Control

Control with the Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 presents a constrained experience, particularly at higher resolutions. The measured frame rates across all settings and resolutions indicate that this combination is heavily limited by the graphics card, with the CPU providing sufficient headroom in most scenarios. The data shows a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, which is typical for a system where the GPU is the primary bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and reveals the limiting component in this pairing. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 36 FPS at 1920x1080 to 27 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 9 FPS, and then further to 18 FPS at 3840x2160, another 9 FPS drop. This linear decline pattern, where each resolution step costs roughly the same absolute frame rate, indicates that the GTX 1650 is being pushed to its limits at every pixel count above 1080p.

At Low settings, the scaling is more dramatic. The average frame rate at 1920x1080 is 56 FPS, which drops to 43 FPS at 2560x1440, and then plummets to 29 FPS at 3840x2160. The 14 FPS loss from 1080p to 1440p is larger than the 9 FPS loss seen at High settings, suggesting that at low graphical fidelity, the GPU's raw throughput becomes the sole constraint, and the additional pixel count at 1440p and 4K overwhelms the 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

The Medium preset shows a similar trend, with average FPS of 40, 30, and 20 at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K respectively. The minimum frame rates at Medium settings also highlight the struggle: 34 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. These minimums are within 4-5 FPS of the averages, indicating that the frame pacing is relatively consistent, but the overall performance is simply too low for smooth gameplay at higher resolutions.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (56 FPS) and Ultra (31 FPS) is 25 FPS. At 1440p, the gap narrows to 20 FPS (43 vs 23), and at 4K, it shrinks to 13 FPS (29 vs 16). This compression at higher resolutions is a classic sign of GPU-bound operation — when the pixel fill rate is the bottleneck, the settings-based shader work becomes relatively less impactful compared to the sheer number of pixels being rendered.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F provides a solid foundation for this game, but its role in the measured results is secondary to the GPU. With 6 cores and 12 threads, the processor has adequate parallelism for Control's engine. The boost clock of 4.40 GHz and base clock of 2.60 GHz offer a wide frequency range that helps maintain consistent frame delivery. Benchmark data shows a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14340 and a single-core score of 2024, indicating strong single-threaded performance that is often critical for game logic and draw call processing.

The processor's 3DMark scores further contextualize its capability: 868 in single-thread, 1691 in 2-thread, 3171 in 4-thread, and 4691 in 8-thread tests. These scores suggest that the CPU can handle up to 8 threads efficiently, which is sufficient for most current game engines. The 12 MB of shared L3 cache provides fast access to frequently used data, reducing the latency penalty that can occur with memory-bound workloads.

In this specific pairing, the CPU is unlikely to be the primary limiter at any resolution. At 1080p Low, where the GPU is under the least stress, the average FPS of 56 suggests the CPU is still keeping up, but the GPU is already near its ceiling. The percentile ranking of 71 for the CPU versus all tested processors indicates it sits above the median, providing a capable base. However, the data does not suggest any CPU-induced stuttering or frame drops, as the minimum FPS values are proportionally close to the averages across all settings.

The 12 threads are more than sufficient for Control, which typically benefits from 6-8 threads. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s over dual-channel DDR4 is adequate, though not exceptional, and does not appear to create a bottleneck in the measured results. The processor's 65 W TDP and Rocket Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node are consistent with a mid-range desktop part that pairs logically with a budget GPU.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average frame rate this combo achieves at 1080p?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The High preset achieves 36 FPS, Medium 40 FPS, and Ultra 31 FPS at the same resolution.

Q: How does the GTX 1650's VRAM capacity affect 4K performance?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. At 3840x2160, the average frame rates range from 16 FPS at Ultra to 29 FPS at Low, indicating the memory capacity and bandwidth are insufficient for smooth 4K gameplay regardless of settings.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting component. The frame rate drops consistently with resolution increases, while CPU benchmarks show strong multi-threaded scores (14340 in Cinebench R23) that are not reflected in frame rates, suggesting the graphics card cannot keep pace with the processor's output.

Q: What is the combo's ranking among all tested combinations for Control?

A: This combination ranks 3588 out of 3720 tested combos, placing it in the lower 96th percentile of all tested systems for this game.

Q: Does the GPU have ray tracing capabilities for this game?

A: The fact pack lists no ray tracing cores for the GTX 1650, and the architecture is Turing-based but without RT cores. Control supports ray tracing, but this GPU cannot accelerate it, which may explain the lower performance metrics.

Q: How consistent are frame rates at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the minimum FPS values are close to the averages: 34 min vs 40 avg at 1080p, 26 min vs 30 avg at 1440p, and 17 min vs 20 avg at 4K. This consistency suggests stable frame pacing, but the low averages mean it is not a playable experience at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3588 out of 3720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the bottom 4% of all systems tested. This low ranking is primarily driven by the GPU's limitations, as the CPU itself ranks in the 71st percentile among all processors. The delta between the CPU's strong relative performance and the combo's poor game ranking highlights the extent to which the GTX 1650 holds back the overall experience.

The GPU's own ranking of 40th percentile versus all GPUs further contextualizes the issue. While the GTX 1650 is not the weakest card available, its performance in Control is inadequate for modern standards. The nearest GPU rivals include the Intel UHD Graphics 750, which scores within 0.4% of the GTX 1650 in average benchmark scores, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 within 0.6%. This proximity to integrated graphics in synthetic benchmarks does not translate to playability in Control, where the measured FPS at 1080p High is just 36.

The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7H12 (0.3% higher score) and Intel Core i5-12450H (0.4% lower), but these comparisons are irrelevant to gaming performance in this context. The CPU is not the constraint; the combination's rank is a direct reflection of the GPU's inability to render Control at acceptable frame rates. For context, the 3720 tested combos span a wide range of hardware, and this pairing sits near the bottom, suggesting it is suitable only for low-resolution, low-settings play.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the dominant factor in this system's performance. With 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, the 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is a significant limitation for a game like Control, which features complex textures and physics effects. The GPU's 896 shading units and 56 texture mapping units provide a baseline compute capability, but the 32 ROPs are insufficient for high-resolution pixel fill rates.

The clock speeds of 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost are modest, and the 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is indicative of a budget-tier card. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 and Passmark G3D score of 7880 place it well below what is needed for demanding titles. The GPU's 40th percentile ranking versus all GPUs confirms its mid-to-low tier status, and its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Arc A310 (1% higher score), do not offer meaningful performance improvements.

In Control, the GPU's role is clear: it is the bottleneck at every resolution and settings combination. At 1080p Low, the 56 FPS average is the best case, but this still represents a sub-optimal experience for a game that benefits from higher settings. The 4 GB VRAM is likely to cause texture thrashing at 1440p and above, as the game's assets exceed the available memory. The lack of RT cores further limits the experience, as Control is known for its ray-traced reflections and lighting, which this GPU cannot accelerate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured average frame rates are 16 FPS at Ultra, 18 FPS at High, 20 FPS at Medium, and 29 FPS at Low. The Medium preset shows a minimum FPS of 17 and a maximum of 24, indicating significant frame time variance even within this low performance envelope. These numbers are far below playable thresholds, confirming that 4K is not viable for this combo.

At 2560x1440, the averages improve but remain insufficient: 23 FPS at Ultra, 27 FPS at High, 30 FPS at Medium, and 43 FPS at Low. The Medium preset again provides min/max data at 26 and 35 FPS, respectively. While Low settings approach playability at 43 FPS, the visual quality trade-off is substantial, and the overall experience would still involve frequent dips below 30 FPS in demanding scenes.

At 1920x1080, the performance is more usable. The Low preset achieves 56 FPS average, which is close to a smooth experience but not consistently fluid. Medium settings deliver 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS, while High settings yield 36 FPS and Ultra 31 FPS. The data shows that 1080p is the only resolution where any settings preset approaches playable frame rates, and even then, only Low and Medium are viable for a 60 Hz display.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which produces an average of 56 FPS. This is the only configuration that comes close to a smooth 60 FPS target, though the lack of minimum FPS data for Low settings means frame drops cannot be ruled out. For players who prioritize visual quality over raw frame rate, Medium settings at 1080p offer a 40 FPS average with a 34 FPS minimum, providing a more stable baseline than High or Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the data suggests avoiding this resolution entirely. Even at Low settings, the 43 FPS average is marginal, and the visual degradation from Low settings at 1440p may not provide a meaningful image quality improvement over 1080p Medium. The 4K resolution should be disregarded, as all settings produce averages below 30 FPS, which is below the threshold for consistent motion fluidity.

For the best balance of playability and visual fidelity, the recommendation is 1080p Medium. This preset delivers a 40 FPS average with a 34 FPS minimum, ensuring that the game remains playable during combat sequences. High settings at 1080p drop the average to 36 FPS, which is still playable but less consistent, while Ultra at 31 FPS risks dropping below 30 FPS in heavy scenes. The Low preset at 1080p is the only option for users targeting 60 FPS, but the reduced settings will noticeably impact the game's atmosphere and detail.