Control

Control on this Intel Core i5-10400F and GeForce GTX 1650 combination presents a clear picture of a system that is capable of running the game, but only with careful expectations. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings show that this pairing is firmly in entry-level territory for a demanding 2019 action-adventure title. The data indicates that the GTX 1650 is the primary limiting factor, and users will need to prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity to achieve a playable experience.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the sweet spot for this hardware is the Low preset at 1920x1080, which delivers an average of 53.5 FPS. This is the only configuration in the dataset that breaks the 50 FPS mark, providing a noticeably smoother experience than the next-best option. The jump from Low to Medium at this resolution costs 11.1 FPS (dropping to 42.4), which is a significant 20.7% performance hit for what is often a modest visual improvement in this title.

For users who cannot tolerate Low settings, Medium at 1920x1080 (42.4 FPS) is the only viable alternative, but it sits below the 60 FPS target and leaves little headroom for demanding scenes. The High preset at 1080p (38.2 FPS) and Ultra (34.2 FPS) are both playable in a pinch but feel noticeably less fluid. At 2560x1440, the situation degrades sharply; even the Low preset only manages 45.7 FPS, while High dips to 28.5 FPS and Ultra falls to 21.3 FPS. The 4K data is essentially a stress test rather than a playable option, with the best result being Low at 28.4 FPS. The recommendation is clear: stick to 1080p and use the Low preset for the best balance, or accept Medium if visual quality is non-negotiable.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the dominant bottleneck in this configuration. With a 4 GB GDDR5 memory pool on a 128-bit bus (128.1 GB/s bandwidth), the card is severely constrained when pushing higher resolutions and quality settings. The benchmark results show a dramatic collapse in performance as resolution increases, which is a classic symptom of memory bandwidth and capacity limitations. The card's 896 shading units and 32 ROPs, running at a boost clock of 1665 MHz, simply do not have enough throughput for the pixel workload at 1440p and beyond.

The data confirms this: at 1080p, the difference between Low (53.5 FPS) and Ultra (34.2 FPS) is 19.3 FPS, showing that the GPU is struggling with the added shader and texture complexity. However, the more telling metric is the resolution scaling. Moving from 1080p Low to 1440p Low costs only 7.8 FPS (from 53.5 to 45.7), but moving from 1440p Low to 4K Low costs 17.3 FPS (from 45.7 to 28.4). This non-linear drop indicates that at 4K, the card is hitting a hard wall, likely due to the 4 GB VRAM being exhausted. The GPU's passmark G3D score of 7880 places it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, and it sits within 0.5% of rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, confirming its mid-to-low tier standing. The 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors also point to a card designed for sheer simplicity, not high-end performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is not the limiting factor in this game, but its performance envelope is worth noting. With 6 cores and 12 threads, running at a base of 2.90 GHz and a boost of 4.30 GHz, the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GTX 1650 in most scenarios. The single-thread performance, as shown by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1453, is adequate for Control's engine, which is not notoriously CPU-heavy when compared to modern titles. The multi-threaded capability, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10297, ensures that background tasks and game logic won't starve the GPU.

The data suggests that the CPU is rarely the bottleneck because the GPU saturates so early. At 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the average FPS is 53.5, which is still below the 60 FPS target. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect to see the FPS plateau regardless of resolution; instead, the FPS drops consistently as resolution increases, which is a GPU-bound signature. The CPU's 73rd percentile ranking among all CPUs and its average benchmark score of 14168 place it just 1.2% behind the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 and 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7552, indicating solid mid-range performance. For this game, the i5-10400F is more than sufficient; the GTX 1650 is what holds the system back.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for this hardware?

A: The Low preset at 1920x1080 delivers the highest average FPS at 53.5, making it the best option for smooth gameplay. Medium at the same resolution offers 42.4 FPS if you prefer better visuals.

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K?

A: No, not playably. The highest average FPS at 3840x2160 is 28.4 on Low settings, with High and Ultra dropping to 16.7 and 17.3 FPS respectively.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. The FPS drops significantly as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation, while the CPU has enough headroom to keep up.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its direct rivals?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 8713 puts it within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, and it is 0.4% slower than the RTX 3050 A Mobile.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low averages 53.5 FPS while Ultra averages 34.2 FPS. That is a 19.3 FPS difference, representing a 56.4% performance gain from dropping to the lowest quality preset.

Q: Is the i5-10400F a strong performer for its class?

A: Yes, it ranks in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14168. It is 1.2% behind the Ryzen Embedded V2546 and 1.1% ahead of the Intel Core i5-8500.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data reveals a GPU that is overwhelmed by pixel count. From 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 53.5 to 45.7, a 14.6% decrease. This is a modest penalty, suggesting the GPU is still coping with the increased load. However, moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 on the same Low preset, the FPS plummets from 45.7 to 28.4, a 37.9% drop. This steep decline indicates that the card has hit a memory or bandwidth ceiling at 4K.

The pattern is even more pronounced at higher settings. At High, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is from 38.2 to 28.5 FPS (a 25.4% loss), and then from 1440p to 4K it falls to 16.7 FPS (a 41.4% loss). This accelerating degradation is a strong indicator that the 4 GB VRAM is being exhausted, forcing the GPU to swap data and tanking performance. The data shows that the GTX 1650 is only truly comfortable at 1080p, borderline at 1440p with Low settings, and entirely out of its depth at 4K. The limiting component is unambiguously the GPU, as the CPU's performance remains consistent across resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset of measured average FPS is as follows:

1920x1080:

• Low: 53.5 FPS — The only configuration above 50 FPS.
• Medium: 42.4 FPS — A 20.7% drop from Low.
• High: 38.2 FPS — Playable but noticeably less fluid.
• Ultra: 34.2 FPS — The worst 1080p option, 36.1% slower than Low.

2560x1440:

• Low: 45.7 FPS — Still above 45 FPS, but a 14.6% cut from 1080p Low.
• Medium: 31.0 FPS — A 26.9% drop from Low at the same resolution.
• High: 28.5 FPS — Barely playable; 37.6% slower than 1080p Low.
• Ultra: 21.3 FPS — Dips below 30 FPS, making it difficult to enjoy.

3840x2160:

• Low: 28.4 FPS — The only 4K option above 20 FPS, but still below playable thresholds.
• Medium: 19.3 FPS — A 32.0% drop from Low at 4K.
• High: 16.7 FPS — Nearly a slideshow.
• Ultra: 17.3 FPS — Slightly better than High, but still unplayable.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low is the only target for a smooth experience, while 1440p and 4K are only viable for screenshots or very undemanding play. The GTX 1650's limitations are starkly visible in this breakdown, confirming that users should not expect consistent 60 FPS in Control without significant compromises.