Control

Control with the Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B390 combination delivers playable frame rates only at 1080p with reduced settings, as the data shows a system heavily constrained by its graphics solution. The measured results place this combo in the 2551st position out of 2888 tested combinations, putting it in the bottom 12% of all configurations. This pairing of a 6-core, 12-thread Comet Lake processor with an integrated-class Arc GPU produces a fundamentally unbalanced experience in this 2019 action-adventure title, where the GPU becomes the definitive bottleneck at every resolution and setting level tested.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-10400F brings a 6-core, 12-thread configuration based on the Comet Lake architecture, running on a 14 nm process node. Its base clock of 2.90 GHz can boost up to 4.30 GHz, and it accesses 12 MB of shared L3 cache alongside 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The processor supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth, and it connects via PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. In synthetic testing, the chip produces a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283 and a single-core score of 1451, with Geekbench results of 6257 multi-core and 1420 single-core. These numbers place the CPU at the 68th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 14185.

The processor's nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark performance are the Intel Xeon 6756E (0.2% ahead), Intel Core 7 160UL (0.3% behind), AMD EPYC 7552 (0.5% ahead), and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.6% behind). This clustering indicates the i5-10400F sits in a tightly contested performance band, with deltas under 1% separating it from four distinct competitors. For a game like Control, which benefits from strong single-thread performance for game logic and physics, the CPU's 4.30 GHz boost clock and 3dmark single-thread score of 688 provide adequate headroom. The multi-threaded capability, demonstrated by 3dmark 16-thread score of 4748 and max-thread score of 4735, ensures the 12 threads can handle background tasks without starving the game's primary threads.

However, the benchmark data from Control reveals that the CPU is rarely the limiting factor in this configuration. At 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 65 FPS average, which is the highest measured result across all resolutions and settings. The drop from 1080p Low to 1080p Ultra (36 FPS) represents a 45% performance loss, which is far larger than what CPU-bound behavior would exhibit. The CPU's capabilities, including a PassMark single-thread score of 2541 and multi-thread score of 12115, are sufficient to feed the GPU at lower resolutions, but the Arc B390's compute limitations cap performance. The data suggests that even at the lowest settings, the GPU is already operating near its maximum throughput for this title, and the CPU's role is to provide consistent frame pacing rather than to push higher ceilings. The 3dmark 4-thread score of 2560 and 8-thread score of 3929 indicate the processor can handle the thread counts Control typically utilizes, but the measured FPS deltas between settings at each resolution are attributable almost entirely to GPU workload scaling.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best average frame rate this combo achieves in Control, and at what settings?

A: The highest measured average is 65 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration in the measured data that crosses the 60 FPS threshold, and it does so by a narrow margin of 5 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3dmark Steel Nomad DX12, which places it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1.5% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5% ahead), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (2.7% ahead). All four rivals score within 2.7% of the Arc B390, indicating a cluster of very low-end graphics performance.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at 1440p Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the combo averages 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. This 10 FPS spread between min and max indicates relatively stable frame pacing, though the average itself is below the 40 FPS threshold that many players consider minimum acceptable for action games.

Q: Does the CPU hold back the GPU at any resolution in this game?

A: No. The data shows that FPS scales consistently with resolution and settings in a pattern typical of GPU-bound workloads. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 65 FPS, but at 4K Low it drops to 33 FPS — a 49% reduction. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the 4K result would be much closer to the 1080p result, since resolution increases would not affect CPU load proportionally.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations for Control?

A: The combination ranks 2551st out of 2888 total tested combos, placing it in the bottom 11.7% of all configurations. This rank reflects the GPU's low percentile standing (9th among all GPUs) more than the CPU's mid-range position (68th percentile among all CPUs).

Q: What is the difference between the Low and Ultra settings at 1080p in terms of average FPS?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 65 FPS average, while Ultra settings produce 36 FPS average. This represents a 29 FPS or 44.6% drop when moving from Low to Ultra, with Medium at 46 FPS and High at 41 FPS filling the gap.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions reveals a textbook GPU-bound scaling pattern. At Low settings, the combo delivers 65 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 15 FPS (23.1% reduction), and from 1440p to 4K is 17 FPS (34.0% reduction), with the total drop from 1080p to 4K being 32 FPS (49.2% reduction). This nearly halving of performance when pixel count increases roughly 4.3 times indicates the GPU is processing pixels at its maximum rate, and additional pixel workload translates directly to lower FPS.

At Medium settings, the pattern continues: 46 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 24 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 11 FPS (23.9%), and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 11 FPS (31.4%). The consistency of these percentage reductions across settings — roughly 23-24% for the first resolution step and 31-34% for the second — confirms that the GPU's shading units and ROPs are the limiting resource. The Intel Arc B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s. These specifications, combined with system-shared memory and system-dependent bandwidth, mean that higher resolutions require more memory bandwidth and more pixel throughput, both of which are severely constrained.

The High settings results further corroborate this analysis: 41 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 10 FPS (24.4%), and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 10 FPS (32.3%). Even at Ultra settings, where the combo only manages 36 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K, the scaling pattern holds with a 25.0% drop for the first step and 33.3% for the second. The fact that no resolution/settings combination shows a plateau or flattening of FPS as resolution increases is definitive evidence that the CPU is never the bottleneck. If the i5-10400F were limiting performance, we would expect to see similar FPS at 1080p and 1440p Low settings, since the CPU workload would be nearly identical. Instead, the consistent 23-25% and 31-34% reductions across every settings tier point exclusively to the Arc B390's fill rate and memory constraints.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 3840x2160, the combo produces its lowest performance tier. Ultra settings deliver an average of 18 FPS with no min/max recorded. High settings improve to 21 FPS average. Medium settings produce 24 FPS average, with a recorded minimum of 20 FPS and maximum of 27 FPS. Low settings yield 33 FPS average, which is the only 4K result above 30 FPS. The spread from 18 FPS at Ultra to 33 FPS at Low represents a 15 FPS or 83.3% improvement when reducing graphics quality, but even the best 4K result is below the 40 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the results show a moderate improvement across all settings. Ultra settings average 27 FPS. High settings average 31 FPS. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and maximum of 40 FPS. Low settings reach 50 FPS average. This resolution provides the most balanced experience, with Low settings crossing into playable territory and Medium settings offering a consistent 30-40 FPS range. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 23 FPS (85.2% improvement from Ultra to Low), which is slightly larger than the 4K gap in absolute terms but similar in percentage.

At 1920x1080, the combo reaches its peak performance. Low settings produce 65 FPS average, which is the only result above 60 FPS in the entire dataset. Medium settings yield 46 FPS average, with a minimum of 40 FPS and maximum of 53 FPS. High settings drop to 41 FPS average. Ultra settings produce 36 FPS average. The progression from Ultra to Low at 1080p shows a steady climb: 36 to 41 to 46 to 65 FPS, with the largest single step occurring between Medium and Low (19 FPS or 41.3% improvement). This suggests that Low settings remove a significant GPU workload component, likely related to volumetric lighting or post-processing effects that Control is known for, and it is the only settings tier where the i5-10400F's 4.30 GHz boost clock can push the frame rate closer to what the CPU can theoretically support.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo rank of 2551 out of 2888 total tested combinations places this system in the bottom 11.7% of all configurations tested in Control. This ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU's percentile standing of 9th among all GPUs, which reflects its 3dmark Steel Nomad score of 1482. The GPU's nearest rivals — GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710 — are all legacy or entry-level parts, and the Arc B390's 1.3-2.7% deltas against them confirm it operates in the same performance class. In contrast, the CPU's 68th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 14185 are respectable, with nearest rivals like the Xeon 6756E and EPYC 7552 showing that the i5-10400F holds its own in aggregate compute.

The disparity between the CPU's 68th percentile and the GPU's 9th percentile creates a severe bottleneck that is evident in the measured FPS. If the combo ranked according to its CPU alone, it would likely fall in the top third of configurations, but the GPU drags the overall rank down to near the bottom. The 2888 total combos represent a wide range of hardware pairings, and a rank of 2551 means that only 337 configurations perform worse. This places the combo in the same performance neighborhood as systems using decade-old discrete GPUs, based on the rival comparisons. The data suggests that for Control specifically, the Arc B390's 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 24 ROPs are insufficient for the game's rendering demands at modern resolutions, and the integrated-class GPU design with system-shared memory cannot overcome these limitations regardless of the CPU's capabilities.

The ranking also implies that the i5-10400F's 6-core, 12-thread configuration and 12 MB L3 cache are not the factors holding back performance. The CPU's 3dmark 2-thread score of 1350 and 4-thread score of 2560 are adequate for Control's threading model, and the PassMark multi-thread score of 12115 shows headroom for additional workloads. The bottleneck is conclusively the GPU, and any improvement in ranking would require a more capable graphics solution rather than a CPU upgrade.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

For 1080p, the Low preset at 65 FPS average is the only configuration that achieves smooth, responsive gameplay above 60 FPS. This is the recommended settings tier for players who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. Medium settings at 46 FPS average provide a playable experience with a minimum of 40 FPS, which maintains reasonable consistency, and this is the best balance between visual quality and performance at this resolution. High settings at 41 FPS and Ultra at 36 FPS both fall into the marginal range where action sequences in Control may feel sluggish, so they are not recommended for standard play.

At 1440p, Low settings at 50 FPS average are the clear recommendation for playable performance, though the frame rate is below the 60 FPS ideal. Medium settings at 35 FPS average, with a 30 FPS minimum, sit at the edge of playability and may be acceptable for less demanding scenes but risk noticeable stutter during combat. High settings at 31 FPS and Ultra at 27 FPS are both below the 30 FPS threshold and are not recommended for anything other than screenshot purposes. The 1440p Medium result is the only non-Low configuration in the entire dataset that maintains a minimum FPS at or above 30, making it a fallback option if visual quality is essential.

At 4K, no settings tier produces a truly playable experience. Low settings at 33 FPS average is the only result above 30 FPS, but it lacks min/max data to confirm consistency. Medium settings at 24 FPS average with a 20 FPS minimum will exhibit visible frame drops during gameplay. High settings at 21 FPS and Ultra at 18 FPS are effectively unplayable. For this resolution, the data indicates that the combo is not viable for Control, and users should either drop to 1440p or 1080p, or accept that the experience will be a slideshow. The overall recommendation across all resolutions is to use Low settings for 1080p and 1440p, with Medium at 1080p as a secondary option for those who want improved visuals while staying above 40 FPS average.