Control

# Control with Intel Core i5-10400F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER

The data presents a compelling picture of a mid-range 2020-era pairing tackling a demanding 2019 action-adventure title. Across twelve measured configurations, the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER deliver playable frame rates at 1080p, but the benchmarks reveal a system that transitions from CPU-leaning at lower resolutions to firmly GPU-bound as pixel count climbs. The combo ranks 3176th out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the lower 15th percentile of all recorded pairings, which frames the analysis that follows.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable degradation as resolution increases, but the rate of that decline tells a revealing story about component balance. At Low settings, the system delivers 91 FPS at 1920x1080, which drops to 69 FPS at 2560x1440—a 24% reduction. Pushing to 3840x2160 yields 46 FPS, representing a 49% drop from 1080p. This scaling pattern suggests the GTX 1660 SUPER is the primary limiter, as the CPU's load diminishes relative to GPU work at higher pixel counts.

The Medium preset follows a similar trajectory: 64 FPS at 1080p, 49 FPS at 1440p (a 23% decline), and 33 FPS at 4K (a 48% drop from 1080p). High settings show 57 FPS at 1080p, 43 FPS at 1440p (25% lower), and 29 FPS at 4K (49% lower). The consistency of these percentage drops across presets—hovering around 24-25% for the 1080p-to-1440p transition and 48-49% for the 1080p-to-4K transition—indicates that resolution scaling is governed almost entirely by GPU throughput rather than CPU capability.

What stands out is the steep cliff between 1440p and 4K. The 4K Ultra result of 25 FPS is not merely low; it represents a 50% reduction from the 1440p Ultra figure of 38 FPS. This nonlinearity suggests the 6 GB VRAM buffer or the memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s begins to bottleneck at 4K, particularly at higher presets. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K—46 FPS versus 25 FPS—demonstrates that the GPU's 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is simply insufficient for maximum quality at this resolution.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, built on the Turing architecture with a 12 nm process, carries 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. With 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, the card posts a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s. The boost clock of 1785 MHz provides the computational backbone, but the data suggests that memory capacity—not raw compute—becomes the critical constraint at higher resolutions.

The 4K Medium result shows a minimum FPS of 28 and a maximum of 38, with an average of 33. This 10 FPS spread indicates frame time variance that likely stems from texture thrashing as the 6 GB VRAM fills. At 1440p Medium, the spread narrows to 15 FPS (41 to 56, averaging 49), while at 1080p Medium the range is 19 FPS (55 to 74, averaging 64). The widening variance at lower resolutions paradoxically suggests that the GPU has headroom to fluctuate, whereas at 4K it is pinned against memory limits.

The GPU's benchmark profile places it at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 12986. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, scores 12940 (0.4% lower), while the AMD Radeon RX 580 scores 12928 (0.4% lower). This clustering indicates that the GTX 1660 SUPER sits in a well-populated performance tier, and Control's results reflect that positioning—capable at 1080p, adequate at 1440p, and struggling at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F provides six cores and twelve threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. This Comet Lake processor, built on a 14 nm process, features 12 MB of shared L3 cache and supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The CPU's benchmark scores show solid multi-threaded performance: 10283 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 4318 in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 6257 in Geekbench multicore. Single-thread scores of 1451 in Cinebench R23 and 1420 in Geekbench indicate competent per-core performance.

At 1080p, the CPU's influence becomes apparent. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p (91 to 64 FPS) is a 30% reduction, while the same preset change at 1440p (69 to 49 FPS) is a 29% reduction. The similarity across resolutions suggests that at lower settings, the CPU can feed frames quickly enough to expose GPU limitations—but the i5-10400F's 4.30 GHz boost clock appears sufficient to avoid becoming a bottleneck in Control's most CPU-intensive moments.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 68th among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 14185, places it near the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115, 0.5% higher) and Intel Xeon 6756E (14163, 0.2% higher). However, this system's 3176th rank out of 3720 combos suggests that the CPU's capability is not the limiting factor in Control. The 12 threads are likely more than adequate for this game's engine, which was designed for the 8th-generation console era. The data implies that upgrading the GPU would yield far greater FPS gains than upgrading the CPU.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide clear guidance for optimal settings. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 57 FPS average, which is comfortably above the 50 FPS threshold for playable action gameplay. The Ultra preset at 1080p drops to 50 FPS average—still playable but with less headroom for demanding scenes. The Medium preset at 64 FPS offers the best balance of visual quality and performance headroom, while Low at 91 FPS provides maximum smoothness for competitive or high-refresh-rate play.

At 2560x1440, the High preset delivers 43 FPS, which dips below the 50 FPS playability threshold. Medium at 49 FPS is borderline, while Low at 69 FPS is the only preset that maintains consistently smooth frame rates. The data suggests that 1440p users should either accept Medium settings for a playable experience or drop to Low for smoother motion. The 4K results are universally suboptimal: Ultra at 25 FPS, High at 29 FPS, Medium at 33 FPS, and Low at 46 FPS. Only Low at 4K approaches playability, and even then, the margin is thin.

The best experience per the measured rows is 1080p High or Medium. The 57 FPS at High provides visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness, while Medium's 64 FPS offers additional headroom. The 1080p Low preset's 91 FPS indicates that the system can push well beyond 60 FPS when settings are reduced, suggesting that users with 144 Hz displays could target that refresh rate with Low or Medium settings.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 60 FPS at 1080p?

A: The data shows 91 FPS at Low, 64 FPS at Medium, and 57 FPS at High settings at 1920x1080. Only the Ultra preset, at 50 FPS, falls below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this combination?

A: No. The best 4K result is 46 FPS at Low settings, with Medium at 33 FPS, High at 29 FPS, and Ultra at 25 FPS. All 4K presets fail to reach 50 FPS average.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 12986 is 0.4% higher than the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940) and 0.4% higher than the RX 580 (12928), but 0.7% lower than the Tesla M2090 (13075).

Q: What is the CPU's multi-threaded performance relative to its peers?

A: The i5-10400F scores 10283 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 4318 in Cinebench R20 multicore. Its average benchmark score of 14185 is 0.2% higher than the Xeon 6756E but 0.3% lower than the Core 7 160UL.

Q: Does the 6 GB VRAM limit performance at 1440p?

A: The 1440p Medium result shows a 15 FPS variance (41 to 56), which is narrower than at 1080p but wider than at 4K. The data suggests VRAM pressure begins to build at 1440p but does not severely constrain performance until 4K.

Q: What preset offers the most consistent frame pacing?

A: The Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values at all three resolutions. At 1080p it ranges from 55 to 74, at 1440p from 41 to 56, and at 4K from 28 to 38.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce 91 FPS average, Medium produces 64 FPS (with a range of 55 to 74), High produces 57 FPS, and Ultra produces 50 FPS. The 41 FPS spread between Low and Ultra demonstrates the substantial impact of quality presets at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably. Low settings yield 69 FPS, Medium yields 49 FPS (ranging from 41 to 56), High yields 43 FPS, and Ultra yields 38 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra narrows to 31 FPS, indicating that the GPU's limitations begin to compress the preset hierarchy.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles across all presets. Low settings achieve 46 FPS, Medium achieves 33 FPS (ranging from 28 to 38), High achieves 29 FPS, and Ultra achieves 25 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra shrinks to 21 FPS, confirming that the GTX 1660 SUPER's compute and memory resources are exhausted at this resolution regardless of quality settings.

The Medium preset at each resolution provides the only complete dataset with minimum and maximum values, offering insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p, the 19 FPS range (55-74) suggests healthy performance headroom. At 1440p, the 15 FPS range (41-56) indicates moderate stability. At 4K, the 10 FPS range (28-38) reflects the GPU operating at its limits, where frame times become more uniform simply because the system cannot produce faster frames.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER combination ranks 3176th out of 3720 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 15% of all recorded systems. This ranking is notably lower than the individual component percentiles would suggest—the CPU sits at the 68th percentile and the GPU at the 53rd percentile—indicating that Control is particularly demanding on this class of hardware.

The rank disparity between component-level and system-level performance suggests that Control's engine stresses both the CPU and GPU in ways that amplify their weaknesses. The CPU's 12 MB L3 cache and 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth may be insufficient for the game's streaming requirements, while the GPU's 6 GB VRAM and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth struggle with the game's texture and geometry complexity. The system falls well below the median combat ranking, and the measured FPS data corroborates this: even at 1080p Low, the system achieves 91 FPS, which places it in a performance tier where many other combinations likely achieve 120 FPS or higher.

The nearest rival comparisons for each component reveal that this combo is neither uniquely weak nor uniquely strong. The CPU's closest competitor, the Intel Xeon 6756E, scores within 0.2%, while the GPU's closest rival, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, is within 0.4%. This clustering indicates that the i5-10400F and GTX 1660 SUPER are representative of a broad mid-range segment, and Control's 3176th rank reflects the game's high requirements rather than an anomaly in this specific pairing. Users seeking higher rankings would need to move up several performance tiers on both the CPU and GPU fronts to achieve substantially better results.