Control

Control, Remedy’s 2019 action-adventure, presents an interesting stress test for this pairing of an Intel Core i5-10400F and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB. The benchmark data shows a system that is capable of high refresh rates at 1080p, but the performance curve as resolution and settings increase reveals a clear bottleneck shift. The measured FPS rows indicate that this combination is most comfortable at 1080p and 1440p, with 4K being a more demanding proposition. The core question is not whether this combo can run the game, but rather where its performance ceiling lies and which component governs that limit.

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 from the Comet Lake generation, built on a 14 nm process. Its base clock of 2.90 GHz can boost up to 4.30 GHz, which provides a solid foundation for gaming workloads. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU shows a significant scaling from single-thread to multi-thread performance; for instance, it scores 688 in the 3dmark_single_thread test but jumps to 4748 in the 3dmark_16_threads test. This indicates that while single-thread performance is adequate, the processor's strength lies in handling multiple threads simultaneously, which is relevant for a game like Control that uses physics and particle effects heavily.

The data suggests that at 1080p, this CPU is likely sufficient to keep up with the GPU. The measured 1080p Low settings average of 161 FPS is telling; this high frame rate, which is far beyond what most displays can show, implies that the CPU is not the primary limiter at this resolution and settings level. The processor’s multi-threaded capability, reflected in a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283, provides enough headroom for the game's logic and AI. However, the percentileVsAllCpus field of 68 indicates that this CPU is not at the top of the performance charts, ranking in the upper two-thirds of all processors. This is a mid-range part, and the data implies that while it won't hold back the RTX 5060 Ti at lower resolutions, its influence could become more apparent in specific CPU-intensive scenarios, even if the average FPS numbers do not explicitly show a CPU bottleneck.

The relationship between the CPU's 12 threads and the game's engine is key. Control is known for its complex physics simulations, which can scale well with additional cores. The jump in the CPU's benchmark scores from 4 threads (2560) to 8 threads (3929) and then to 16 threads (4748) shows that the processor's performance scales with load. This suggests that the 6-core, 12-thread configuration is a good match for the game's multi-threaded nature, allowing it to maintain consistent frame pacing. The L3 cache of 12 MB (shared) is sufficient for the game's data, and the dual-channel DDR4 memory support, while not top-tier, provides enough bandwidth to avoid severe stuttering. The data does not show a scenario where the CPU's limitations cause a dramatic FPS drop, which supports the conclusion that its role in this pairing is supportive rather than dominant.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB is the graphical powerhouse in this setup, built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with a 5 nm process. It features 4608 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 48 raster operation pipelines. The GPU's base clock is 2407 MHz with a boost of 2572 MHz, and it has 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. This memory bandwidth is a crucial factor for high-resolution gaming, and the 8 GB capacity is a defining characteristic that appears to be a limiting factor at the highest settings.

The GPU's performance in synthetic benchmarks is average, with a percentileVsAllGpus of 29, placing it in the bottom third of all GPUs. Its passmark_g3d score of 21981 is respectable, but the nearestRivals data shows it is closely matched with older, lower-tier cards like the AMD FirePro W5130M and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, which have average scores of 4904 and 4893 respectively, resulting in deltaPct values of -0.1 and 0.2. This is a stark comparison that highlights the GPU's mid-range positioning. The 8 GB VRAM is the most contentious point. Looking at the measured FPS, the drop from High to Ultra settings at 4K is significant (from 52 to 45 FPS), and while this is partly compute-related, it is also indicative of memory pressure. The game's textures at Ultra settings likely require more memory than the 8 GB available, forcing the system to manage assets more aggressively, which impacts performance.

The GPU's clock speeds and the memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s are sufficient for the game's demands up to 1440p. At 1440p High, the average FPS of 77 is strong, showing the GPU can handle the load. However, the 4K Ultra average of 45 FPS is not smooth, and the data suggests that the GPU's compute power and memory capacity are both stressed. The FP32 performance of 23.70 TFLOPS is the raw compute available, and the pixel rate of 123.5 GPixel/s, while decent, is not enough to drive 4K at high settings without compromise. The data implies that the GPU is the primary performance limiter at higher resolutions and settings, as the CPU's performance headroom at 1080p indicates it is not the bottleneck in those scenarios.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how this system scales with resolution. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 102. Moving up to 1440p High, the average drops to 77 FPS, a 25% decrease. At 4K High, the average falls further to 52 FPS, a 33% decrease from the 1440p figure and a 49% decrease from the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern is a strong indicator of a GPU bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would not drop so dramatically with resolution, as the CPU workload remains relatively constant regardless of the pixel count. The fact that the FPS scales inversely with resolution suggests that the GPU is working harder to fill those pixels, and its performance ceiling is being reached.

The same pattern holds for other settings. For Low settings, the FPS goes from 161 at 1080p to 122 at 1440p (a 24% drop) and then to 82 at 4K (a 33% drop from 1440p). The consistent percentage drops across all settings confirm that the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU, with its high multi-thread scores, is likely providing frames faster than the GPU can render them at lower resolutions, but the GPU cannot maintain that pace as the resolution increases. The data for Medium settings also includes min and max FPS values, which show a similar trend. At 1080p Medium, the min is 97 and max is 132. At 1440p Medium, the min drops to 74 and max to 100. At 4K Medium, the min is 50 and max is 67. This shows that not only the average but also the frame pacing consistency degrades with resolution, reinforcing the idea that the GPU is struggling to keep up.

The deltaPct between 1080p and 1440p is roughly 25%, which is typical for a GPU-bound scenario. The delta between 1440p and 4K is even larger, suggesting that the GPU is hitting a hard performance wall at 4K. This is likely due to the combination of raw compute limitations and the 8 GB VRAM capacity. The data implies that to achieve a smooth 4K experience, one would need to significantly lower settings, but even then, the 4K Low average of 82 FPS shows that the GPU can handle the lower workload. The 4K Ultra average of 45 FPS is the clearest indicator of the GPU's limits, as it falls below the 60 FPS threshold that is often considered the standard for smooth gameplay.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K resolution with playable frame rates?

A: Based on the measured data, it is playable but not at the highest settings. At 4K Low, the average FPS is 82, which is smooth. At 4K High, the average drops to 52 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 45 FPS. The data suggests that 4K is only viable with lower settings presets.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-10400F a bottleneck for the RTX 5060 Ti in this game?

A: The data does not indicate a CPU bottleneck at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 161 FPS, which suggests the CPU is providing ample headroom. The FPS drops significantly when resolution increases, which is a characteristic of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU's multi-thread performance score of 10283 in Cinebench R23 supports that it is capable of feeding the GPU.

Q: What is the impact of the 8 GB VRAM on performance?

A: The impact is most visible at higher settings and resolutions. The FPS drop from 4K High (52 FPS) to 4K Ultra (45 FPS) is 7 frames, which is a 13% decrease. While this is not solely due to VRAM, the 8 GB capacity is a known limitation for modern titles at 4K. The data implies that texture-heavy settings like Ultra will pressure the memory, leading to performance degradation.

Q: How does the system's performance at 1440p compare to 1080p?

A: The performance is significantly lower at 1440p. For High settings, the average FPS drops from 102 at 1080p to 77 at 1440p, a 25% decrease. This is a substantial reduction, but the 77 FPS average is still a good experience. The data shows that 1440p is a viable resolution for this combo, but it requires a step down from the highest settings to maintain high frame rates.

Q: Which resolution offers the best balance of visual quality and performance?

A: Based on the data, 1440p High provides a strong balance. The 77 FPS average is above the 60 FPS target, and the visual quality is superior to 1080p. While 1080p High offers a higher frame rate of 102 FPS, the 1440p resolution provides a sharper image. The data suggests that 4K is too demanding for consistent high frame rates.

Q: Is the system's performance consistent, or are there frame rate dips?

A: The data includes min and max FPS for Medium settings. At 1080p Medium, the min is 97 and max is 132, showing a range of 35 FPS. At 4K Medium, the min is 50 and max is 67, a range of 17 FPS. This indicates that frame pacing is more consistent at lower settings, but the average frame rate is much lower at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following data is derived directly from the measured FPS rows, showing the average, minimum, and maximum FPS for each resolution and settings combination.

1920x1080

• Low: Average FPS is 161.
• Medium: Average FPS is 114, with a minimum of 97 and a maximum of 132.
• High: Average FPS is 102.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 88.

2560x1440

• Low: Average FPS is 122.
• Medium: Average FPS is 87, with a minimum of 74 and a maximum of 100.
• High: Average FPS is 77.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 67.

3840x2160

• Low: Average FPS is 82.
• Medium: Average FPS is 58, with a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 67.
• High: Average FPS is 52.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 45.

The data shows a clear hierarchy. At 1080p, all settings are playable, with even the Ultra preset achieving 88 FPS. At 1440p, the Ultra preset drops to 67 FPS, which is still above 60 FPS. At 4K, only the Low preset maintains a high frame rate of 82 FPS, while the Medium preset is borderline at 58 FPS, and High and Ultra are below 60 FPS. The maximum FPS values for Medium settings also decrease with resolution, from 132 at 1080p to 67 at 4K, showing that the peak performance also scales down.

Settings Recommendations

The benchmark data suggests that the optimal experience for this system is at 1440p resolution with the High settings preset. The average FPS of 77 is comfortably above the 60 FPS target, providing a smooth and responsive gameplay experience. The High preset offers a significant visual improvement over Low and Medium, and the performance is still strong. While 1080p High offers a higher frame rate of 102 FPS, the jump to 1440p provides a noticeable increase in image sharpness that justifies the 25% FPS cost.

If a higher frame rate is desired, the 1080p High preset is the best choice. The 102 FPS average is excellent for fast-paced action, and the visual quality is still good. The Ultra preset at 1080p provides a moderate FPS of 88, but the performance difference between High and Ultra may not be worth the extra GPU load. For 4K gaming, the data shows that the system is not well-suited for high settings. The 4K Low preset achieves an 82 FPS average and is the only way to get a smooth 4K experience. The 4K Medium preset is borderline at 58 FPS, which may be acceptable for some players, but it is not a consistent 60 FPS. The High and Ultra presets at 4K should be avoided, as the average FPS of 52 and 45 respectively are not ideal for a game that relies on precise timing and reaction. The data implies that the sweet spot is 1440p High, offering the best balance of visual fidelity and performance without pushing the system to its limits.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB combination is ranked 1094 out of 2888 tested combos for Control. This places it in the top 38% of all tested systems, which is a respectable position for a mid-range pairing. The data indicates that while this combo is not at the top of the charts, it is far from the bottom. The CPU's percentileVsAllCpus of 68 is higher than the GPU's percentileVsAllGpus of 29, which suggests that the CPU is more capable relative to its peers than the GPU is relative to its peers. This reinforces the earlier analysis that the GPU is the limiting factor in this system.

The ranking of 1094 out of 2888 suggests that many other combinations are faster, but it also means that a significant number are slower. The data shows that this combo is well-suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but it is not a high-end 4K solution. The GPU's low percentile rank (29) is a cause for concern, as it means that many other GPUs outperform it. However, the actual performance in Control, as measured by the FPS data, is still good for the resolutions it is intended for. The combo's rank is a holistic view, but the resolution-specific data provides a more nuanced picture. The system is a solid performer for its tier, and the rank reflects that it is a capable, if not exceptional, gaming rig for this title. The high CPU rank relative to the GPU suggests that a future GPU upgrade could improve this system's overall rank substantially, as the CPU would not be a significant bottleneck.