Control

Control, Remedy’s 2019 action-adventure, presents a severe challenge for the Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the Intel Arc B370. The benchmark data is unambiguous: this combination ranks 2657th out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 8% of all systems, and the measured frame rates confirm a hardware pairing that is fundamentally mismatched for this title at playable settings. The Arc B370, with its integrated-graphics-class design, is the primary bottleneck, and the data shows that even the i5-10400F's six cores cannot compensate for the GPU's limitations in DirectX 12 workloads.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a GPU that is completely saturated at every resolution. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 59 FPS. Moving to 1440p at the same settings drops the average to 45 FPS, a 24% reduction. At 4K Low, the average plunges to 30 FPS, which is a 49% reduction from 1080p and a 33% drop from 1440p. This scaling pattern is typical of a system where the graphics processor is the limiting factor; as pixel count increases, the GPU's workload grows almost linearly, and the CPU's headroom becomes irrelevant.

The High preset tells a similar but more punishing story. The system manages 37 FPS at 1080p, but this falls to 28 FPS at 1440p (a 24% drop) and to 19 FPS at 4K (a 49% drop from 1080p). The relative performance loss from 1080p to 4K is nearly identical between Low and High presets, which strongly indicates that the bottleneck is the GPU's raw pixel throughput rather than its texture or shading capabilities. The Arc B370's specifications support this interpretation: its 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 20 ROPs are simply insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering, regardless of the quality preset.

The Ultra preset is the most demanding, with the system producing 32 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. The absolute frame rate at 4K Ultra is below the threshold for comfortable gameplay, and the scaling from 1440p to 4K represents a 32% reduction. Notably, the difference between High and Ultra at the same resolution is consistent: 5 FPS at 1080p, 3 FPS at 1440p, and 2 FPS at 4K. This small delta suggests that the Ultra preset adds visual effects that are not disproportionately expensive relative to High, but the base performance is already so low that any additional load pushes the system into unplayable territory.

The most revealing data point is the 4K Medium result, which shows an average of 21 FPS with a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 25 FPS. The narrow range between minimum and maximum (7 FPS) indicates that the GPU is running at its absolute limit, with little variation because every frame requires the maximum effort from the graphics hardware. In contrast, the 1080p Medium result shows a wider range (36 to 48 FPS), suggesting that the GPU has some headroom at lower resolutions, but the CPU is still not the limiting factor since the average remains below 60 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

The data shows a clear trade-off between visual fidelity and playability for this combo, and the recommended settings depend entirely on the target resolution. At 1080p, the Low preset is the only configuration that achieves an average FPS near the 60 FPS target, hitting 59 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p provides a 42 FPS average, which is playable but noticeably less smooth, while High (37 FPS) and Ultra (32 FPS) are increasingly choppy. For a 1080p display, Low is the best choice for a responsive experience, but the jump to Medium is substantial if the user can tolerate a 17 FPS drop.

At 1440p, the situation deteriorates. The Low preset produces a 45 FPS average, which is the only setting at this resolution that approaches acceptable playability. Medium drops to 32 FPS, High to 28 FPS, and Ultra to 25 FPS. The recommendation for 1440p is unequivocally Low, as the 13 FPS difference between Low and Medium is too large to justify the visual upgrade. The 4K resolution is effectively not viable for this combo. The best result is 30 FPS at Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS standard and at the edge of playability. All other 4K presets produce averages below 22 FPS, with Ultra at 17 FPS being a slideshow.

The Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values, and these are instructive. At 1080p Medium, the minimum of 36 FPS and maximum of 48 FPS indicate a relatively stable experience, with a 12 FPS fluctuation. At 1440p Medium, the minimum drops to 27 FPS and the maximum to 37 FPS, a 10 FPS range. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 18 FPS and the maximum is 25 FPS, a 7 FPS range. The shrinking frame time variance as resolution increases is a classic sign of a GPU that is fully utilized; there is no spare capacity to absorb workload spikes, so the frame rate becomes more consistent but also much lower.

For the best experience per the measured rows, the recommendation is 1080p Low for a fluid experience, or 1080p Medium if the user prioritizes visual quality over frame rate. At higher resolutions, the data shows that no preset provides a satisfactory experience, and users should consider lowering the resolution rather than the settings. The Ultra preset offers no benefit over High in this context, as the performance difference is minimal (2-5 FPS across all resolutions) and the frame rates are already too low to be enjoyable.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370's specifications paint a picture of a component designed for integrated graphics duty, not for discrete gaming performance. Its 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units are paired with a 25 W TDP, which is typical for an integrated graphics processor (IGP). The memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it uses the system's main memory (DDR4 in this case) rather than dedicated VRAM, and the bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent." This architecture fundamentally limits performance in a game like Control, which is known for heavy texture streaming and complex visual effects.

The GPU's clock speeds are a point of interest. The base clock is 300 MHz, but the boost clock is 2400 MHz. This is an 8x multiplier between base and boost, which indicates that the GPU relies heavily on boosting to achieve any meaningful performance. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, which are modest figures for a modern GPU. The FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS is the key metric for raw compute, but the data shows that this is insufficient for Control's demands.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark score for the Arc B370 is 1184, and this places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals in the benchmark database are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186, delta -0.2%), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190, delta -0.5%), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192, delta -0.7%). These are all legacy or low-power parts from over a decade ago, which underscores how far behind the Arc B370 is from modern gaming standards. The fact that the Arc B370 scores within 1% of these older cards means that its performance in Control is consistent with its benchmark placement.

The data shows that the GPU's DirectX 12 capabilities (12 Ultimate, 12_2) are not enough to overcome its fundamental hardware limitations. The Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6 support are present, but the raw compute power is the limiting factor. The VRAM situation is particularly problematic; with System Shared memory, the GPU competes with the CPU for memory bandwidth, and in a game like Control that can use several gigabytes of VRAM at High settings, this shared memory configuration is a severe handicap. The measured FPS at 4K High (19 FPS) and 4K Ultra (17 FPS) are direct evidence of this constraint.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings for this combo?

A: The data shows that 1080p Low is the only configuration that produces a playable average frame rate of 59 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 42 FPS, and all higher resolutions or settings result in averages below 45 FPS. For 1440p, Low is the only viable option at 45 FPS, while 4K is not recommended as the best result is 30 FPS at Low.

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

A: The benchmark results indicate the GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck. The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K is nearly linear (59 to 30 FPS at Low), which is characteristic of GPU saturation. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient for this game, but the Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS compute and System Shared memory cannot keep up.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, the Arc B370 scores 1184, which is within 1% of the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190) and ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186). This places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, showing that its performance is comparable to graphics cards from a much older era.

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

A: The data shows that at 1080p Medium, the frame rate ranges from 36 to 48 FPS (a 12 FPS spread). At 1440p Medium, the range is 27 to 37 FPS (a 10 FPS spread), and at 4K Medium, the range is 18 to 25 FPS (a 7 FPS spread). The narrowing range at higher resolutions indicates the GPU is fully utilized and cannot handle workload spikes.

Q: Can this combo handle the Ultra preset?

A: The Ultra preset produces average frame rates of 32 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. These are all below the 60 FPS target, and the 4K result is effectively unplayable. The data shows that Ultra offers no meaningful benefit over High, as the performance difference is only 2-5 FPS across all resolutions.

Q: How does this combo rank against all other tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 2657th out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 8% of all systems. This low ranking is consistent with the measured frame rates, which are below playable thresholds at most settings and resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2657 out of 2888 tested combos is a definitive statement about its performance in Control. This places it in the 92nd percentile from the bottom, meaning that 92% of all tested combinations perform better in this game. The ranking is not an outlier or an anomaly; it is directly supported by the measured FPS data. A combo that cannot achieve 60 FPS at 1080p Low (it hits 59 FPS) and drops to 17 FPS at 4K Ultra is categorically a low-performing system for this title.

The rank is particularly damning when considering the CPU. The Intel Core i5-10400F has a percentile rank of 68 against all CPUs, meaning it outperforms 68% of all processors in synthetic benchmarks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283 and single-core score of 1451 are respectable for a 10th-gen part. However, the GPU's 5th percentile ranking completely negates the CPU's capabilities. The combo's overall rank of 2657 is far closer to the GPU's percentile (5th) than the CPU's (68th), which confirms that the Arc B370 is the dominant factor in the system's poor performance.

The nearest rival combos are not listed in the data, but the GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database provide context. The Arc B370's score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad is nearly identical to the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190) and the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186). These GPUs were not designed for modern gaming at high resolutions, and the fact that the Arc B370 is in their performance class in DirectX 12 workloads explains why the combo ranks so low. The data shows that this combo is not suitable for Control at any resolution above 1080p Low, and even at that setting, it is barely playable.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F provides 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. This is a Comet Lake architecture part built on Intel's 14 nm process, and it supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU shows balanced performance: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 10283, while single-core scores 1451. Geekbench scores are 6257 multi-core and 1420 single-core. These numbers indicate a capable mid-range CPU that should not be the primary bottleneck in most games.

In Control, however, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU's limitations. The data shows that the frame rate scales almost entirely with resolution and settings, which is the signature of a GPU-bound system. At 1080p Low, the CPU can feed the GPU enough frames to reach 59 FPS, but at 4K Low, the GPU can only manage 30 FPS, even though the CPU has the same workload at both resolutions. The CPU's 12 threads are more than sufficient for Control's engine, which is designed to scale across multiple cores, but the GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS of compute is the hard limit.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s is a potential concern, especially given the GPU's System Shared memory configuration. In this setup, the GPU must access the same DDR4 memory as the CPU, and the 42.7 GB/s bandwidth is shared between the two. This can cause contention, particularly in scenes with heavy texture streaming. However, the data does not show a clear CPU-related performance ceiling; the frame rates are consistently low across all settings, which points to the GPU's raw compute and pixel throughput as the limiting factors.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the Intel Xeon 6756E (avg score 14163, delta 0.2%) and the AMD EPYC 7552 (avg score 14115, delta 0.5%), which shows that the i5-10400F is competitive with enterprise-class parts in synthetic workloads. Its 3DMark 16-thread score of 4748 and max-thread score of 4735 indicate that it can handle multi-threaded tasks effectively. In Control, the CPU's performance is adequate, but it cannot overcome the GPU's fundamental weakness. The combo's overall ranking is a direct result of the GPU's 5th percentile performance, not the CPU's 68th percentile standing.