities without being constrained by the i5-10400F’s single-thread performance, which scores 688 in 3DMark single-thread tests.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with Ultra settings?

A: Yes, but just barely. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra is 53.2 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold but still playable. For a locked 60 FPS, you would need to drop to High (59 FPS) or Medium (64 FPS).

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-10400F a bottleneck for the RX 9070 in this game?

A: At higher resolutions, no. The data shows that 4K frame rates are nearly identical across presets in terms of GPU load, indicating the GPU is the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the 171.1 FPS result suggests the CPU can still feed frames, but the 3DMark single-thread score of 688 indicates it is not a high-end gaming CPU.

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

A: Medium at 98.1 FPS is the best balance, offering a 13.8 FPS advantage over High (84.3 FPS) and a 23.3 FPS advantage over Ultra (74.8 FPS). This provides smooth gameplay without sacrificing too much visual quality.

Q: How does the RX 9070’s VRAM affect performance in Control?

A: The 16 GB of GDDR6 memory is more than sufficient for Control at any resolution, as the game’s textures are not overly demanding. The 644.6 GB/s bandwidth ensures that the GPU can stream assets without stuttering, even at 4K Ultra.

Q: Does the CPU’s 6-core/12-thread configuration impact minimum FPS?

A: The measured data does not include min FPS values, so we cannot directly assess frame pacing. However, the 3DMark multi-thread score of 4,748 (16 threads) suggests that the CPU can handle the game’s background tasks, but the lack of min FPS data means we cannot confirm any potential stutters.

Q: Is this combo better than the average mid-range setup?

A: The combo ranks 549th out of 1,636 configurations, placing it in the 66th percentile. This is above average, but the nearest rival CPUs (like the AMD EPYC 7552 with a 0.4% score difference) show that the i5-10400F is not a top-tier processor in synthetic benchmarks.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the RX 9070 delivers exceptional results across all presets. Low settings produce 171.1 FPS, Medium 131.4 FPS, High 112.3 FPS, and Ultra 99.6 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 71.5 FPS drop, with the largest single-step penalty occurring between Medium and High (19.1 FPS). This resolution is clearly GPU-bound at Ultra, as the CPU’s 12 threads are sufficient to maintain high frame rates even with the demanding effects.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down proportionally. Low yields 137.6 FPS, Medium 98.1 FPS, High 84.3 FPS, and Ultra 74.8 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra is 62.8 FPS, slightly smaller than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is starting to become the limiting factor. The step from Medium to High is 13.8 FPS, which is a more significant relative drop than at 1080p, suggesting that the High preset’s effects are more resolution-dependent.

At 3840x2160, the system finally hits its wall. Low produces 94.5 FPS, Medium 64 FPS, High 59 FPS, and Ultra 53.2 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 41.3 FPS, and the gap between Medium and High narrows to just 5 FPS. This compression is a clear sign that the GPU’s rasterization and ray tracing resources are exhausted, as the RX 9070’s 128 ROPs and 56 RT cores are pushed to their limits. The 4K Ultra result of 53.2 FPS is only 6.8 FPS higher than the 1440p Ultra result of 74.8 FPS, showing diminishing returns as resolution increases.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 is the dominant component in this pairing, and its specifications directly explain the measured results. The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory capacity is more than adequate for Control’s assets, even at 4K Ultra, preventing any VRAM-related stutters. The GPU’s 3,584 shading units and 224 TMUs provide the raw compute power, with a boost clock of 2520 MHz and a game clock of 2070 MHz. The FP32 throughput of 36.13 TFLOPS is substantial, and the pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s ensures high fill rates at lower resolutions.

The RX 9070’s ray tracing capabilities, enabled by 56 RT cores, are particularly relevant for Control, a game known for its impressive RT reflections and shadows. The data shows that the Ultra preset, which likely enables RT effects, incurs a significant performance cost at all resolutions. At 1080p, Ultra is 12.7 FPS slower than High, and at 4K, it is 5.8 FPS slower. This suggests that the RT cores are being utilized but are not the sole bottleneck, as the GPU’s overall compute is also taxed.

The GPU’s benchmark scores reinforce its position in the market. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6,290 and Passmark G3D score of 25,381 place it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA A2, which has a -0.2% score difference, and the Quadro GV100, which is 0.3% higher. This indicates that the RX 9070 is a solid mid-to-high-end performer, well-suited for 1440p gaming and capable of 4K with adjusted settings. The i5-10400F, with a 73rd percentile ranking, complements the GPU adequately, though its 2.90 GHz base clock and 4.30 GHz boost clock are modest by modern standards. The pair’s combined performance in Control is strong, but the data clearly shows that the GPU is the star of this show.