Control

Control is a 2019 action-adventure title that stresses both GPU and CPU depending on resolution and settings. This analysis covers the measured performance of the Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090. The data shows a system that delivers high frame rates across the board, but with distinct scaling patterns that reveal where the bottleneck shifts as you change resolution and quality presets.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: dropping from 1080p to 1440p to 4K costs significant performance at every settings preset, but the magnitude of that drop varies. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 171 FPS at 1920x1080 to 134.2 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of roughly 22%. Moving to 3840x2160, the average drops further to 92.8 FPS, which is about 46% below the 1080p result. This indicates that at 4K, the RTX 5090 is being pushed hard by the pixel count, and the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor.

The Low preset tells a similar story but with different numbers. At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 200.5 FPS average. At 2560x1440, that falls to 179.5 FPS, a much smaller drop of about 10%. At 4K, Low settings still manage 144.9 FPS, which is 28% lower than the 1080p figure. The smaller performance hit at 1440p compared to High settings suggests that when the GPU is less burdened by visual effects, the CPU can keep up better, and the frame rate is less sensitive to resolution changes.

Ultra settings show the steepest scaling curve. From 158 FPS at 1080p, the average drops to 118.8 FPS at 1440p (a 25% reduction), and then to 79.8 FPS at 4K, which is 49% below the 1080p result. This nearly half-off performance penalty at 4K Ultra confirms that the highest quality settings place an enormous load on the GPU, and even a flagship card like the RTX 5090 cannot maintain high frame rates at that resolution without compromises.

The scaling pattern across all presets indicates that at 1080p, the system is often CPU-limited or at least balanced, because the differences between Low and Ultra are relatively modest (200.5 FPS vs 158 FPS). At 4K, however, the GPU is clearly the limiting component, as the spread between Low and Ultra widens to a 65 FPS gap (144.9 vs 79.8). This is typical behavior for a game like Control, which uses heavy post-processing and physics effects that scale with resolution.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting high refresh rate monitors at 1920x1080, the data supports using Ultra settings. The measured 158 FPS average at 1080p Ultra is well above the 144 Hz threshold common on gaming displays, and the visual fidelity gain from High to Ultra is worth the 13 FPS cost (171 down to 158). Even at 2560x1440, Ultra delivers 118.8 FPS, which is playable on most 120 Hz panels, though dropping to High would provide a smoother experience with a 15 FPS improvement.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes. Ultra settings produce only 79.8 FPS average, which may be acceptable for slower-paced exploration but is below the 90 FPS target many players prefer for action sequences. The data shows that High settings at 4K yield 92.8 FPS, which is a 16% improvement over Ultra. For a game like Control with intense combat and destructible environments, the extra 13 FPS from choosing High over Ultra at 4K is likely the better trade-off.

The Medium preset at 4K offers 101.5 FPS, which is 27% faster than Ultra. This is the sweet spot for 4K gaming on this hardware if you want to stay above 100 FPS. The jump from Medium to High costs about 9 FPS at 4K (101.5 down to 92.8), which is a moderate price for better shadows and reflections. Low settings at 4K reach 144.9 FPS, but the visual degradation is severe and likely not worth the frame rate gain unless you have a 144 Hz 4K display.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with maximum settings?

A: Yes, but not at high refresh rates. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 79.8 FPS. This is playable but below the 90 FPS threshold that provides consistently smooth motion in fast-paced scenes.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming?

A: The data shows Ultra settings at 2560x1440 produce 118.8 FPS average. If you prefer higher frame rates, High settings deliver 134.2 FPS, which is a 13% improvement over Ultra with only minor visual differences in shadow quality and reflection detail.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: The loss depends on settings. At Low, the drop is from 200.5 FPS to 144.9 FPS, a 28% reduction. At High, the drop is from 171 FPS to 92.8 FPS, which is a 46% reduction. At Ultra, the drop is from 158 FPS to 79.8 FPS, a 49% reduction.

Q: Is the CPU holding back the GPU at 1080p?

A: The evidence suggests yes. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra is only 42.5 FPS (200.5 vs 158), which is a smaller relative gap than at 4K. This indicates the CPU is limiting performance at lower resolutions, preventing the GPU from fully stretching its legs.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at Medium settings?

A: At 1080p Medium, the average is 177.8 FPS. At 1440p Medium, it drops to 149.6 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average is 101.5 FPS. These figures represent a balanced trade-off between visual quality and performance.

Q: Does the RTX 5090 have enough VRAM for this game?

A: Absolutely. The GPU has 32 GB of GDDR7 memory, which is far more than Control requires. Even at 4K Ultra, the game is unlikely to use more than a fraction of that capacity, so VRAM is not a limiting factor in any of the measured results.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are: Low 200.5 FPS, Medium 177.8 FPS, High 171 FPS, and Ultra 158 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 42.5 FPS, showing that quality presets have a meaningful but not overwhelming impact at this resolution. The step from Medium to High costs only 6.8 FPS, while the step from High to Ultra costs 13 FPS, making Ultra the most expensive tier in relative terms.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low 179.5 FPS, Medium 149.6 FPS, High 134.2 FPS, and Ultra 118.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra widens to 60.7 FPS, indicating that resolution has a compounding effect on settings. The drop from Medium to High is 15.4 FPS, which is larger than at 1080p, showing that higher resolutions amplify the cost of each quality tier.

At 3840x2160, the numbers are: Low 144.9 FPS, Medium 101.5 FPS, High 92.8 FPS, and Ultra 79.8 FPS. The Low to Ultra spread is 65.1 FPS, the largest of any resolution. Notably, the gap between Medium and High narrows to 8.7 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is 13 FPS. This suggests that High settings are the most efficient choice at 4K, offering significantly better performance than Ultra with only modest visual sacrifices.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently provides the best balance of performance and visual quality. At 1080p it delivers 177.8 FPS, at 1440p it delivers 149.6 FPS, and at 4K it delivers 101.5 FPS. These figures are all comfortably above 100 FPS, making Medium the recommended default for most players.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is the dominant component in this system, and the measured FPS data reflects its capabilities. The GPU has a base clock of 2017 MHz and a boost clock of 2407 MHz, with 92,200 million transistors on a 5 nm process. Its 32 GB of GDDR7 memory operates at 1750 MHz with a 512-bit bus, providing 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. These specifications explain why the card can push 200.5 FPS at 1080p Low and still maintain 79.8 FPS at 4K Ultra.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 84306. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D, which scores 84241 (0.1% lower), and the AMD Radeon PRO W6600, which scores 83209 (1.3% lower). The RTX 5090's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 14411 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 380114 confirm its top-tier positioning. In Control, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor at 4K, where even the fastest presets cannot reach 200 FPS.

The memory bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s is particularly relevant for Control, which uses high-resolution textures and heavy particle effects. The 32 GB capacity ensures that texture streaming is never a bottleneck, allowing the GPU to focus on rendering rather than swapping data. The 21760 shading units and 176 ROPs provide the raw compute power needed to handle the game's physics-based destruction at high resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Rocket Lake architecture on a 14 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The CPU's launch MSRP is $157. Its benchmark results include a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14372 and a single-core score of 2029, placing it in the 75th percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 17181.

The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U, which scores 17189 (0% difference), and the Intel Core i7-1260P, which scores 17212 (-0.2% lower). These scores indicate that the i5-11400F is a solid mid-range performer, but not a top-tier part. In Control, the CPU's role becomes evident at 1080p, where the frame rates plateau at around 200 FPS across settings. This suggests the CPU is hitting its limits at lower resolutions, preventing the RTX 5090 from achieving even higher frame rates.

The 6-core, 12-thread configuration is adequate for Control, which is not heavily multi-threaded compared to modern titles. The single-thread performance, as measured by the Geekbench single-core score of 1979, is sufficient for the game's main thread, but the 12 MB L3 cache may cause occasional stutters in scenes with many dynamic objects. The CPU's dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth is not a bottleneck in the measured results, as the frame rates are consistently high across all resolutions.