Control

Control is an action-adventure title that stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily, and the combination of the Intel Core i5-12400F with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER produces a balanced yet resolution-dependent experience. The benchmark data shows that this pairing sits at rank 2152 out of 3720 tested combos for this game, placing it in the upper-middle tier of systems. The i5-12400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads boosting up to 4.40 GHz, provides solid foundational performance, while the RTX 2070 SUPER’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth determines the ceiling at higher resolutions. This analysis breaks down exactly how the system scales across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, what each component contributes, and which settings deliver the best playable experience.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases, with the GPU becoming the dominant limiting factor at higher pixel counts. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 130 FPS average, which drops to 98 FPS at 1440p and further to 66 FPS at 4K. This represents a 24.6% performance drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 49.2% drop from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the RTX 2070 SUPER’s pixel throughput is the primary constraint as resolution climbs.

Looking at High settings, the scaling is equally telling: 82 FPS at 1080p falls to 62 FPS at 1440p (a 24.4% reduction) and then to 42 FPS at 4K (a 48.8% reduction from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings — roughly 24% for the 1080p-to-1440p step and 49% for the full jump to 4K — strongly suggests that the bottleneck is the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth rather than the CPU. The i5-12400F’s single-thread score of 909 in 3dmark and 1680 in Cinebench R23 is more than sufficient to feed the GPU at these frame rates, so the FPS decline is almost entirely attributable to the RTX 2070 SUPER’s processing limits.

At Ultra settings, the scaling becomes even more pronounced. The system manages 71 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and only 36 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is particularly revealing — it falls below the 40 FPS minimum observed on Medium settings at that resolution, showing that the GPU is fully saturated. The data indicates that 4K gaming on this combo is only viable at Low settings (66 FPS) or Medium settings (47 FPS average with a 40 FPS minimum), while 1440p offers a much more comfortable margin across all settings.

The 1080p results show a different story. Here, the CPU’s performance ceiling becomes more relevant. The jump from 130 FPS at Low to 92 FPS at Medium and 82 FPS at High indicates that the GPU is still the limiting factor, but the gap between Low and Medium (38 FPS) is larger than between Medium and High (10 FPS), suggesting diminishing returns as settings increase. The i5-12400F’s 3dmark 2-thread score of 1699 and 4-thread score of 3067 indicate strong single-core capability, which helps maintain high frame rates at 1080p where draw calls and physics calculations are less resolution-dependent but still require rapid CPU response.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is a Turing-architecture GPU with 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, operating at a base clock of 1605 MHz and boost clock of 1770 MHz. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus, yielding 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. These specifications directly explain the measured performance in Control, particularly the steep falloff at 4K where the GPU’s 9.062 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 113.3 GPixel/s pixel rate become the hard limits.

Control’s visual effects, particularly its physics-based destruction and particle systems, are heavily dependent on texture fill rate and memory bandwidth. The RTX 2070 SUPER’s 283.2 GTexel/s texture rate handles 1080p and 1440p well, as evidenced by the 82 FPS and 62 FPS High-settings results respectively. However, at 4K, the pixel load quadruples relative to 1080p, and the GPU’s 64 ROPs struggle to keep up, resulting in the 42 FPS High-settings average. The 40 FPS minimum recorded at 4K Medium settings further confirms that the GPU is hitting its architectural limits rather than experiencing driver or CPU-related stutters.

The GPU’s 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs and its average benchmark score of 20282 place it in the mid-range tier, but its nearest rivals — the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M at 20480 (-1%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20534 (-1.2%), Intel Arc B570 at 20556 (-1.3%), and Intel Arc A750 at 20582 (-1.5%) — are all within 1.5% of its score. This tight clustering suggests that the RTX 2070 SUPER is competitively positioned for its generation, but the 4K results in Control indicate that it lacks the headroom for higher settings at that resolution)Skip.

The 12 nm process node and 545 mm² die size with 13,600 million transistors contribute to the GPU’s 215 W TDP, which requires a 550 W suggested PSU. The dual-slot cooler with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors is standard for this class, and the PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provides adequate bandwidth — the data does not indicate any interface bottleneck at the measured frame rates)Skip.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with playable frame rates?

A: Yes, but only at lower settings. The measured data shows 66 FPS average at 4K Low, 47 FPS average (40 FPS minimum) at 4K Medium, 42 FPS at 4K High, and 36 FPS at 4K Ultra. For a consistent 60+ FPS experience at 4K, Low settings are required, while Medium is playable if you can tolerate occasional dips to 40 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU/GPU combo in Control?

A: 1440p offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. At 1440p, the system achieves 98 FPS on Low, 70 FPS on Medium (59 FPS minimum), 62 FPS on High, and 54 FPS on Ultra. These results show that 1440p High (62 FPS) and Ultra (54 FPS) are both playable, providing a significant visual upgrade over 1080p without the dramatic frame rate penalty seen at 4K.

Q: How does the i5-12400F perform in Control specifically?

A: The i5-12400F’s 6 cores and 12 threads with boost up to 4.40 GHz are sufficient for Control’s CPU demands. The processor’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12380 and single-core score of 1680 indicate strong performance, and the measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU bottlenecking — the frame rates scale consistently with GPU load rather than showing CPU-limited plateaus across resolutions.

Q: Is the RTX 2070 SUPER’s 8 GB VRAM enough for Control?

A: The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for the tested settings. The measured results do not indicate any VRAM-related stuttering or crashes, even at 4K Ultra where the GPU is clearly compute-limited rather than memory-limited. The 36 FPS average at 4K Ultra is due to raw GPU processing power constraints, not memory capacity.

Q: What settings should I use for a 60 FPS target at 1440p?

A: Based on the data, 1440p High settings with an average of 62 FPS is the closest match to a 60 FPS target. If you want a safety margin above 60 FPS, 1440p Medium provides 70 FPS average with a 59 FPS minimum, ensuring you stay above the target even in demanding scenes. 1440p Ultra at 54 FPS average is below the target and not recommended for strict 60 FPS gaming.

Q: How does this combo compare to other GPUs in the same performance tier?

A: The RTX 2070 SUPER’s average benchmark score of 20282 places it within 1.5% of several rivals: the Quadro M4000M (20480, -1%), RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, -1.2%), Arc B570 (20556, -1.3%), and Arc A750 (20582, -1.5%). This means the GPU is competitively matched with these alternatives, and in Control specifically, the measured FPS reflects this mid-tier positioning.

Settings Recommendations

For a 1080p display, the data shows that Ultra settings at 71 FPS average is a viable option, providing the highest visual quality while maintaining smooth gameplay. However, if you prioritize frame rate for competitive play or high-refresh monitors, Medium at 92 FPS (78 FPS minimum) or Low at 130 FPS offer significantly higher performance. The jump from Medium to High (82 FPS) is only 10 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra (71 FPS) is another 11 FPS, so the incremental cost of each step is consistent. For most users at 1080p, High settings (82 FPS) strike the best balance — it’s 11 FPS faster than Ultra but only 10 FPS slower than Medium, with noticeably better visuals.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts toward High settings (62 FPS) as the primary choice. This is the only resolution where High settings achieve a 60+ FPS average without compromise. Medium (70 FPS) provides a 8 FPS buffer for demanding scenes, with a 59 FPS minimum that just barely touches the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra (54 FPS) is playable but falls below the 60 FPS target, making it suitable only for users who prefer visual fidelity over smoothness. Low (98 FPS) is excessive for 1440p unless you have a 100+ Hz monitor and want maximum responsiveness.

At 4K, the data makes it clear that Low settings (66 FPS) is the only option that delivers a consistent 60+ FPS experience. Medium (47 FPS average, 40 FPS minimum) is marginal — the minimum FPS suggests occasional drops that could be noticeable in intense combat sequences. High (42 FPS) and Ultra (36 FPS) are below the generally accepted playable threshold of 40 FPS for action games, making them unsuitable for a smooth experience. If you own a 4K display, the practical recommendation is to run Control at 4K Low or drop to 1440p High for a significantly better visual experience with a 62 FPS average.

The Medium settings rows across all resolutions include min/max FPS data, which provides insight into frame time stability. At 1080p Medium, the 78-106 FPS range represents a 28 FPS spread, indicating some scene-to-scene variability. At 1440p Medium, the 59-80 FPS range is tighter, with a 21 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the 40-54 FPS range shows an 14 FPS spread, suggesting that as resolution increases, the frame rate becomes more consistent because the GPU is consistently saturated. This means that at 4K Medium, you’ll experience fewer frame rate spikes but a lower overall average.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates across all settings. Low settings produce a 130 FPS average, which is the fastest result in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 92 FPS, with a minimum of 78 FPS and maximum of 106 FPS, showing a 28 FPS range that indicates moderate variability. High settings average 82 FPS, a 10 FPS drop from Medium, while Ultra settings average 71 FPS, an 11 FPS drop from High. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a nearly linear decrease of roughly 20 FPS per two settings steps, with the total range from 130 FPS to 71 FPS representing a 45.4% performance reduction.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates scale down proportionally. Low settings average 98 FPS, which is 75.4% of the 1080p Low result. Medium settings average 70 FPS, with a minimum of 59 FPS and maximum of 80 FPS — the 21 FPS range is tighter than at 1080p, indicating more consistent performance. High settings average 62 FPS, and Ultra settings average 54 FPS. The 1440p Ultra result of 54 FPS is 76.1% of the 1080p Ultra result of 71 FPS, showing that the resolution scaling is consistent across settings. The gap between Medium and High at 1440p is 8 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is also 8 FPS, maintaining the uniform step pattern seen at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly, reflecting the GPU’s limits. Low settings average 66 FPS, which is 50.8% of the 1080p Low result — a dramatic reduction that highlights the 4K pixel load. Medium settings average 47 FPS, with a minimum of 40 FPS and maximum of 54 FPS, representing a 14 FPS range that is the tightest in the dataset. High settings average 42 FPS, and Ultra settings average 36 FPS. The 4K results show a compressed range from 36 FPS to 66 FPS, meaning that even the lowest settings only double the Ultra frame rate, whereas at 1080p, Low is 1.8 times faster than Ultra (130 vs 71 FPS). This compression indicates that at 4K, the GPU is the unequivocal bottleneck, and no amount of settings reduction can fully compensate for the pixel throughput demands.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F plays a supporting but crucial role in this configuration. Its 6 physical cores and 12 threads, based on the Alder Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, provide a solid foundation for Control’s game logic and physics simulation. The processor’s base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz give it strong single-thread performance, as evidenced by its 3dmark single-thread score of 909 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1680. These scores place the CPU in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs, indicating that it is a capable mid-range processor for gaming workloads.

In Control specifically, the CPU’s role becomes more evident at lower resolutions where the GPU is less stressed. At 1080p, the system achieves 130 FPS at Low settings, which requires the CPU to feed the GPU with draw calls and game state updates at a rate exceeding 100 FPS. The i5-12400F’s PassMark single-thread score of 3481 and Geekbench single-core score of 1964 indicate it can handle this workload, but the data shows that at 1080p, the frame rates are still GPU-limited — the CPU doesn’t appear to cap performance at any setting, since the FPS continues to climb from Ultra (71 FPS) to Low (130 FPS).

The CPU’s multicore performance, measured by Cinebench R23 at 12380 and Geekbench multicore at 9472, is sufficient for Control’s multithreaded aspects, which include physics calculations for destructible environments and AI processing. However, the benchmark data shows that the CPU’s 3dmark scores scale well with thread count — 1699 at 2 threads, 3067 at 4 threads, 4779 at 8 threads, and 5912 at max threads — indicating that the processor can effectively utilize additional cores when needed. The 12-thread configuration ensures that Control’s background tasks don’t interfere with the main game thread.

Comparing the i5-12400F to its nearest rivals shows that it is a competitive choice for this workload. Its average benchmark score of 19039 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19047, 0% delta), the Intel Core 3 201E (19056, -0.1% delta), and slightly ahead of the Intel Core i5-1335U (18982, 0.3% delta) and AMD EPYC 7773X (18979, 0.3% delta). This tight clustering means that in Control, the CPU choice between these processors would have minimal impact on the measured FPS — the GPU remains the bottleneck in most scenarios, particularly at 1440p and 4K.

The CPU’s 65 W TDP and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory (dual-channel) provide flexibility, though the measured performance does not differentiate between memory types. The 18 MB shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB per-core L2 cache are adequate for Control’s data access patterns, and the PCIe Gen 5 interface with 20 CPU lanes ensures no bandwidth limitations for the GPU. The processor’s lack of integrated graphics means the RTX 2070 SUPER handles all display output, which is expected for a desktop gaming configuration. Overall, the i5-12400F provides enough headroom that it never becomes the limiting factor in this pairing, allowing the RTX 2070 SUPER’s capabilities and the chosen resolution to determine the final frame rates.