Control

Control with the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a severely GPU-bound pairing, and the benchmark data confirms this is not a viable configuration for smooth gameplay at modern resolutions. The combination ranks 1615th out of 1636 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 2% of all systems tested for this title. The measured frame rates tell a clear story: this hardware is fundamentally outclassed by Control's demands, and users should expect a slideshow-like experience rather than playable performance.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals the GTX 1050 Ti as the overwhelming bottleneck. At Low settings, the system produces 47.6 FPS at 1920x1080, which drops to 34.4 FPS at 2560x1440, and further plummets to 21.5 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 55% reduction in performance from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, which is a massive penalty that only occurs when the GPU is completely saturated. The scaling pattern is consistent across all settings: High settings go from 29 FPS at 1080p to 23.3 FPS at 1440p and 14.7 FPS at 4K, while Ultra settings collapse from 25 FPS at 1080p to 20.6 FPS at 1440p and just 12.8 FPS at 4K.

The data indicates that resolution scaling has an outsized impact here because the GPU's rendering resources are exhausted at even the lowest quality presets. The 4K results are uniformly below 22 FPS across every settings tier, making 4K completely unusable for this title. Even at 1440p, the best result is only 34.4 FPS at Low settings, which is below the threshold for acceptable playability. The pattern strongly suggests that the GTX 1050 Ti's 4 GB of VRAM and 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth are insufficient for Control's texture and shader workloads, as the frame rate collapses proportionally with pixel count rather than showing any CPU-side limitation.

GPU Role

The GTX 1050 Ti's specifications directly explain the poor results. With 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, this is a small Pascal chip designed for 1080p esports titles, not demanding action-adventure games. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1291 MHz and a boost clock of 1392 MHz, producing a modest 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is simply inadequate for Control's high-resolution textures and complex visual effects.

The GPU's benchmark percentile of 30 versus all GPUs confirms its entry-level positioning. Its Passmark G3D score of 6340 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 place it near the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (0% delta), GeForce 940M (0.4% ahead), and AMD Radeon R7 240 (0.7% ahead). These are all low-end or mobile-class parts, and the GTX 1050 Ti's performance in Control aligns with that tier. The measured results show the GPU cannot sustain even 30 FPS at 1080p on Medium settings (31.9 FPS) or High settings (29 FPS), which would be the minimum for a playable experience. The card's 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate it was designed for low-power systems, but Control's requirements far exceed its capabilities.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1080p?

A: Technically yes, but only at Low settings, where it produces 47.6 FPS. At Medium settings it drops to 31.9 FPS, and at High settings it falls to 29 FPS. Ultra settings yield only 25 FPS, which is below the generally accepted threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the only resolution where any settings preset achieves above 30 FPS. At 2560x1440, the best result is 34.4 FPS at Low settings, but all other presets fall below 25 FPS. At 3840x2160, every preset produces less than 22 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 5316 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0% delta) and the GeForce 940M (5297, 0.4% ahead). The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5280 (0.7% behind), and the Radeon R7 M445 scores 5361 (0.8% ahead). This places it in a narrow performance band of low-end GPUs.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The benchmark data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The i5-10400F has 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10297 is far above what Control requires. The frame rate scales almost linearly with resolution, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation rather than CPU limitation.

Q: What settings preset gives the highest frame rate?

A: Low settings at 1920x1080 provides the highest measured average of 47.6 FPS. This is the only configuration that comes close to 60 FPS, though it still falls short. All other presets at any resolution produce 34.4 FPS or less.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: The combination ranks 1615th out of 1636 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 1.3% of all systems tested for Control. This is consistent with the GPU's 30th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best results. Low settings achieve 47.6 FPS average, which is the only preset to exceed 40 FPS. Medium settings produce 31.9 FPS, High settings drop to 29 FPS, and Ultra settings yield 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 22.6 FPS, showing that quality presets have a substantial impact on this resolution, but even the lowest settings fail to reach 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, performance degrades significantly. Low settings yield 34.4 FPS, Medium produces 24.7 FPS, High drops to 23.3 FPS, and Ultra manages only 20.6 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra narrows to 13.8 FPS, suggesting the GPU is becoming the limiting factor regardless of quality level. None of these results are playable for a smooth experience.

At 3840x2160, the system is effectively overwhelmed. Low settings produce 21.5 FPS, Medium yields 17.9 FPS, High drops to 14.7 FPS, and Ultra falls to 12.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is just 8.7 FPS, indicating that at 4K, the GPU is so constrained that quality settings have diminishing returns. Every 4K result is below 22 FPS, which is far below any playability threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1615 out of 1636 tested combinations places this system in the bottom 1.3% of all configurations tested for Control. This is an exceptionally poor result that reflects the GTX 1050 Ti's fundamental inadequacy for this game. The GPU's percentile of 30 against all GPUs and its average benchmark score of 5316, which is nearly identical to the GeForce 930A (5317), GeForce 940M (5297), and Radeon R7 240 (5280), confirm that this is bottom-tier hardware.

The CPU, in contrast, is a mid-range part. The i5-10400F has a percentile of 73 against all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 14168. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115, 0.4% behind), Ryzen 3 7320C (14277, 0.8% ahead), and Core i5-8500 (14332, 1.1% ahead). This suggests the CPU is not the primary cause of the poor ranking; rather, the GPU's inability to render Control at acceptable frame rates drags the entire combo down. The rank of 1615 indicates that only 21 other tested combinations performed worse, making this one of the least capable systems for this specific title.

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 Comet Lake processor has a 12 MB shared L3 cache and supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration. Its benchmark results are respectable for a mid-range CPU: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 10297, single-core scores 1453, and Geekbench multi-core scores 5783 with single-core at 1454. The Passmark multithread score is 12115, and the 3DMark 16-thread score is 4748.

In Control, the CPU's role appears to be secondary to the GPU. The frame rate patterns across resolutions and settings show typical GPU-bound behavior, where performance scales inversely with pixel count rather than being limited by CPU throughput. The i5-10400F's 73rd percentile ranking against all CPUs and its position near the EPYC 7552 (0.4% delta) suggest it has sufficient computational headroom for this game. The CPU is not the bottleneck here; the data indicates that even a much weaker processor would produce similar frame rates because the GTX 1050 Ti cannot render frames fast enough to stress the CPU.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the only viable configuration for any semblance of playability is Low settings at 1920x1080, which produces 47.6 FPS. This is still below the 60 FPS ideal but is the only preset that approaches smooth gameplay. Medium settings at 1080p drop to 31.9 FPS, which is borderline, while High and Ultra at 1080p yield 29 FPS and 25 FPS respectively, which are below playable thresholds.

For users willing to accept lower visual quality, Low settings at 1440p provide 34.4 FPS, which might be acceptable for slower-paced sections of the game, but the frame rate will likely dip during combat sequences. At 4K, no settings preset is viable; even Low settings at 21.5 FPS is a slideshow. The data suggests that users should prioritize 1080p with Low settings for the best experience. If visual fidelity is more important than frame rate, Medium settings at 1080p (31.9 FPS) is a compromise, but it sacrifices the smoothness needed for a game like Control, which features fast-paced action and physics-based combat. There is no configuration in the measured data that achieves a consistent 60 FPS, so users must accept either low frame rates or minimal quality settings.