Control

# Control with Intel Core i5-10400F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER ranks 2650th out of 3720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the 71st percentile of all tested systems. This mid-pack standing reflects a pairing that delivers playable frame rates across most settings but requires careful tuning to reach smooth performance at higher resolutions. The data shows a system that is consistently GPU-bound, with the CPU providing adequate headroom even at lower settings where frame rates climb well past 100 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

At position 2650 out of 3720 tested combos, this configuration sits slightly below the median of all tested systems for Control. The rank indicates that while this hardware can run the game, a substantial portion of tested combos deliver higher average frame rates. The i5-10400F holds a 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs in general benchmarks, while the RTX 2060 SUPER sits at the 62nd percentile among all GPUs. When combined for this specific title, the pairing underperforms what those individual percentiles might suggest, likely due to Control's demanding rendering features that stress the GPU's 8 GB VRAM buffer at higher resolutions.

The combo's position becomes clearer when examining the CPU's general benchmark rivals. The i5-10400F's average benchmark score of 14185 places it within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277) and 0.5% of the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115). For the GPU, the RTX 2060 SUPER's average score of 18093 sits within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18159) and 1.6% below the Intel Arc A770M (18383). These narrow deltas suggest that similar-tier hardware would produce comparable results in Control, making the 2650th rank a representative outcome for this performance class.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its TU106 chip operates at a base clock of 1470 MHz with a boost clock of 1650 MHz, and the memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The card includes 2176 shading units, 136 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, 34 RT cores, and 272 tensor cores, with a pixel rate of 105.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 224.4 GTexel/s. These specifications contribute to a 7.181 TFLOPS FP32 throughput.

In Control, the GPU's VRAM capacity becomes a limiting factor at 4K resolution. The measured data shows a steep drop in average FPS from 60 at Low settings to 38 at High settings at 3840x2160, with Ultra falling to 33 FPS. This 45% reduction from Low to Ultra at 4K suggests that texture streaming and rendering features are consuming the available 8 GB buffer. The GPU's 64 ROPs handle pixel output adequately, but the 448.0 GB/s bandwidth appears insufficient for Ultra settings at 4K, where the average FPS of 33 falls below the generally accepted 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling across resolutions reveals a clear GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 118 FPS average, dropping to 89 FPS at 1440p Low (-25%) and 60 FPS at 4K Low (-49% from 1080p). This scaling pattern is typical for a GPU-limited workload, as the CPU maintains sufficient frame delivery even at the highest frame rates.

At High settings, the scaling shows 74 FPS at 1080p, 56 FPS at 1440p (-24%), and 38 FPS at 4K (-49% from 1080p). The consistent percentage drops across settings indicate that resolution scaling follows a predictable curve, with the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth becoming progressively more strained. The Medium settings row provides the only min/max data: at 1080p, the range spans 71 to 96 FPS; at 1440p, 54 to 73 FPS; and at 4K, 36 to 49 FPS. These ranges show that frame pacing remains stable even when the average FPS drops into the mid-30s at 4K.

The transition from 1440p to 4K produces the largest absolute FPS loss at every settings level, suggesting that the 8 GB VRAM buffer and 256-bit memory interface face a significant workload increase when pixel count rises by 2.25x. The data indicates that the limiting component shifts from the GPU's compute units at 1080p to its memory subsystem at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest performance. Low settings produce an average of 118 FPS, Medium achieves 84 FPS (with a range of 71 to 96), High reaches 74 FPS, and Ultra drops to 65 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra stands at 53 FPS, representing a 45% reduction. All 1080p settings exceed the 60 FPS threshold, making this resolution fully playable at any preset.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance remains respectable but begins to show strain. Low averages 89 FPS, Medium hits 63 FPS (range 54 to 73), High settles at 56 FPS, and Ultra falls to 49 FPS. Here, only Low and Medium maintain averages above 60 FPS, while High and Ultra require accepting lower frame rates. The step from Medium to High costs 7 FPS, and High to Ultra costs another 7 FPS, showing a consistent 11% drop per settings tier.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low averages 60 FPS, but Medium falls to 43 FPS (range 36 to 49), High drops to 38 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 33 FPS. The data shows that only Low settings achieve the 60 FPS target at 4K, while Medium and above require a compromise on smoothness. The min FPS of 36 at 4K Medium indicates that even the lower bound remains above the 30 FPS stutter threshold, but the average of 43 FPS leaves little margin for demanding scenes.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1920x1080 delivers the most consistent experience, with all settings producing averages above 65 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low and Medium stay above 60 FPS average, while 3840x2160 requires Low settings to reach 60 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 SUPER compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER's average benchmark score of 18093 is 0.4% below the RTX 3060 Mobile (18159), 0.5% below the Radeon Pro 5700 (18189), and 1.6% below the Radeon RX 460 (18373). These differences are minimal in real-world gaming.

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

A: Benchmark results indicate the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The frame rate drops by roughly 49% from 1080p to 4K at both Low and High settings, a scaling pattern typical of GPU-bound workloads. The CPU maintains its performance across resolutions.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1440p High settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 56 FPS at 2560x1440 with High settings. This falls below the 60 FPS threshold, so players may prefer Medium settings at 63 FPS average for a smoother experience.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM cause issues at 4K?

A: The data suggests VRAM pressure at 3840x2160. The average FPS drops from 60 at Low to 38 at High and 33 at Ultra, a steeper decline than at lower resolutions, indicating the 8 GB buffer is insufficient for higher presets at 4K.

Q: How does the i5-10400F perform in general benchmarks?

A: The CPU scores 10283 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 1451 in single-core, with a Passmark multithread score of 12115. Its average benchmark score of 14185 places it at the 68th percentile of all CPUs.

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 features 12 MB of shared L3 cache, with 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. Memory support includes dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The CPU's general benchmark scores show a strong single-thread performance of 1451 in Cinebench R23 and 609 in Cinebench R20, while multithread workloads reach 10283 in Cinebench R23 and 4318 in Cinebench R20.

In Control, the CPU's role appears secondary to the GPU. At 1080p Low settings, the system reaches 118 FPS average, indicating the CPU can feed frames well above the GPU's rendering capacity. The 3dmark scores reinforce this: 4-thread performance hits 2560, 8-thread reaches 3929, and max threads achieves 4735. The single-thread score of 688 in 3dmark supports the CPU's ability to handle game logic and draw calls without introducing a bottleneck. The 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with rivals like the Intel Xeon 6756E (0.2% higher score) and AMD EPYC 7552 (0.5% lower), confirms that the i5-10400F sits in a capable performance tier for this title.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimizing the Control experience with this hardware. At 1920x1080, Ultra settings deliver 65 FPS average, which exceeds the 60 FPS threshold and provides a fully playable experience with maximum visual quality. Players prioritizing higher frame rates can drop to Low for 118 FPS, but the 53 FPS difference between Low and Ultra makes the latter a reasonable choice for most users at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings offer the best balance, with 63 FPS average and a range of 54 to 73 FPS. High settings at 56 FPS average fall just short of the 60 FPS target, while Ultra at 49 FPS introduces noticeable compromise. For 1440p users, Medium provides the smoothest experience while maintaining visual fidelity above Low settings. The step from Medium to High costs only 7 FPS, so players with adaptive sync displays may still prefer High for improved visuals.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings achieve 60 FPS average. Medium drops to 43 FPS, High to 38 FPS, and Ultra to 33 FPS. For 4K users, the recommendation is to stick with Low settings for playable performance, or accept Medium at 43 FPS for a richer visual presentation. The min FPS of 36 at 4K Medium indicates that even the worst-case frame times remain above the 30 FPS stutter threshold, making Medium a viable option for players who prioritize image quality over frame rate consistency. The data shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, with 4K reserved for Low settings or players willing to tolerate sub-60 FPS averages.