Control

The Intel Core i5-12400 and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT pairing in Control delivers a robust experience, but the data reveals a clear division of labor between the CPU and GPU depending on resolution and settings. The i5-12400 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on Alder Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its 18 MB of shared L3 cache and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory make it a flexible modern platform. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU scores 15,989 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,257 in single-core, placing it in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark score include the AMD EPYC 7643, which is 0.1% slower, and the Intel Core i3-14100F, which is 0.9% slower, indicating that the i5-12400 sits in a competitive mid-range tier. The 3DMark results show strong scaling from 2 threads (1,692) to max threads (5,890), with an 8-thread score of 4,745, suggesting the processor handles multi-threaded workloads efficiently without bottlenecking at higher frame rates.

For a game like Control, which is a fast-paced action-adventure title, the CPU's single-thread performance is critical for maintaining minimum frame rates and ensuring smooth gameplay physics and AI calculations. The data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 174 FPS average, which is high enough that the CPU's performance ceiling becomes more relevant. The 3DMark single-thread score of 910 and Geekbench single-core score of 1,848 demonstrate adequate processing power for this workload. While the i5-12400 is not the fastest CPU available, its 72nd percentile ranking means it outperforms a majority of processors on the market, and its nearest rivals are all within 1% of its aggregate score, confirming that it is a well-balanced choice for gaming. The 6-core configuration is sufficient for modern games, and the 12 threads allow for background tasks without significant frame rate degradation. The CPU's TDP of 65W is modest, but this is a specification, not a performance metric; the benchmark results speak to its capability in Control.

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

The i5-12400's 6 cores and 12 threads are directly relevant to Control's performance at lower resolutions where the CPU becomes a larger factor. At 1080p Low, the system produces 174 FPS, which is the highest measured result across all configurations. This indicates that the CPU can feed the GPU enough data to maintain very high frame rates, but it also suggests that the CPU is nearing its limits in this scenario. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 5,873 is nearly identical to the max-thread score of 5,890, implying that the processor is fully utilized with 12 threads, and adding more threads would not yield significant gains. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 6,715 is respectable for a 6-core part, and the single-core score of 947 shows that each core is efficient. In Control, this translates to solid performance in scenes with many interactive objects or particles, which rely on single-threaded game logic.

The boost clock of 4.40 GHz is the key frequency for gaming, as most game engines are latency-sensitive and benefit from higher clocks on a few cores. The data shows that at 1440p High, the average FPS drops to 83, which is a 21% decrease from the 1080p High result of 110 FPS. This drop is primarily due to the GPU workload increasing, but the CPU must still maintain frame pacing. The i5-12400's L3 cache of 18 MB shared across all cores is sufficient for Control's level streaming and asset loading, and the 10 nm process node ensures efficient power delivery. The CPU's percentile rank of 72 means it outperforms 72% of all processors, and its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7643, has an average score only 0.1% higher, which is within measurement noise. This suggests that for Control, the i5-12400 is not a limiting factor at 1080p, but at higher resolutions, the GPU takes over as the primary bottleneck.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is a RDNA 3.0 architecture GPU with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a substantial amount of VRAM and bandwidth for Control, a game that can use high-resolution textures and complex visual effects. The GPU's base clock is 1295 MHz, with a boost clock of 2430 MHz and a game clock of 2124 MHz, which are the frequencies that matter for sustained gaming performance. The 3840 shading units and 96 ROPs are responsible for pixel rendering, and the 60 ray tracing cores support the game's optional ray-traced reflections and shadows. In synthetic benchmarks, the RX 7800 XT scores 24,176 in Passmark G3D and 54,228 in Geekbench Vulkan, placing it in the 51st percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in aggregate score are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660, which is 0.5% slower, and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, which is 1.8% slower, indicating that this GPU is positioned in the mid-to-upper tier of graphics cards.

The 16 GB VRAM is particularly relevant for Control at 4K resolution, where texture detail and draw distances can consume significant memory. The measured FPS at 3840x2160 High is 56 FPS, which suggests the GPU is working hard but not running out of memory. The GPU's FP32 performance of 37.32 TFLOPS is ample for the game's effects, and the 233.3 GPixel/s pixel rate handles the resolution demands. The data shows that at 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 96, which is a 17% drop from the High setting, indicating that the most demanding settings tax the GPU's shader and texture units. The GPU's TDP of 263W and suggested PSU of 600W are power specifications, but the performance data shows that the RX 7800 XT can deliver high frame rates at 1440p and playable frame rates at 4K. The GPU's 51st percentile ranking means it is an average performer relative to all GPUs, but its nearest rivals are all within 2% of its score, so the performance difference between it and similar cards is minimal.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of scaling from 1080p to 4K, which indicates that the GPU becomes the limiting component at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 174 FPS, while at 1440p Low it drops to 132 FPS (a 24% decrease), and at 4K Low it falls to 89 FPS (a 33% decrease from 1440p). This consistent drop as resolution increases is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the RX 7800 XT's rendering capabilities are the primary constraint. For the High settings, the scaling is similar: 110 FPS at 1080p, 83 FPS at 1440p (a 25% drop), and 56 FPS at 4K (a 33% drop from 1440p). The fact that the percentage drops are nearly identical across Low and High settings suggests that the GPU is the bottleneck in both cases, and the CPU is not limiting performance at any resolution.

The Medium settings provide the most detailed data, with min and max FPS values. At 1080p Medium, the average is 124 FPS with a min of 105 and max of 142. At 1440p Medium, the average is 94 FPS with a min of 80 and max of 108. At 4K Medium, the average is 63 FPS with a min of 54 and max of 73. The min FPS values drop from 105 to 80 to 54 as resolution increases, which indicates that the GPU's rendering time per frame is increasing, and this translates to more pronounced frame drops. The max FPS values also drop, from 142 to 108 to 73, showing that even the best-case scenarios are limited by the GPU at higher resolutions. This data supports the conclusion that the RX 7800 XT is the limiting component at 1440p and 4K, while the i5-12400 provides sufficient CPU performance to avoid becoming a bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this system achieves in Control, and at what settings?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 174, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration that exceeds 170 FPS, and it indicates that the system is not CPU-limited at this setting.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400 has an average benchmark score of 18,683, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD EPYC 7643, 0.3% lower than the Intel Core i7-1355U, and 0.7% lower than the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330. It is 0.9% higher than the Intel Core i3-14100F. These differences are minimal, placing the i5-12400 in a tight performance band.

Q: Is the GPU's VRAM sufficient for 4K gaming in Control?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth. The measured 4K High average FPS is 56, and 4K Ultra is 49, which are playable but not high refresh rates. The VRAM is not the limiting factor; the GPU's compute and rasterization performance is.

Q: What is the performance difference between High and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset produces an average of 83 FPS, while the Ultra preset produces an average of 72 FPS. This is a 13% decrease in performance for the Ultra settings, which provides additional visual fidelity but at a measurable cost.

Q: How does the system rank among all tested combos for this game?

A: The combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT ranks 1,254 out of 3,720 total combos in Control. This places it in the 66th percentile of all tested system configurations, indicating above-average performance.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 4K Medium, and is it a smooth experience?

A: At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 63, with a minimum of 54 and a maximum of 73. The 54 FPS minimum is just above the 50 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, but there may be occasional stutters in demanding scenes.

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

The measured FPS data for this system covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a comprehensive view of performance. At 1920x1080, the system delivers the highest frame rates. The Low preset achieves 174 FPS average, while Medium achieves 124 FPS with a minimum of 105 and maximum of 142. High settings produce 110 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 96 FPS. This shows that at 1080p, the system can handle even the most demanding settings well above 60 FPS, making it suitable for high refresh rate monitors.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably but remains playable. Low settings achieve 132 FPS, Medium achieves 94 FPS with a minimum of 80 and maximum of 108, High achieves 83 FPS, and Ultra achieves 72 FPS. The 1440p results indicate that the system is still capable of high refresh rates at Medium settings and above, but the Ultra preset drops to 72 FPS, which is still smooth for most users. The minimum FPS of 80 at Medium settings suggests that there are no major frame drops, providing a consistent experience.

At 3840x2160, the system transitions from high refresh rate territory to standard 60 FPS gaming. Low settings achieve 89 FPS, Medium achieves 63 FPS with a minimum of 54 and maximum of 73, High achieves 56 FPS, and Ultra achieves 49 FPS. The 4K results show that the system can handle the game at 4K, but only at Low settings can it exceed 60 FPS. Medium and High presets are playable but will not maintain a constant 60 FPS, and Ultra dips below 50 FPS. The data indicates that 4K gaming is possible, but users should expect to compromise on settings to achieve smooth frame rates.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the user's resolution and frame rate target. For 1080p users with a 144 Hz monitor, the High preset at 110 FPS is the best balance, as it provides a significant visual improvement over Medium (124 FPS) while still maintaining a high frame rate. The Ultra preset at 96 FPS is also viable for users who prioritize image quality over frame rate, but the 13% performance drop from High to Ultra may not be worth the visual gain for most players. For 1080p users with a 240 Hz monitor, the Low preset at 174 FPS is the only option to approach that refresh rate, but the visual compromise is substantial.

For 1440p users, the High preset at 83 FPS is the recommended choice for a smooth experience, as it provides good visual fidelity while staying above 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 94 FPS offers a better frame rate margin, but the visual difference between Medium and High is noticeable in Control's detailed environments. The Ultra preset at 72 FPS is still playable, but it is close to the 60 FPS threshold and may result in occasional frame drops. For users with a 144 Hz 1440p monitor, the Low preset at 132 FPS is the only way to take full advantage of the refresh rate, but this is a significant visual downgrade.

For 4K users, the Medium preset at 63 FPS is the best choice, as it is the only preset that achieves a playable average above 60 FPS without dipping too low in minimums (54 FPS). The High preset at 56 FPS is also viable for users who prefer visual quality over a locked 60 FPS, but the Low preset at 89 FPS is the only way to get a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. The Ultra preset at 49 FPS is not recommended, as it falls below the 50 FPS threshold and will result in a less smooth experience. The data suggests that the system is best suited for 1440p gaming, where it can balance high frame rates and visual quality, and 4K users should stick to Medium settings for the best experience per the measured rows.