Control

# Control with Intel Core i5-10400F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB delivers a solid 1080p and 1440p experience in Control, with the data showing a clear shift toward GPU limitation at higher resolutions. At 1080p High settings, the combo averages 102 FPS, which climbs to 162 FPS at Low settings — indicating headroom for high-refresh displays. The 1440p results remain playable across all presets, while 4K demands settings compromises, with the Ultra preset dropping to 45 FPS average. This combo ranks 1422nd out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the upper-middle tier of the database, with the CPU sitting at the 68th percentile and the GPU at the 19th percentile among their respective categories.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a predictable but steep scaling curve as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 162 FPS average; stepping up to 1440p Low drops that to 123 FPS, and at 4K Low it falls to 83 FPS. That represents a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a further 32% drop to 4K — the GPU is clearly the limiting factor once resolution climbs, as the CPU has more headroom at lower pixel counts. The 1080p Medium result of 115 FPS versus 1440p Medium's 87 FPS shows a similar pattern, with a 24% reduction. At High settings, the scaling is slightly more pronounced: 102 FPS at 1080p, 77 FPS at 1440p, and 52 FPS at 4K — a 25% drop and then a 32% drop respectively. This suggests that the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB's bandwidth and compute resources are being saturated as pixel count rises, while the i5-10400F's six cores and twelve threads remain sufficient to feed the GPU at all tested resolutions.

The Ultra preset tells the most interesting story. At 1080p Ultra, the combo still manages 89 FPS average, which is playable but noticeably lower than the 115 FPS Medium result. Moving to 1440p Ultra drops to 67 FPS, and 4K Ultra falls to 45 FPS — the latter being borderline for smooth gameplay, especially in action sequences. The gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution widens as resolution increases: at 1080p, the difference is 73 FPS (162 vs 89); at 1440p, it's 56 FPS (123 vs 67); and at 4K, it's 38 FPS (83 vs 45). This compression of the settings range at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes the bottleneck earlier, meaning players targeting 4K should stick to Medium or Low presets, while 1080p and 1440p users have more flexibility to crank settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with a 5 nm process from TSMC, featuring 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth — a figure that becomes relevant at 4K Ultra, where the 45 FPS average suggests both compute and memory pressure. The GPU's boost clock of 2535 MHz and base clock of 2310 MHz are relatively high, which helps at lower resolutions where the card can stretch its legs. With 4352 shading units, 136 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, the 4060 Ti delivers 22.06 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and its 34 ray tracing cores and 136 tensor cores are present but not heavily taxed in this title's measured results, since Control's ray tracing features aren't separately benchmarked in this data.

The card's pixel rate of 121.7 GPixel/s and texture rate of 344.8 GTexel/s explain why 1080p performance is strong — the GPU can fill pixels and sample textures quickly at that resolution. At 4K, the 128-bit memory bus becomes a constraint, as evidenced by the 52 FPS High result versus 83 FPS Low, a 37% gap that highlights how bandwidth-sensitive the higher resolution is. The 4060 Ti's 160 W TDP and dual-slot design with a single 16-pin connector make it a reasonable fit for mid-range builds, though the PCIe 4.0 x8 interface means it relies on the CPU's Gen 3, 16-lane connection from the i5-10400F, which could theoretically limit data transfer in some scenarios. However, the measured results show no obvious starvation at 1080p, where the 162 FPS Low figure indicates the GPU is not being held back by the bus.

How This Combo Ranks

The combined system ranks 1422nd out of 3720 tested combos in Control, placing it in the 38th percentile overall — better than roughly six out of ten tested systems. The CPU's percentile versus all processors is 68th, meaning the i5-10400F outperforms 68% of CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 14185. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163, 0.2% slower), the Intel Core 7 160UL (14232, 0.3% faster), the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115, 0.5% slower), and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277, 0.6% faster) — all extremely close scores, indicating the CPU is well-positioned among its peers. The GPU's percentile is lower at 19th, with an average benchmark score of 2913, and its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF (2910, 0.1% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB (2907, 0.2% slower), the NVIDIA Quadro P600 (2923, 0.3% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 (2893, 0.7% slower).

This ranking asymmetry — a strong CPU paired with a mid-range GPU — explains the observed scaling behavior. The combo rank of 1422 suggests that the GPU is the binding constraint in many games, including Control, where the i5-10400F's 6 cores and 12 threads provide ample headroom. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 10283 and single-core score of 1451 are respectable for its class, while the Geekbench multicore score of 6257 and single-core 1420 reinforce that the processor is not the weak link. If the GPU were upgraded, the combo rank would likely improve substantially, as the CPU's 68th percentile standing indicates it can support faster graphics cards without becoming a bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the best experience per preset depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1080p, the High preset at 102 FPS average offers the best balance of visual quality and smoothness, while Ultra at 89 FPS is still viable for players who prioritize fidelity over frame rate. The Medium preset at 115 FPS is a solid choice for competitive play or high-refresh monitors, and Low at 162 FPS is reserved for maximum performance scenarios, though the visual compromises are significant. At 1440p, the High preset at 77 FPS is the sweet spot — it's above the 60 FPS threshold and maintains good image quality. Medium at 87 FPS is also strong, while Ultra at 67 FPS is playable but shows how demanding the higher preset is. Low at 123 FPS is excessive for most users but demonstrates the combo's headroom at this resolution.

For 4K, the data tells a different story: High at 52 FPS is borderline, Medium at 59 FPS (with a minimum of 50 FPS and maximum of 68 FPS) is the best option for consistent playability, and Ultra at 45 FPS is too choppy for fast-paced action. Low at 83 FPS is surprisingly playable and suggests that players with 4K displays should use Low or Medium settings to maintain smooth frame rates. The Medium preset at 4K shows a min FPS of 50, which is the only measured minimum in the entire dataset — indicating that even the average of 59 FPS can dip below 60, so players should be prepared for occasional stutters. In summary, the recommended presets are: 1080p High (102 FPS) for balanced play, 1440p High (77 FPS) for the best visual-to-performance ratio, and 4K Medium (59 FPS) for acceptable frame rates, with 4K Low (83 FPS) as the fallback if smoothness is paramount.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, at 1440p High settings the combo averages 77 FPS, and at Medium it reaches 87 FPS. Even Ultra at 67 FPS stays above 60, so all presets at 1440p meet the 60 FPS target, though Ultra has no measured minimum to confirm worst-case dips.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this setup?

A: At 4K, only Low (83 FPS) and Medium (59 FPS) presets are viable for playable frame rates. High drops to 52 FPS and Ultra to 45 FPS, so 4K users should stick to Medium or Low, with Medium showing a minimum of 50 FPS in the data.

Q: How does the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB compare to the 16 GB version in this game?

A: The 8 GB model's average benchmark score is 2913, while the 16 GB version scores 2907 — a 0.2% difference in favor of the 8 GB card. This suggests that the extra VRAM does not impact Control's performance in the measured scenarios, likely because 8 GB is sufficient at the tested settings.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-10400F a bottleneck for the RTX 4060 Ti?

A: The data suggests no significant bottleneck. The CPU's 68th percentile ranking and the FPS scaling pattern — where 1080p Low hits 162 FPS but 4K Low only 83 FPS — indicate the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the high frame rates suggest the CPU can keep up.

Q: What is the best preset for a 1080p 144Hz monitor?

A: Medium at 115 FPS or High at 102 FPS are the best options, as both exceed 100 FPS. Low at 162 FPS would fully saturate a 144Hz display but sacrifices visual quality, while Ultra at 89 FPS falls short of the 144 FPS target.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM capacity cause problems in Control?

A: Based on the measured results, no. The 4K Ultra preset at 45 FPS suggests compute or bandwidth limits rather than VRAM exhaustion, and the GPU's 288.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus is more likely the constraint at high resolutions than the memory capacity itself.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F provides six cores and twelve threads, running at a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boosting to 4.30 GHz. Built on the Comet Lake architecture using Intel's 14 nm process, this CPU has 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 64 KB L1 plus 256 KB L2 per core. Its memory support is DDR4 in dual-channel configuration, yielding 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth, and it connects via PCIe Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes. The 65 W TDP makes it an efficient choice, and while it lacks an unlocked multiplier, the boost clock does most of the heavy lifting. In Control, the CPU's role is clearly secondary to the GPU — the benchmark data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo hits 162 FPS, which is a high enough frame rate that the CPU's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1451, Geekbench single-core 1420) becomes relevant for maintaining frame pacing.

The multi-threaded performance, evidenced by Cinebench R23 multicore score of 10283 and 3DMark 16-thread score of 4748, ensures that background tasks and game logic don't starve the GPU. The PassMark multithread score of 12115 and single-thread score of 2541 further confirm that the i5-10400F holds its own among contemporaries. The CPU's nearest rivals — the Xeon 6756E, Core 7 160UL, EPYC 7552, and Ryzen 3 7320C — all score within 0.6% of the i5-10400F's average, which means the processor is squarely in a performance band where differences are negligible for gaming. In Control specifically, the CPU's 12 threads are more than adequate, as the game's demands at 1080p are met with 162 FPS on Low, and the scaling to 4K shows no CPU-induced plateau — the FPS drops consistently with resolution, which is the signature of GPU limitation.