Control

The Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti combination produces a 1617th-place result out of 1636 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 1% of the database. The measured frame rates confirm this pairing is severely constrained by the graphics card, with the CPU’s six cores and twelve threads providing ample headroom that the GPU cannot exploit.

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

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a six-core, twelve-thread processor from the Rocket Lake generation, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support at 51.2 GB/s give it solid fundamentals for a 2021 desktop part. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14372 and a single-core score of 2029, while Geekbench shows 7579 multi-core and 1979 single-core. These figures place the processor at the 75th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms three-quarters of the database.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U at 17189 (0% delta), the Intel Core i7-1260P at 17212 (-0.2% delta), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U at 17215 (-0.2% delta). The i5-11400F’s own avgBenchmarkScore is 17181, so it sits within a fraction of a percent of these competitors. This is a processor that can handle modern game logic and physics without becoming the primary bottleneck.

However, in Control, the measured FPS data tells a different story. At 1920x1080 Low, the combo achieves 45.4 FPS; at 2560x1440 Low, it drops to 35.5 FPS; and at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 22.1 FPS. The CPU’s compute capability is far beyond what the GTX 1050 Ti can feed. The GPU’s Passmark G3D score of 6340 places it at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, with nearest rivals like the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5297, 0.4% delta). The 1050 Ti’s 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, paired with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus delivering 112.1 GB/s, represent a fundamental performance ceiling. This is a CPU that would perform far better with a stronger GPU, but in this pairing, its role is to wait for the graphics pipeline.

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

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Control?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 45.4, which occurs at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At the same resolution with Medium settings, the average drops to 34.7 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested configurations in Control?

A: This pairing ranks 1617th out of 1636 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 1.2% of the database. Only 19 other combinations perform worse in this game.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance in Control?

A: The GPU is the clear limiting factor. The CPU sits at the 75th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 30th percentile. The frame rate drops consistently as resolution increases, which indicates a graphics-bound scenario rather than a CPU bottleneck.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 45.4 FPS while Ultra settings produce 27.0 FPS. That is a difference of 18.4 FPS, or about 40% lower performance when moving from Low to Ultra.

Q: Is the 4 GB VRAM sufficient for Control at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 22.1 on Low settings, and Ultra settings drop to 11.2 FPS. The 4 GB frame buffer combined with the GPU’s compute limits makes 4K playable only at very low quality, and even then, the frame rate is below typical playability thresholds.

Q: How does this combo compare to the GPU’s nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti’s avgBenchmarkScore is 5316, which is within 0.8% of the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5280) and within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5297). The closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, scores 5317, a 0% delta.

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

Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 and then to 3840x2160 produces a predictable but steep FPS decline across all settings. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 45.4 at 1080p to 35.5 at 1440p (a 21.8% drop) and then to 22.1 at 4K (a 37.7% drop from 1440p). At Medium settings, the sequence is 34.7 to 25.3 to 18.5, representing a 27.1% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 26.9% drop from 1440p to 4K. High settings show 28.1 to 19.9 to 15.9, with a 29.2% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 20.1% drop from 1440p to 4K. Ultra settings go from 27.0 at 1080p to 19.6 at 1440p (27.4% drop) and then to 11.2 at 4K (42.9% drop).

The pattern reveals a GPU-bound configuration. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions because the processor would be unable to feed the GPU faster regardless of pixel count. Instead, the FPS falls consistently as pixel count rises, which is the classic signature of a graphics card that runs out of fillrate and memory bandwidth. The GTX 1050 Ti’s pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s and texture rate of 66.82 GTexel/s are simply too low for 4K rendering in a game like Control. The 4 GB GDDR5 memory also becomes a constraint at higher resolutions, as the frame buffer must hold larger textures and geometry buffers.

The drop from 1440p to 4K at Ultra settings is particularly severe, falling from 19.6 to 11.2 FPS, a 42.9% reduction. This suggests that the GPU’s 32 ROPs are overwhelmed by the pixel fill requirements of 4K Ultra. Even at Low settings, the 4K result of 22.1 FPS is below the 30 FPS threshold that most players consider minimum for playable action-adventure games. The data indicates that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, with 1440p possible only at Low settings if the user accepts a sub-40 FPS experience.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The comboRankInGame field places this pairing at 1617 out of 1636 total combinations tested in Control. This means it outperforms only 19 other configs, putting it in the bottom 1.2% of all tested systems. This ranking is consistent with the component-level percentiles: the CPU is at the 75th percentile, but the GPU is at the 30th percentile, and the combination’s actual gaming performance is dragged down by the weaker component.

To contextualize the rank, consider the CPU’s nearest rivals. The AMD Ryzen 7 5700U has an avgBenchmarkScore of 17189 (0% delta from the i5-11400F), and the Intel Core i7-1260P scores 17212 (-0.2% delta). If paired with a stronger GPU, these CPUs would likely rank far higher, but the GTX 1050 Ti caps the system’s potential. Similarly, the GPU’s nearest rivals — the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5280, 0.7% delta) — are all low-end parts that would produce similar frame rates in Control.

The rank of 1617 out of 1636 is a stark indicator that this is not a configuration designed for demanding titles. Control’s genre is Action Adventure, and the game’s release date of 2019-08-26 means it is several generations old, yet this combo still struggles to maintain playable frame rates even at 1080p Medium (34.7 FPS). The ranking data suggests that users with this hardware should expect to play at Low settings at 1080p or consider upgrading the GPU before addressing the CPU, which is already performing well above its percentile rank in this pairing.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low produces 45.4 FPS, Medium produces 34.7 FPS, High produces 28.1 FPS, and Ultra produces 27.0 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 10.7 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 1.1 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset’s additional effects are relatively inexpensive at this resolution compared to the step from Low to Medium.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 35.5 FPS, Medium at 25.3 FPS, High at 19.9 FPS, and Ultra at 19.6 FPS. Here, the difference between High and Ultra narrows to just 0.3 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is becoming saturated and the extra visual features of Ultra cannot be rendered without a significant performance hit. The step from Low to Medium is 10.2 FPS, similar in magnitude to the 1080p difference.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 22.1 FPS, Medium at 18.5 FPS, High at 15.9 FPS, and Ultra at 11.2 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is 3.6 FPS, from Medium to High is 2.6 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 4.7 FPS. At 4K, the Ultra preset is 49.3% slower than Low, which is the largest relative penalty across all resolutions. The 4K Ultra result of 11.2 FPS is the lowest measured value in the entire dataset.

Across all resolutions, the data shows a consistent pattern: the FPS penalty for increasing settings is not linear. At 1080p, Low to Ultra costs 18.4 FPS; at 1440p, it costs 15.9 FPS; and at 4K, it costs 10.9 FPS. This is because the absolute FPS values are lower at higher resolutions, so the same percentage loss translates to a smaller absolute number. The percentage loss from Low to Ultra is 40.5% at 1080p, 44.8% at 1440p, and 49.3% at 4K, showing that Ultra settings become relatively more expensive as resolution increases.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the most playable experience is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which delivers 45.4 FPS. This is the only configuration in the entire dataset that exceeds 40 FPS, making it the recommended preset for any user who values smooth motion over visual fidelity. The 1080p Medium preset at 34.7 FPS is also viable for action-adventure gameplay, but it is 23.6% slower than Low.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset at 35.5 FPS is the only option that approaches the 30 FPS threshold, but it is still below the 1080p Low experience. The 1440p Medium preset at 25.3 FPS is likely too choppy for a game that involves combat and environmental interaction, as the frame rate would dip below 20 FPS during intense scenes. Given that the minFps data is not provided, the average FPS should be treated as the best-case scenario, and actual gameplay may see lower lows.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets are playable. The highest average is 22.1 FPS at Low, which falls below the 30 FPS minimum for comfortable play. The Ultra preset at 11.2 FPS is effectively a slideshow and should be avoided entirely. The data suggests that this combo should be used exclusively at 1080p, with Low settings as the primary choice and Medium as an acceptable compromise if the user prefers better visuals and can tolerate a lower frame rate.

The High and Ultra presets at 1080p (28.1 and 27.0 FPS respectively) are within 1.1 FPS of each other, so if a user insists on higher quality, the Ultra preset provides nearly identical performance to High with better visual features. However, both are below the 30 FPS threshold and would produce a suboptimal experience. The recommendation is clear: prioritize frame rate over fidelity with this hardware. Low at 1080p offers the best balance of responsiveness and playability, while Medium at 1080p is the fallback for users who cannot tolerate the visual downgrade.