Control

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER delivers a playable yet constrained experience in Control, with performance scaling that clearly identifies the GPU as the primary bottleneck. Across the three tested resolutions, average frame rates drop by roughly 47% when moving from 1080p to 4K at High settings, indicating that the graphics card is struggling to maintain pixel throughput at higher resolutions. The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p is the only resolution where this combination consistently exceeds 60 FPS, while 1440p settles into the 38–69 FPS range, and 4K remains below 46 FPS even at Low settingsgment.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate degradation from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings presets, a hallmark of GPU-bound performance. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 57 at 1920x1080 to 43 at 2560x1440—a 25% drop—and then further to 29 at 3840x2160, representing a 49% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This scaling pattern is nearly identical at Medium settings, where the averages are 64, 49, and 33 FPS respectively, with the 4K result sitting 48% below the 1080p figure.

Low settings show the most dramatic absolute drop, from 91 FPS at 1080p to 69 at 1440p and 46 at 4K. The 4K Low result is still 49% lower than its 1080p counterpart, which suggests that even when the graphics load is reduced, the GTX 1660 SUPER’s 6 GB frame buffer and 192-bit memory interface are insufficient for 4K rendering in this title. Ultra settings amplify the bottleneck: the 50 FPS at 1080p craters to 38 FPS at 1440p and then to 25 FPS at 4K, making that preset unusable at higher resolutions.

The fact that the relative performance gap between resolutions remains roughly constant regardless of settings indicates that the GPU’s raw fillrate and bandwidth, not the CPU’s six cores, are the limiting factor. If the i5-11400F were the constraint, we would expect to see a smaller FPS delta between 1080p and 1440p, with the gap widening only at 4K. Instead, the linear scaling across all three resolutions points to a graphics card that is saturated at every preset level.

Settings Recommendations

For a smooth 60 FPS experience, the data suggests that Low settings at 1920x1080 is the only viable option, delivering an average of 91 FPS. Medium settings at 1080p still manage 64 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold, but the minimum frame rate of 55 FPS indicates occasional dips below that mark during intense scenes. High settings at 1080p drop to 57 FPS, which is borderline playable but likely to produce visible stutter in combat-heavy sequences.

At 2560x1440, the choice becomes a trade-off between visual fidelity and frame rate. Low settings yield 69 FPS, which is smooth, while Medium drops to 49 FPS and High to 43 FPS. For users prioritizing image quality, Medium at 1440p provides a reasonable balance, with a minimum of 41 FPS ensuring that the game remains responsive. Ultra settings at 1440p, at 38 FPS, are not recommended for action gameplay given the genre’s fast-paced nature.

At 3840x2160, the GTX 1660 SUPER is clearly out of its depth. Even Low settings only produce 46 FPS, and Medium falls to 33 FPS with a minimum of 28 FPS, which is below the playability threshold for most users. High and Ultra settings at 4K, at 29 and 25 FPS respectively, should be avoided entirely. The measured data shows that this combination is best suited for 1080p gaming, with 1440p possible only at reduced quality presets.

How This Combo Ranks

In the global database of tested processor and graphics card combinations for Control, this pairing ranks 3176 out of 3720 combinations. That places it in the bottom 15% of all tested configs, which is consistent with the GTX 1660 SUPER’s overall GPU percentile of 53 and the i5-11400F’s CPU percentile of 71. The combo rank reflects the fact that while the CPU is mid-range, the GPU is entry-level for modern titles, and Control is particularly demanding on graphics hardware.

The GPU’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (0.4% higher score) and the AMD Radeon RX 580 (0.4% higher score), which suggests that the GTX 1660 SUPER is competitive with those parts in raw compute but lacks the VRAM capacity of some alternatives. The CPU’s nearest rivals show a similar tight grouping, with the AMD EPYC 7H12 and Intel Core Ultra 7 164U within 0.6% of the i5-11400F’s average benchmark score, indicating that the processor is not the differentiator in this pairing.

The combo’s low rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU’s inability to sustain high frame rates at resolutions above 1080p. In the measured FPS data, the best result is 91 FPS at 1080p Low, which is far below what higher-end combinations would achieve. Users should interpret this rank as a warning that this system is not future-proof for demanding action-adventure titles, though it remains functional for 1080p gaming.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings produces the following averages: Low hits 91 FPS, Medium achieves 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 and maximum of 74, High reaches 57 FPS, and Ultra falls to 50 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 41 FPS, which is a substantial 45% performance range, indicating that the game’s ultra preset adds significant visual effects that this GPU cannot fully process.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are 69 FPS for Low, 49 FPS for Medium (minimum 41, maximum 56), 43 FPS for High, and 38 FPS for Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 31 FPS, or 45%, mirroring the 1080p scaling. Interestingly, the difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 5 FPS, suggest that the Ultra preset’s additional load is less impactful at this resolution relative to the GPU’s other constraints.

At 3840x2160, performance collapses: Low averages 46 FPS, Medium 33 FPS (minimum 28, maximum 38), High 29 FPS, and Ultra 25 FPS. The total spread from Low to Ultra is 21 FPS, which is the smallest absolute range across all resolutions. This compression indicates that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily bottlenecked that even reducing settings cannot unlock significant headroom—the 6 GB VRAM and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are simply insufficient for this game’s 4K textures and lighting.

The minimum frame rates recorded only for Medium settings show that at 1080p, the 55 FPS minimum is close to the 60 FPS target, while at 1440p the 41 FPS minimum is playable but not smooth, and at 4K the 28 FPS minimum is a slideshow. These figures reinforce the recommendation to stay at 1080p for this combination.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Control at 4K?*

A: Technically yes, but not at playable frame rates. The highest 4K average is 46 FPS at Low settings, with Medium, High, and Ultra producing 33, 29, and 25 FPS respectively. The minimum frame rate at 4K Medium is 28 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth action gameplay.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combo?

A: The measured data clearly favors 1920x1080. At that resolution, Low settings deliver 91 FPS and Medium delivers 64 FPS, both of which are suitable for the action-adventure genre. At 1440p, only Low settings (69 FPS) exceed 60 FPS, while 4K never reaches that mark.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its closest benchmark rivals?

A: In synthetic tests, the GTX 1660 SUPER scores 12986 on average. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 0.4% higher, the AMD Radeon RX 580 is 0.4% higher, and the AMD Radeon 740M is 0.9% higher. The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 is 0.7% lower. This indicates the GTX 1660 SUPER is positioned near the middle of its performance class.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-11400F holding back the GTX 1660 SUPER in this game?

A: No. The resolution scaling patterns show consistent FPS drops from 1080p to 4K across all settings, which is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU’s six cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, are sufficient to feed the GPU, as evidenced by the 91 FPS result at 1080p Low.

Q: What is the worst-performing settings preset at 1080p?

A: Ultra settings at 1920x1080 produce an average of 50 FPS, which is the lowest 1080p result. While this is technically playable, the 57 FPS High preset is only 7 FPS faster, making Ultra a poor trade-off for the visual gains.

*Q: How does this combo’s rank in Control compare to other tested systems?*

A: The combination ranks 3176 out of 3720 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 15%. This low rank is driven by the GPU’s performance limitations, as the CPU’s percentile rank of 71 is significantly higher than the GPU’s percentile rank of 53.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F provides six cores and 12 threads based on the Rocket Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, the chip achieves a single-thread score of 868 in 3DMark and 2024 in Cinebench R23, while multi-thread scores reach 5652 in 3DMark and 14340 in Cinebench R23. These numbers place the CPU in the 71st percentile of all processors, showing it is a competent mid-range part.

In the context of Control, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 91 FPS, which indicates the CPU can handle the game’s single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads without becoming the limiting factor. The 12 threads provide enough parallel processing for the game’s physics and AI systems, preventing CPU-bound stutters.

However, the CPU’s 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support (51.2 GB/s bandwidth) are modest by modern standards. The benchmark results show that the i5-11400F’s closest rivals in average score include the AMD EPYC 7H12 (0.3% higher) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (0.6% higher), all of which are within a narrow performance band. This suggests that the CPU’s performance is not a differentiator in this pairing—the GTX 1660 SUPER is the clear constraint.

The lack of integrated graphics on the 11400F means the system relies entirely on the discrete GPU, which is fine for gaming but offers no fallback for troubleshooting. The CPU’s 65W TDP and Intel Socket 1200 compatibility make it a straightforward upgrade path, but for Control, the data shows that users would gain more from upgrading the GPU than the processorestr.