Control

# Control with Intel Core i5-11400F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080

The pairing of Intel's six-core Core i5-11400F with NVIDIA's RTX 4080 produces a system that handles Control with substantial headroom at every tested resolution, though the pattern of frame rates reveals where each component takes over. At 1080p, the combo averages 156 FPS on High settings, climbing to 199 FPS on Low; at 1440p, those figures drop to 118 FPS and 181 FPS respectively; and at 4K, the same settings yield 79 FPS and 126 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at each resolution is telling: 64 FPS at 1080p, 79 FPS at 1440p, and 57 FPS at 4K, which indicates the GPU becomes the primary constraint as resolution climbs, while the CPU's influence fades.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear, predictable scaling pattern from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 156 FPS at 1920x1080 to 118 FPS at 2560x1440—a 24% reduction—and then to 79 FPS at 3840x2160, another 33% drop from 1440p. This is textbook GPU-bound scaling: pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, and the frame rate nearly halves, which suggests the RTX 4080's rendering throughput is the limiting factor at the higher resolutions. The Low preset tells a similar story with 199 FPS at 1080p, 181 FPS at 1440p, and 126 FPS at 4K—the 1080p to 1440p gap is only 9%, indicating the CPU is holding the system back at the lowest resolution, but the 4K result drops 30% from 1440p, confirming the GPU reasserts dominance.

The Medium preset, which includes min and max FPS data, offers additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the system averages 175 FPS with a minimum of 149 FPS and maximum of 201 FPS—a 52 FPS range that shows frame pacing is consistent. At 1440p Medium, the average falls to 132 FPS with a 113 FPS minimum and 152 FPS maximum, a 39 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the average is 89 FPS with a 76 FPS minimum and 103 FPS maximum, a 27 FPS spread. The shrinking range as resolution increases is a hallmark of GPU-bound operation: at 1080p, CPU hiccups cause wider variance, while at 4K, the GPU's consistent workload smooths out the frame delivery.

What does this mean for the limiting component? At 1080p Low, the 199 FPS average is likely near the ceiling of what the i5-11400F can feed the RTX 4080, since the 16% drop to 181 FPS at 1440p is far smaller than the resolution increase warrants. At 4K, however, the GPU's raw pixel-pushing power is the bottleneck—the 126 FPS Low result at 4K is a 30% drop from 1440p Low, aligning closely with the 2.25x pixel count increase from 1440p to 4K. The Ultra preset reinforces this: 135 FPS at 1080p, 102 FPS at 1440p, and 69 FPS at 4K, with the 4K figure representing a 32% reduction from 1440p. For a 1440p monitor, this combo is exceptionally well balanced; for 4K, it remains playable but the GPU is clearly working near its limits on Ultra.

How This Combo Ranks

Among all tested CPU-GPU combinations in Control, this pairing ranks 352nd out of 3,720 combos, placing it in the top 9.5% of all systems benchmarked. That percentile standing is impressive, but the rank alone doesn't convey the nuance—the data shows the RTX 4080 is doing the heavy lifting, as the i5-11400F's average benchmark score of 17,177 places it at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU's average score of 54,247 sits at the 86th percentile among all GPUs. The combo rank of 352 suggests that many higher-ranked systems likely pair the RTX 4080 with a stronger CPU, since the GPU's individual percentile is higher than the combo's percentile would imply.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the i5-11400F scores 0.3% higher than the AMD EPYC 7H12, 0.4% lower than the Intel Core i5-12450H, 0.6% lower than the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, and 0.6% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U. These are all within a 1.2% band, meaning the processor's performance is essentially neck-and-neck with a broad range of server and mobile chips—but none of those rivals are gaming-focused desktop parts, which highlights the i5-11400F's mid-pack positioning. For the GPU, the RTX 4080 scores 0.1% lower than the RTX 4080 SUPER, 1.1% lower than the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X, 2.6% lower than the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, and 2.7% lower than the AMD Radeon 8060S. The delta to the SUPER variant is negligible, but the gap to the Radeon parts—while small in percentage—shows the 4080 is not the absolute top-tier card in this database's scoring.

The practical takeaway: this combo is in the upper echelon of tested systems, but the rank of 352 suggests that the CPU is leaving some performance on the table in CPU-light scenarios. In Control specifically, where the game's physics and AI can stress lower-core-count processors, the i5-11400F's six cores and twelve threads are adequate, but the combo rank reflects that many other tested pairings with stronger CPUs achieve higher average FPS at the same GPU.

GPU Role

The RTX 4080 is the star of this pairing, and its specifications explain why Control runs so smoothly. The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth—plenty for Control's texture-heavy environments at 4K, where the High preset averages 79 FPS and Ultra drops to 69 FPS. The memory clock runs at 1400 MHz, with 22.4 Gbps effective speed, and the 112 ROPs handle pixel throughput at 280.6 GPixel/s. The 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores are present but Control's implementation of ray tracing is not separately benchmarked in this data; the measured results reflect standard rasterization performance.

The GPU's clock behavior is notable: base clock of 2205 MHz and boost clock of 2505 MHz, with the Ada Lovelace architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process. The 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die give a transistor density of 121.1M per mm², which contributes to the 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. In Control, this compute translates to the observed frame rates: at 4K Ultra, the 69 FPS average is respectable for a demanding action-adventure title, and the 4K Low result of 126 FPS shows the GPU's headroom when settings are reduced. The 16 GB VRAM is a future-proofing asset—Control's textures at Ultra settings can consume significant memory, and 16 GB ensures no buffer overflow or texture streaming stutter, which the stable min FPS of 76 at 4K Medium supports.

The GPU's average benchmark score of 54,247 places it at the 86th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER, scores 54,209—a 0.1% difference that is effectively a tie. This means the 4080 in this combo is performing exactly as expected; there is no thermal or driver-related deficit. The 320 W TDP and triple-slot cooler are not reflected in the FPS data, but the consistent frame delivery at 4K Medium (89 FPS average, 76 FPS minimum) suggests the card maintains boost clocks under sustained load. For a game like Control, where the astral plane sequences and particle effects can spike GPU load, the 4080's 16 GB frame buffer and high bandwidth ensure the system doesn't dip below playable thresholds.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average is 199 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At Medium settings, the same resolution yields 175 FPS, and at High, 156 FPS.

Q: Is this combo capable of 4K gaming in Control?

A: Yes, but with caveats. At 4K High, the average is 79 FPS; at Medium, 89 FPS; at Low, 126 FPS; and at Ultra, 69 FPS. All are playable, but Ultra sits below the 70 FPS threshold that many gamers prefer for smooth motion.

Q: How does the i5-11400F compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The i5-11400F scores 0.3% higher than the AMD EPYC 7H12 and 0.6% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U, but 0.4% lower than the Intel Core i5-12450H and 0.6% lower than the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G. All deltas are within 1.2%.

Q: What is the frame time variance at 1440p Medium?

A: At 2560x1440 Medium, the average FPS is 132, with a minimum of 113 and maximum of 152, producing a 39 FPS range. This indicates consistent frame pacing with no major stutters.

Q: Does the RTX 4080's VRAM capacity matter for Control?

A: The 16 GB of GDDR6X memory with 716.8 GB/s bandwidth ensures that even at 4K Ultra, texture loading is not a bottleneck. The minimum FPS of 76 at 4K Medium indicates no VRAM-related dips.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Control?

A: It ranks 352nd out of 3,720 combos, placing it in the top 9.5% of all benchmarked CPU-GPU pairings for this game.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F provides six cores and twelve threads, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. This Rocket Lake part, built on Intel's 14 nm process with a 276 mm² die size, has 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 512 KB of L2 per core. Its memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR4 bus, which is modest by modern standards but sufficient for Control's demands. The CPU's TDP is 65 W, and it launched at an MSRP of $157, though pricing is not relevant to its performance characterization here.

Benchmark results show the i5-11400F's strengths and limits. In Cinebench R23, it scores 14,340 multicore and 2,024 singlecore; in Geekbench, 7,737 multicore and 1,777 singlecore. The 3DMark results scale from 1,691 with 2 threads to 5,652 with max threads, indicating that the six-core design scales reasonably well but hits a ceiling around 5,600—the gap between 8 threads (4,691) and max threads (5,652) is just 20%, showing diminishing returns from the twelfth thread. In Control, this CPU behavior manifests in the 1080p Low result of 199 FPS, which is likely near the maximum frame rate the CPU can generate regardless of GPU headroom.

The CPU's percentile rank of 71 among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17,177, places it above the median but far from the top. Its nearest rivals—the EPYC 7H12, i5-12450H, Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, and Core Ultra 7 164U—all score within a 0.6% band of the i5-11400F, which means the processor is not a differentiator in this combo. In Control, where the game's physics simulations and AI pathfinding can tax multiple cores, the six-core configuration is adequate but not exceptional. The 1080p Ultra result of 135 FPS, compared to 156 FPS at High, shows that the CPU can still feed the GPU at high settings, but the 199 FPS Low ceiling suggests a stronger CPU like a higher-core-count part might push beyond that.

The practical implication: if you're targeting 1440p or 4K, the i5-11400F is sufficient—the GPU is the bottleneck, and the CPU's 4.40 GHz boost clock ensures it won't hold back the RTX 4080 in most scenarios. At 1080p with Low settings, the CPU becomes the limiting factor, but that's an unrealistic use case for this GPU pairing. The 65 W TDP and 12 MB L3 cache are modest, but Control doesn't heavily favor large caches; the game's performance is more dependent on raw GPU throughput, which this combo delivers in spades.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear hierarchy of settings for this combo, and the optimal choice depends on your resolution and framerate target. At 1080p, all presets are playable, but the data suggests Medium is the sweet spot: 175 FPS average with a 149 FPS minimum and 201 FPS maximum. The jump from Medium to High costs 19 FPS (175 to 156), while High to Ultra costs another 21 FPS (156 to 135). If you have a 144 Hz monitor at 1080p, High at 156 FPS clears that bar comfortably, but Medium's 175 FPS provides more headroom for dips, and the 149 FPS minimum ensures no drops below 144 Hz.

At 1440p, Medium is the recommended preset for high-refresh displays: 132 FPS average with a 113 FPS minimum, which keeps you above 100 FPS even in demanding scenes. High at 118 FPS is also viable for a 120 Hz monitor, but the 113 FPS minimum at Medium provides a safer margin. Ultra at 102 FPS is playable but borderline for 120 Hz displays, and the 32 FPS gap between Medium and Ultra (132 to 102) is a significant visual upgrade in Control's particle-heavy effects. For 1440p 60 Hz gaming, Ultra at 102 FPS is the clear choice—it far exceeds 60 FPS and offers the best visual fidelity.

At 4K, the trade-off is steeper. Medium at 89 FPS is the best overall experience, with a 76 FPS minimum that stays above 60 FPS and a 103 FPS maximum that provides headroom. High at 79 FPS is also viable for a 60 Hz display, but the 10 FPS penalty from Medium to High (89 to 79) is noticeable, and the visual upgrade may not justify it on a 60 Hz panel. Ultra at 69 FPS is the most demanding, and while it stays above 60 FPS, the margin is thin—any heavy combat scene could drop below that threshold. Low at 126 FPS is unnecessary unless you're using a 120 Hz 4K display, which is a rare scenario. For most 4K users, Medium delivers the best balance of visual quality and performance, with High as a close second if you prefer sharper textures over frame rate headroom.

The data's min FPS values—only recorded for Medium presets—show that this combo maintains stable frame pacing even at 4K, with a 76 FPS minimum at that resolution. This suggests that the 16 GB VRAM and 716.8 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient to prevent stutter, so the settings choice is purely about balancing average FPS against visual fidelity. For a 60 FPS target at any resolution, Ultra is viable at 1440p and 4K, but for 144 Hz gaming, Medium or High at 1080p and 1440p is the practical ceiling.