Control

Control with an Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti presents a study in balance, where a 6-core Comet Lake processor meets a Turing-based GPU that is now a few generations old. The data shows a pairing that is capable of delivering playable frame rates at 1080p, but which begins to show its limits as resolution scales upward. This analysis examines how the specific characteristics of the CPU and GPU influence the measured performance in this action-adventure title.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Comet Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process. Its base clock is 2.90 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, and it communicates with the rest of the system via a dual-channel DDR4 memory bus offering 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The chip features 12 MB of shared L3 cache, alongside 256 KB of L2 and 64 KB of L1 per core. These specifications place it as a solid mid-range desktop part, and its benchmark results confirm a strong multi-threaded capability.

In synthetic tests, the i5-10400F scores 4,748 in 3DMark with 16 threads and 4,735 with max threads, showing that its 12 threads are effectively utilized. Single-thread performance is also respectable, with a 3DMark single-thread score of 688 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,451. This combination of decent single-thread speed and robust multi-threading is crucial for a game like Control, which must handle both game logic and physics simulations. The CPU's PassMark multithread score of 12,115 and a 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it is more than adequate for feeding a mid-range graphics card.

The relationship between the CPU and the game's results becomes clearer when looking at the measured frame rates. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 91 FPS, which suggests that the CPU is capable of driving high frame rates when the GPU is not the primary bottleneck. However, the performance gain from Low to Medium settings is relatively modest (91 to 64 FPS), which implies that the GPU is starting to limit performance. The i5-10400F's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Xeon 6756E with a 0.2% score difference, do not offer significantly different performance characteristics, confirming that the CPU is a stable, predictable platform. The data indicates that for this specific game, the CPU provides a solid foundation, but the overall frame rate ceiling is largely dictated by the GPU's capabilities.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved by this combo in Control?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 91 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the combo's performance at 1080p Medium compare to its performance at 4K Medium?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the combo achieves an average of 64 FPS. When the resolution is increased to 3840x2160 with the same Medium settings, the average drops to 33 FPS, representing a significant 31 FPS reduction.

Q: Is there a measurable difference in frame rates between High and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: Yes, the data shows a clear step. At 2560x1440 with High settings, the average is 43 FPS. Switching to Ultra settings at the same resolution lowers the average to 38 FPS, a difference of 5 FPS.

Q: What is the lowest average frame rate recorded for this configuration?

A: The lowest average frame rate is 25 FPS, which is observed at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings.

Q: Does the combo provide a better 1% low frame rate at 1080p Medium or at 1440p Medium?

A: The minimum FPS recorded for 1920x1080 Medium is 55 FPS, while the minimum for 2560x1440 Medium is 41 FPS. Therefore, the 1080p Medium setting provides a higher minimum frame rate, indicating smoother performance in demanding scenes.

Q: How does the combo's overall ranking in Control compare to its individual component percentiles?

A: The combo ranks 3,176 out of 3,720 tested combinations. The CPU has a 68th percentile ranking against all CPUs, and the GPU has a 41st percentile ranking against all GPUs. The combo's ranking suggests that the pairing results in performance that is influenced heavily by the lower-performing GPU.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and predictable pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 91 FPS. Moving to 1440p at the same settings drops the average to 69 FPS, a 22 FPS decrease. At 4K, the average falls further to 46 FPS. This scaling pattern is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions.

This trend is consistent across all settings presets. For example, at High settings, the average frame rate goes from 57 FPS at 1080p, to 43 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 29 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial. For Low settings, the drop is from 91 FPS to 46 FPS, which is a 49.5% reduction. For High settings, the drop is from 57 FPS to 29 FPS, a 49.1% reduction. This similarity in proportional loss across settings strongly indicates that the GPU's rendering throughput is the dominant limiting factor.

The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, is not showing signs of being a bottleneck at these resolutions, as the frame rate drop is directly proportional to the increase in pixel count. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see a smaller difference between 1080p and 1440p, with the gap widening at 4K as the GPU becomes more stressed. The data suggests that the GTX 1660 Ti's 6 GB of VRAM and its compute capability are the primary constraints. The 4K Medium result of 33 FPS and the 4K High result of 29 FPS, while playable for some, do not provide a smooth experience. The evidence points to the GPU being the decisive component in this pairing for Control.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested configurations, this specific combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ranks 3,176 out of 3,720 total combos. This places it in the lower 15th percentile of all tested systems, which is a significant finding given that the CPU itself is in the 68th percentile. The disparity between these two rankings highlights the impact of the GPU on the overall gaming experience.

The combo's rank of 3,176 suggests that the GTX 1660 Ti, despite being a capable card in its own right, holds this pairing back when compared to systems with more powerful graphics solutions. The GPU's own percentile rank of 41 places it below the median of all tested GPUs, and its average benchmark score is 7,723. The nearest rivals to the GTX 1660 Ti, such as the AMD Radeon 540 with a 0.7% higher score, are not known for high-end gaming performance, which reinforces that this is a mid-range to entry-level gaming component. Therefore, the overall combo rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's position in the performance hierarchy.

Looking at the data, it is clear that the CPU is not the reason for this low ranking. The i5-10400F's average benchmark score is 14,185, which is substantial. The combination of a strong CPU and a weaker GPU results in a system that is well-balanced for 1080p gaming but cannot compete with high-end rigs at higher resolutions or with maximum settings. The combo rank in Control specifically, 3,176, is a reflection of the game's demanding nature and the GPU's limitations in that context. It shows that while the CPU provides a solid foundation, the overall experience is capped by the graphics card.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is based on the TU116 chip, using the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It comes with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The card has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, with memory running at 12 Gbps effective. Its compute capabilities include 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, delivering 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The GPU's launch MSRP is 279 USD.

The 6 GB VRAM capacity is a crucial factor in Control. The game's detailed environments and textures can consume significant memory, especially at higher resolutions. While 6 GB is sufficient for 1080p, the data suggests it may become a limiting factor at 4K. The measured FPS at 4K with High settings is 29 FPS, which is not a smooth experience. The card's pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s are adequate for 1080p but struggle to maintain high frame rates at 4K.

The GPU's performance in Control is directly tied to its memory bandwidth and fill rate. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 91 FPS, showing that the card can perform well when the workload is light. However, as settings and resolution increase, the demand on the GPU's resources grows. The 4K Medium result of 33 FPS, with a minimum of 28 FPS, indicates that the card is working near its limit. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 12,871 and its 41st percentile ranking confirm that it is not a high-end part. In this game, the GTX 1660 Ti provides playable performance at 1080p and 1440p with adjusted settings, but it is not suited for 4K gaming.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the combo's performance across different configurations.

1920x1080:

• Low: Average 91 FPS.
• Medium: Average 64 FPS, with a minimum of 55 FPS and a maximum of 74 FPS.
• High: Average 57 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 50 FPS.

2560x1440:

• Low: Average 69 FPS.
• Medium: Average 49 FPS, with a minimum of 41 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS.
• High: Average 43 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 38 FPS.

3840x2160:

• Low: Average 46 FPS.
• Medium: Average 33 FPS, with a minimum of 28 FPS and a maximum of 38 FPS.
• High: Average 29 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 25 FPS.

These numbers illustrate a consistent performance hierarchy. At 1080p, the combo is capable of delivering smooth frame rates, with the Low preset exceeding 90 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 27 FPS, which is a significant drop, indicating that the Medium preset introduces a notable increase in GPU workload. The transition from Medium to High costs an additional 7 FPS, and from High to Ultra another 7 FPS.

At 1440p, the performance is playable but less smooth. The Low preset at 69 FPS is good, but Medium at 49 FPS and High at 43 FPS are in a range where some users may notice stutter. The Ultra preset at 38 FPS is borderline for smooth gameplay. At 4K, the combo is not suitable for high-refresh-rate monitors, as all presets fall below 50 FPS. The 4K Medium result of 33 FPS is the highest average at that resolution, and it still falls short of the 60 FPS target. The data clearly shows that 1080p is the optimal resolution for this pairing, with 1440p being a viable but more demanding option.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user's resolution and performance preferences. The goal is to achieve a balance between visual fidelity and a smooth frame rate.

For a 1080p display, the High preset at 57 FPS is a strong recommendation. It provides a significant visual upgrade over Medium (64 FPS) while still maintaining an average frame rate that is close to 60 FPS. The 7 FPS difference between High and Ultra (50 FPS) is not worth the performance hit, as High offers a better experience. For those with a 144Hz monitor, the Low preset at 91 FPS is the only way to approach that refresh rate, but the visual compromise is substantial. The Medium preset at 64 FPS is the best choice for a balanced experience if the user prefers a higher frame rate over maximum detail.

At 1440p, the options are more constrained. The Low preset at 69 FPS is the only one that breaks the 60 FPS barrier, making it the best choice for a smooth experience. The Medium preset at 49 FPS is playable but may have noticeable drops in demanding scenes, as indicated by the 41 FPS minimum. The High preset at 43 FPS and Ultra at 38 FPS are not recommended for a consistently smooth experience. For 1440p, users should prioritize frame rate and use the Low or Medium presets.

For 4K gaming, the data shows that this combo cannot provide a satisfactory experience. The highest average is 46 FPS at Low settings, which is not ideal for a fast-paced action game. The Medium preset at 33 FPS is the best visual compromise, but it still falls below the 30 FPS threshold for smoothness. The High and Ultra presets, at 29 FPS and 25 FPS respectively, are not recommended. The recommendation is to avoid 4K with this combination or to consider lowering the resolution to 1440p for a better overall experience. The data suggests that 1080p High is the sweet spot for this system, offering a good mix of visual quality and playable frame rates.