Control

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is a classic mid-range build from a few generations back, and the data for Control shows exactly what you would expect: a system that can handle 1080p very well but starts to struggle as resolution climbs. The measured FPS numbers reveal a clear GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions, while the CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads provide a solid foundation that rarely becomes the primary bottleneck in this title. This analysis breaks down the performance across resolutions and settings, offers practical recommendations, and contextualizes the combo’s standing against the broader database of tested hardware.

Resolution Scaling

The most telling trend in the data is how average FPS collapses as resolution increases, which strongly indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at 1440p and 4K. At 1080p with High settings, the combo delivers 61 FPS average; moving to 1440p drops that to 46 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 31 FPS. This scaling pattern—roughly a 25% loss from 1080p to 1440p and another 33% loss from 1440p to 4K—is characteristic of a graphics card being pushed past its comfort zone. The GTX 1070’s 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus are sufficient for 1080p, but the sheer pixel count at 4K overwhelms the Pascal architecture’s capabilities.

The situation becomes even clearer when looking at the Low settings row. At 1080p Low, the system hits 97 FPS, which is a very playable number. At 1440p Low, it still manages 73 FPS, but at 4K Low, it drops to 49 FPS. This shows that even when you strip away graphical effects, the resolution itself is the primary hurdle. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 22 FPS (49 vs. 27), whereas at 1080p the gap is 44 FPS (97 vs. 53). This compression of the settings range at higher resolutions is a classic sign that the GPU is saturated; it cannot afford to render all the extra pixels and heavy effects, so the difference between presets diminishes.

Benchmark results indicate that for smooth 60 FPS gameplay, this combo is effectively a 1080p solution. At 1440p, you are looking at a compromise: High settings yield 46 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced action. The 4K numbers are firmly in slideshow territory for anything beyond Low settings, with Ultra averaging just 27 FPS. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, has enough headroom to feed the GPU at these resolutions; the data does not suggest a CPU bottleneck, as the FPS drops are entirely consistent with the GPU’s workload scaling.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 60 FPS on a 1440p monitor?

A: Not consistently. The measured average FPS at 2560x1440 is 46 on High and 52 on Medium. Only the Low preset at 1440p achieves an average above 60 FPS, hitting 73 FPS. To maintain a locked 60, you would need to use Low settings or drop to 1080p.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware in Control?

A: The data clearly favors 1920x1080. At this resolution, High settings deliver a 61 FPS average, and Medium provides 69 FPS. These are the only settings/resolution combinations that offer a solid 60+ FPS experience without sacrificing too much visual quality.

Q: How much of a performance hit is Ultra settings compared to High?

A: At 1080p, moving from High (61 FPS) to Ultra (53 FPS) costs roughly 13% performance. At 1440p, the drop is from 46 FPS to 40 FPS, which is also about 13%. The relative cost is consistent, but the absolute numbers at 1440p make Ultra less viable.

Q: Is the GTX 1070 or the i5-10400F the bottleneck here?

A: The resolution scaling data points strongly to the GPU. The FPS drops are dramatic when increasing resolution, which is a GPU-bound symptom. The CPU’s 12 threads and 4.30 GHz boost clock appear sufficient to keep up, as the performance degrades uniformly with pixel count rather than showing stutters or frame-time issues.

Q: What is the minimum FPS I can expect with this combo?

A: The only settings with recorded minimum FPS are Medium presets. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 58 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 44 FPS; and at 4K Medium, it is 30 FPS. These minimums suggest that High and Ultra presets might dip lower, but the data does not provide exact figures.

Q: How does this combo compare to other tested hardware in the database?

A: The combo ranks 3083 out of 3720 tested combinations for this game. This places it in the lower third of all tested systems, which is consistent with its age and mid-range positioning.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database for Control, this specific CPU-GPU pairing sits at rank 3083 out of 3720 combos. That places it in the bottom 17% of all tested systems, which might seem harsh but is a reflection of how much faster modern hardware has become. The GPU’s percentile vs all GPUs is 47, meaning it is just below the median, while the CPU’s percentile vs all CPUs is 68, indicating the processor is more competitive relative to its peers. This discrepancy reinforces that the GTX 1070 is the weaker link in this pair.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the overall benchmark database include the Intel Xeon 6756E and the AMD EPYC 7552, with the i5-10400F scoring 0.2% higher and 0.5% higher than those respectively. This shows that the CPU’s raw processing power is still respectable, even if those rivals are server-class parts. On the GPU side, the GTX 1070 is nearly identical in average benchmark score to the AMD FirePro W5000, with a delta of -0.2%, and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M. This indicates that the GPU is performing exactly as expected for its generation, but it is firmly a last-generation part.

The combo’s rank in Control is not a reflection of a flawed pairing, but rather the reality that this hardware is from an older era. The i5-10400F provides a solid base, but the GTX 1070’s 8 GB VRAM and 6.463 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are not enough to push high frame rates at modern resolutions. For a benchmark database, this rank serves as a baseline for what a 2020-era mid-range build can achieve in a demanding action-adventure title.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1920x1080 with High settings. The 61 FPS average is just above the 60 FPS target, and High settings in Control still offer a visually rich environment with acceptable texture quality and lighting. The drop to Medium at 1080p yields 69 FPS, which provides more headroom for demanding scenes, but the visual upgrade from Medium to High is often worth the small performance cost.

For players with a 1440p monitor, the recommendation is to use Medium settings. The 52 FPS average is more manageable than the 46 FPS on High, and the recorded minimum of 44 FPS is less likely to cause noticeable stutter. Pushing to High at 1440p risks frequent dips below 50 FPS, which can be jarring in a game with intense action sequences. Low settings at 1440p are technically playable at 73 FPS, but the visual downgrade is significant, and most users would prefer Medium.

Avoid Ultra settings entirely at 1440p and 4K. At 1440p, Ultra averages 40 FPS, and at 4K it drops to 27 FPS. These are not competitive frame rates for a game that requires precision aiming. At 1080p, Ultra is a borderline choice at 53 FPS, but the increased particle effects and reflections in Control can cause framerate instability. The data suggests that High is the sweet spot for visual fidelity and performance, with Medium serving as a fallback for those who prioritize frame rate consistency.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured FPS data provides a clear picture of this combo’s capabilities. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from a high of 97 FPS on Low to a low of 53 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset averages 69 FPS with a recorded minimum of 58 FPS and a maximum of 79 FPS. High settings at 1080p average 61 FPS, which is the baseline for a smooth experience.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly across the board. Low settings yield 73 FPS, Medium averages 52 FPS (with a minimum of 44 and maximum of 60), High averages 46 FPS, and Ultra falls to 40 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 33 FPS, showing that the visual settings have a substantial impact on performance at this resolution. The Medium preset’s data is the most detailed, indicating that it is the most commonly tested configuration.

At 3840x2160, the numbers become marginal. Low settings average 49 FPS, Medium averages 35 FPS (with a minimum of 30 and maximum of 40), High averages 31 FPS, and Ultra averages just 27 FPS. The 4K Medium data is the only 4K row with full min/max figures, and the 30 FPS minimum is the bare minimum for playability. This data confirms that 4K is not a viable resolution for this hardware in Control, even with substantial graphical sacrifices.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F brings 6 cores and 12 threads to the table, 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 a 14 nm process, and its 12 MB of shared L3 cache is generous for the time. In terms of synthetic benchmarks, it scores 10283 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 1451 in single-core, which are solid numbers for a mainstream desktop chip. Its Passmark multithread score of 12115 and single-thread score of 2541 further confirm its balanced nature.

In the context of Control, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and handle game logic. The benchmark results indicate that the i5-10400F is not the limiting factor in this pairing. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K is entirely consistent with GPU workload, and there is no evidence of a CPU bottleneck, such as frame rate plateaus across different resolutions. The 12 threads are more than adequate for this game, which was released in 2019 and does not heavily utilize more than a few cores.

The CPU’s percentile rank of 68 vs all CPUs suggests it is a more capable part than the GPU (which sits at the 47th percentile). This creates a slight imbalance, but it is a favorable one, as the CPU has headroom for future GPU upgrades. If you were to swap in a more powerful graphics card, the i5-10400F would likely still be able to keep up in most titles, making it the more durable component of this pair. The data shows a processor that is aging gracefully, while the GPU is clearly showing its age in demanding modern games.