Control

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the Intel Arc B580 presents a compelling mid-range configuration for Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title that remains demanding at higher resolutions. The measured data reveals a system that is generally capable of delivering smooth gameplay at 1080p, but which encounters significant performance scaling challenges as resolution increases. The benchmark results indicate that the Arc B580’s graphical horsepower becomes the primary limiting factor at 1440p and 4K, while the 6-core processor appears to provide sufficient headroom for this title. The following analysis breaks down the measured FPS data to understand the relationship between resolution, settings, and component utilization.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a steep and consistent performance decline as resolution scales from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 70.2 FPS at 1080p to 55.7 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 14.5 FPS, and then falls further to 39.1 FPS at 4K, representing a cumulative drop of 31.1 FPS from the 1080p baseline. This pattern is consistent across all settings presets, indicating that the rendering load increases dramatically with pixel count.

The scaling behavior suggests that the Intel Arc B580 is the dominant limiting component at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the system achieves a comfortable 70.2 FPS on High, suggesting the CPU can keep the GPU fed with work. However, the transition to 4K shows a much sharper relative decline: at Ultra settings, the frame rate falls from 63.3 FPS at 1080p to 49.3 FPS at 1440p, and then plummets to 30.4 FPS at 4K. This 32.9 FPS drop from 1080p to 4K at Ultra represents a 52% reduction in performance, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

Conversely, the scaling from Low to Ultra settings at each resolution reveals the GPU’s workload sensitivity. At 1080p, the spread between Low (114.1 FPS) and Ultra (63.3 FPS) is a substantial 50.8 FPS, while at 4K, this spread narrows to 29.8 FPS (60.2 FPS vs 30.4 FPS). The narrowing spread at higher resolutions indicates that pixel fill rate becomes the bottleneck, diminishing the impact of settings-based effects. The data implies that for 4K gameplay, the Arc B580 is overwhelmed by the pixel count, regardless of the quality preset chosen.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B580’s specifications play a critical role in explaining the observed performance. The GPU features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 456.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is ample for Control’s textures and assets, even at 4K, which suggests that memory capacity is not a bottleneck. The B580’s boost clock is listed at 2670 MHz, and its shading units number 2560, with 160 TMUs and 80 ROPs. The pixel rate of 213.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 427.2 GTexel/s are key metrics for understanding fill-rate limitations.

The measured FPS data aligns with the GPU’s raw compute capabilities. At 4K Ultra, the system only manages 30.4 FPS, which is below the generally accepted threshold for smooth gameplay. The FP32 performance of 13.67 TFLOPS appears insufficient for the combined pixel and texture load of Control at this extreme resolution. In contrast, the 1080p results show the B580 can leverage its bandwidth effectively, with the 114.1 FPS at Low settings indicating that the GPU is not starved for data.

The Arc B580’s performance relative to its peers is noteworthy. Its average benchmark score of 23021 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060, which scores 23181, a delta of -0.7%. This close proximity in synthetic benchmarks does not translate to a fixed in-game delta, but it contextualizes the B580’s position. The GPU’s percentile rank of 66 versus all GPUs indicates it sits in the upper-midrange tier. The 12 GB VRAM buffer allows the card to handle complex scenes without texture swapping, but the data shows that the core compute throughput is the limiting factor when resolution demands increase.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on the optimal settings for different resolutions. For 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 70.2 FPS, which is smooth for most players. However, the Low preset achieves 114.1 FPS, suggesting that competitive or high-refresh-rate players might prefer it. The Medium preset at 79.6 FPS offers a balanced compromise between visual fidelity and performance. The Ultra preset at 63.3 FPS remains playable, but the marginal visual gains over High may not justify the 6.9 FPS performance cost.

At 2560x1440, the High preset yields 55.7 FPS, which is slightly below the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 62.8 FPS is the recommended choice for maintaining a smooth experience, as it stays above 60 FPS while offering better visuals than Low (83.8 FPS). The Ultra preset at 49.3 FPS is not ideal for fast-paced action, given the sub-50 FPS average. For 3840x2160, the data is less forgiving. The Low preset at 60.2 FPS is the only option that reaches the 60 FPS threshold, while High (39.1 FPS), Medium (43.3 FPS), and Ultra (30.4 FPS) all fall short of smooth gameplay standards.

The data suggests that the High preset is the "sweet spot" for 1080p, balancing the 70.2 FPS result with presumably better visual quality than Medium (79.6 FPS). For 1440p, dropping to Medium is necessary to maintain a 60 FPS target, while 4K requires the Low preset for playability. The performance gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 29.8 FPS, which underscores the importance of settings management for this combination.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the most comfortable resolution, with all settings presets exceeding 63 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low and Medium settings stay above 60 FPS, while 4K requires Low settings to reach 60.2 FPS.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: The average frame rate drops from 70.2 FPS at 1080p to 39.1 FPS at 4K, a reduction of 31.1 FPS. This represents a 44% performance decline.

*Q: Is the 12 GB VRAM of the Arc B580 sufficient for Control?*

A: The measured data indicates that the GPU’s memory bandwidth of 456.0 GB/s is not the primary constraint, as the frame rate drops are consistent with compute-bound scaling. The 12 GB capacity is likely sufficient, but the core performance limits results at higher resolutions.

Q: How does the Arc B580 compare to the RTX 4060 in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Arc B580’s average benchmark score is 23021, while the RTX 4060 scores 23181. This yields a deltaPct of -0.7%, indicating near-identical average performance in the aggregate benchmarks.

Q: What settings preset provides the highest frame rate at 1440p?

A: The Low preset provides the highest average FPS at 83.8, followed by Medium at 62.8 FPS. For a better visual experience, the Medium preset is the highest quality option that stays above 60 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at 1080p?

A: The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 114.1 FPS, which suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at high frame rates. The GPU appears to be the limiting factor when settings increase, as the frame rate drops significantly with higher presets.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B580 ranks 1272 out of 1636 tested combos for Control. This places the configuration in the lower-middle quartile of all possible pairings, which is surprising given the individual component scores. The GPU’s percentile rank of 66 and the CPU’s percentile rank of 73 suggest that both components are above average individually, yet their combined in-game performance is not exceptional for this title.

The rank implies that many other CPU/GPU combinations achieve higher frame rates in Control. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the AMD EPYC 7552, show a deltaPct of 0.4%, meaning the i5-10400F scores slightly lower in average benchmarks. The GPU’s performance is virtually tied with the RTX 4060, yet the overall combo rank suggests that Control may be particularly sensitive to the specific architectural characteristics of these components. The 1272 rank indicates that while the system is fully playable, it does not excel relative to the broader database of tested hardware, likely due to the GPU’s limitations at higher resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Comet Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth provide a solid foundation for gaming. The CPU’s benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 10297 and a single-core score of 1453, indicate a capable mid-range processor.

In the context of Control, the CPU’s role appears to be secondary to the GPU. The 3DMark scores show a scaling from 1350 (2 threads) to 4748 (16 threads), suggesting that the processor can handle multi-threaded workloads. However, the game’s performance scaling with resolution points to the GPU as the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system hits 114.1 FPS, which is a high frame rate that requires adequate CPU throughput. The single-thread score of 688 in 3DMark and 2541 in Passmark single-thread indicate that the i5-10400F can process game logic and draw calls efficiently.

The data does not show a CPU-related performance cliff at any resolution, as frame rates decline smoothly with increasing resolution. This suggests that the i5-10400F provides sufficient headroom for the Arc B580, and that upgrading the CPU would not yield significant gains in this specific game. The processor’s 65W TDP and 14nm process node are older, but its performance is adequate to avoid bottlenecking the GPU at the measured settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS dataset for Control with the Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B580 is as follows:

At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 114.1 FPS. The Medium preset reduces this to 79.6 FPS, a drop of 34.5 FPS. The High preset yields 70.2 FPS, which is 9.4 FPS lower than Medium. The Ultra preset delivers 63.3 FPS, representing a further 6.9 FPS decline from High. The total spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 50.8 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 83.8 FPS, which is 30.3 FPS lower than the 1080p Low result. Medium at 1440p achieves 62.8 FPS, a 16.8 FPS reduction from Low. High drops to 55.7 FPS, a 7.1 FPS decrease from Medium. Ultra at 1440p averages 49.3 FPS, which is 6.4 FPS lower than High. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows an average reduction of 20.1 FPS across all settings.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset is the only one that stays near playable levels, with an average of 60.2 FPS. Medium averages 43.3 FPS, a significant 16.9 FPS drop from Low. High averages 39.1 FPS, which is 4.2 FPS lower than Medium. Ultra averages 30.4 FPS, the lowest result in the dataset, representing a 8.7 FPS drop from High. The 4K results show that the GPU’s performance is severely constrained, with even the Low preset barely maintaining 60 FPS. The data reveals a clear hierarchy: 1080p is fully playable at all settings, 1440p is playable up to Medium, and 4K is only viable at Low settings.