Control

Control pairs a six-core Alder Lake processor with an entry-level Turing GPU, and the measured results in this Action Adventure title are heavily lopsided toward the graphics card. The Intel Core i5-12400 is a capable modern CPU with a 77th percentile ranking among all tested processors, while the GeForce GTX 1650 sits at just the 43rd percentile for GPUs. That gap shows up immediately in the frame rates: the combo never reaches 60 FPS at any resolution or setting, and only approaches playable territory at 1080p with the lowest preset. This is a system where the GPU is the clear bottleneck, and the data confirms that the CPU’s headroom is largely unused.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, confirming that the GTX 1650 is the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 58 at 1920x1080 to 40.9 at 2560x1440, a reduction of about 30%, and then to 28.2 at 3840x2160, which is roughly half of the 1080p figure. The pattern repeats at High settings: 35.5 FPS at 1080p, 26.4 at 1440p, and 16.4 at 4K. That is a 54% loss from 1080p to 4K, which is a typical signature of a GPU-bound scenario where pixel throughput dominates.

The scaling between Medium and Ultra presets tells the same story. At 1080p, Medium yields 38.5 FPS, while Ultra drops to 30.7 — a modest 20% penalty. At 4K, the same preset change goes from 17.5 FPS to 13.9, which is a 21% drop. The consistency of these percentages across resolutions suggests the game is not suddenly becoming CPU-limited at lower pixel counts; if the i5-12400 were the constraint, you would expect the 1080p numbers to cluster together regardless of settings. Instead, the 1080p Low result of 58 FPS is nearly double the 1080p Ultra result of 30.7, so the GPU’s fill rate and shading power are what matter here.

The practical takeaway is that 4K is not viable for this combo. Even the best-case 4K result, Low at 28.2 FPS, is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. Meanwhile, 1440p sits in a middle ground where Low is borderline acceptable at 40.9 FPS, but any higher preset pushes it under 30. The data indicates that resolution scaling is punishing because the GTX 1650’s 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are simply too narrow for high pixel counts.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows point to 1080p Low as the only configuration that approaches smooth playability, with an average of 58 FPS. That is the single data point above 50 FPS in the entire set, and it is the clear recommendation for anyone who prioritizes frame rate over visual fidelity. If you insist on higher quality, 1080p Medium at 38.5 FPS is the next best option, but the jump to High at 35.5 FPS buys very little for the extra load, and Ultra at 30.7 FPS dips into the territory where fast action becomes harder to follow.

At 1440p, the situation is more constrained. Low at 40.9 FPS is the only preset that stays above 30, making it the sole viable choice for that resolution. Medium at 30.1 FPS is borderline, and High at 26.4 or Ultra at 23.8 will feel sluggish. For 4K, no setting is recommended; even Low at 28.2 FPS is below the 30 FPS line, and the other presets range from 13.9 to 17.5, which are effectively unplayable for a game with real-time combat.

The best experience per the measured rows is 1080p Low. It delivers a 33% improvement over 1080p Medium (58 vs 38.5) and nearly doubles the 1080p Ultra result (58 vs 30.7). The cost is visual quality, but the data shows that the GTX 1650 does not have the headroom to run higher presets without sacrificing frame rate. If you have a 1440p monitor, drop to Low and accept the lower fidelity; the alternative is a stutter-prone experience that the benchmark numbers do not support.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650 is the dominant factor in these results, and its specifications explain why. It has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth — a figure that is modest by modern standards and a likely culprit for the steep 4K penalties. The GPU’s boost clock is 1665 MHz, and it offers 896 shading units, which is enough for 1080p Low but not for higher resolutions. The chip is built on a 12 nm process with 4,700 million transistors, and its FP32 performance is listed at 2.984 TFLOPS, which aligns with the observed frame rates.

VRAM is a specific concern. With only 4 GB, Control at 4K High or Ultra likely exceeds the memory capacity, which would explain why the 4K High result (16.4 FPS) is barely better than the 4K Medium result (17.5 FPS) — both are likely hitting a memory wall rather than a pure compute limit. The 1080p results are less memory-constrained, as the 58 FPS on Low shows, but the GPU’s pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are still modest. The data suggests that the GTX 1650 is the sole bottleneck; the i5-12400’s 6 cores and 12 threads are more than sufficient for this game.

The GPU’s percentile ranking of 43 places it below average, and its nearest rivals include the RTX 3050 A Mobile at a 0.4% higher score and the Quadro P2200 at a 0.5% lower score. Those are close margins, but the GTX 1650’s 75W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate it is a low-power part, which limits its sustained performance. In Control, the measured FPS reflects that limitation directly.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full set of measured results is as follows. At 1920x1080, Low averages 58 FPS, Medium 38.5, High 35.5, and Ultra 30.7. The spread from Low to Ultra is 27.3 FPS, which is a 47% drop, and it shows how sensitive this GPU is to preset changes. At 2560x1440, Low averages 40.9, Medium 30.1, High 26.4, and Ultra 23.8. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 17.1 FPS, or about 29%, which is consistent with the pixel count increase. At 3840x2160, Low averages 28.2, Medium 17.5, High 16.4, and Ultra 13.9. The 4K Low result is the only one above 20 FPS, and the Ultra result is below 15.

Looking at the resolution scaling more closely, the gap between Low and Ultra widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the delta is 27.3 FPS; at 1440p, it is 17.1; at 4K, it is 14.3. The absolute differences shrink because the GPU is already overwhelmed at higher pixel counts, but the relative penalty remains similar. For example, 4K Ultra is 51% slower than 4K Low (13.9 vs 28.2), while 1080p Ultra is 47% slower than 1080p Low (30.7 vs 58). This indicates that the GTX 1650’s compute and memory resources are proportionally stressed across all resolutions.

The data also shows that Medium is often closer to High than to Low. At 1080p, Medium is 38.5 and High is 35.5, a difference of only 3 FPS, while Medium is 19.5 FPS below Low. The same pattern appears at 1440p (30.1 vs 26.4, a 3.7 FPS gap) and 4K (17.5 vs 16.4, a 1.1 FPS gap). This suggests that the Low preset removes a significant bottleneck, likely related to shadows or lighting, while Medium and High are more similar in cost.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1601 out of 1636 tested combos for Control. That places it in the bottom 2% of all systems, which is a poor showing driven almost entirely by the GPU. The CPU alone is competitive — its average benchmark score of 19850 puts it within 0.4% of the Intel Core i7-11600K and 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-9700 — but the GTX 1650’s average score of 8713 is just above the AMD Radeon 550X at 8749 and the RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8746. The GPU’s percentile rank of 43 means it is below the median, and in a game like Control, that is fatal.

The combo rank of 1601 out of 1636 is a stark indicator that this configuration is not suited for this title. For context, the CPU’s nearest rivals are all similarly capable, but the GPU’s nearest rivals include the Quadro P2200, which is a workstation part, and the Radeon 550X, which is an entry-level mobile chip. None of these are known for gaming performance, and the GTX 1650’s 43rd percentile confirms it is at the low end of the desktop GPU market. The measured FPS data aligns with that ranking: no resolution or setting combination reaches 60 FPS, and only 1080p Low gets close at 58.

The rank also highlights the mismatch between the two components. The i5-12400’s 77th percentile CPU rank suggests it has plenty of headroom, but the GPU’s 43rd percentile means it cannot deliver the frames. In Control, the combo is effectively GPU-bound at every measured point, so upgrading the graphics card would be the only meaningful change. The data does not support any other conclusion.

FAQ

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

A: 1080p Low is the only configuration that averages 58 FPS, which is the highest measured result. All other settings at any resolution fall below 41 FPS.

Q: Can this system play Control at 4K?

A: Not at any playable level. The best 4K result is Low at 28.2 FPS, and Ultra drops to 13.9 FPS, both below the 30 FPS threshold.

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

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The Intel Core i5-12400 ranks in the 77th percentile for CPUs, while the GTX 1650 ranks in the 43rd percentile, and frame rates scale heavily with resolution and settings.

Q: How much faster is 1080p Low compared to 1080p Ultra?

A: 1080p Low averages 58 FPS, which is 27.3 FPS higher than 1080p Ultra at 30.7 FPS, representing a 47% improvement.

Q: Does the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM affect 4K performance?

A: The data suggests it does. At 4K, High and Medium results are nearly identical (16.4 vs 17.5 FPS), which is consistent with a memory capacity limit rather than a pure compute limit.

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

A: It ranks 1601 out of 1636 combos for Control, placing it in the bottom 2% of tested configurations.