Control

The Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 delivers a solid 1080p experience in Control, but the data reveals a system that is clearly balanced toward high-refresh-rate gaming at lower resolutions rather than 4K dominance. Across the twelve measured configurations, the combo demonstrates predictable scaling that highlights the GPU as the primary bottleneck as resolution increases, while the CPU provides ample headroom for the game's physics and particle effects at 1080p.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, pointing to a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 140 FPS at 1920x1080 to 106 FPS at 2560x1440, a 24.3% reduction, and then to 71 FPS at 3840x2160, a 49.3% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This pattern is typical of a mid-range GPU like the RTX 4060, which has the raw compute to push high frame rates at 1080p but runs out of pixel throughput as resolution climbs.

At High settings, the scaling is even more pronounced: 88 FPS at 1080p drops to 67 FPS at 1440p and then to 45 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at High is 48.9%, nearly identical to the Low setting's drop. This consistency across settings suggests that the limiting factor is resolution itself—the GPU's 128-bit memory bus and 272.0 GB/s bandwidth become the binding constraint at 4K, regardless of how much graphical detail is being processed.

The Medium settings row provides the only min/max data in the pack, offering insight into frame time stability. At 1080p Medium, the average is 99 FPS with a minimum of 84 FPS and maximum of 114 FPS, a range of 30 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 75 FPS with a range of 22 FPS (64 to 86). At 4K Medium, the average is 51 FPS with a range of 15 FPS (43 to 58). The narrowing range as resolution increases is a classic sign of GPU saturation—at lower resolutions, CPU-side frame time variance can create larger FPS swings, while at 4K the GPU is so consistently maxed out that frame times become more uniform.

The 4K Ultra setting produces the lowest measured average at 39 FPS, which is barely playable for an action game. The jump from 4K Medium (51 FPS) to 4K High (45 FPS) is only 6 FPS, while the jump from 4K High to 4K Ultra is another 6 FPS. This suggests diminishing returns at the top end of the settings spectrum at 4K, where the GPU is already near its limit and additional detail levels cost more performance than they deliver visually.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database, this specific CPU-GPU combination ranks 2008 out of 3720 tested combos for Control. That places it in the 46th percentile of all possible pairings, meaning roughly 46% of tested combos perform worse and 54% perform better. This mid-pack ranking is consistent with the component choices: the RTX 4060 sits at the 61st percentile among all GPUs, while the i5-12400F ranks at the 73rd percentile among all CPUs. The GPU is the weaker link, and the combo ranking reflects that ceiling.

The nearest CPU rivals to the i5-12400F in overall benchmark scores are the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (0% delta), Intel Core 3 201E (-0.1%), Intel Core i5-1335U (+0.3%), and AMD EPYC 7773X (+0.3%). These deltas are negligible—all within a fraction of a percent—indicating that the 12400F's compute performance is essentially indistinguishable from these alternatives in synthetic tests. However, for gaming specifically, the 12400F's single-thread performance (3dmark_single_thread score of 909) is what matters most, and it is competitive with or better than these rivals for frame rate generation.

On the GPU side, the RTX 4060's nearest rivals are all AMD parts: Radeon HD 7790 (-0.2%), Radeon 780M (+0.3%), Radeon Pro 560 (+0.5%), and Radeon Pro 460 (+0.7%). These are not modern gaming GPUs—the HD 7790 is a decade old and the 780M is an integrated solution. The fact that the 4060 benchmarks within a fraction of these parts in aggregate scores speaks to the synthetic nature of those tests; in actual gaming workloads, the 4060's Ada Lovelace architecture provides features and efficiency that these rivals lackholically.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F provides 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Alder Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. For Control, which was released in 2019 and relies heavily on physics simulation and destructible environments, this CPU configuration is well-suited. The game's engine benefits from multiple threads but does not scale infinitely; 6 cores with 12 threads is a sweet spot that avoids both the single-thread bottleneck of older dual-cores and the diminishing returns of higher-core-count chips.

Benchmark data shows the 12400F's multi-threaded capability: Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12,380 and 3dmark_max_threads score of 5,912. The single-thread performance is equally important for gaming—Cinebench R23 singlecore score of 1,680 and 3dmark_single_thread score of 909. These numbers indicate that at 1080p Low, where the CPU has to feed frames to the GPU as fast as possible, the 12400F can generate 140 FPS average without being the limiting factor)Skip. The fact that 1080p Low (140 FPS) is nearly double the 4K Low (71 FPS) shows that the CPU is not holding back even at high frame rates; it is the GPU that cannot keep pace at higher resolutions.

The L3 cache of 18 MB (shared) and L2 of 1.25 MB per core provide sufficient data locality for Control's level streaming and physics objects. The 10 nm process node and 65 W TDP mean the CPU runs cool and stable, which is relevant for sustained gaming sessions where frame rates could otherwise degrade due to thermal throttling. The memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives flexibility, but the dual-channel memory bus is the same regardless of memory type, so the game's performance is unlikely to vary dramatically between memory generations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers playable to excellent frame rates across all settings. Low averages 140 FPS, Medium averages 99 FPS, High averages 88 FPS, and Ultra averages 77 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 41 FPS drop, while the step from High to Ultra is only 11 FPS—indicating that the Ultra preset adds visual features that are relatively inexpensive compared to the jump from Low to Medium.

At 2560x1440, all settings remain playable. Low averages 106 FPS, Medium averages 75 FPS, High averages 67 FPS, and Ultra averages 58 FPS. The 1440p Ultra result is the first configuration that dips below 60 FPS average, but it is still close enough that most players would find it acceptable for a slower-paced action game. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent: Low loses 34 FPS, Medium loses 24 FPS, High loses 21 FPS, and Ultra loses 19 FPS. The smaller absolute drops at higher settings suggest that the GPU is already partially bound at 1080p Ultra, so adding resolution has a relatively smaller impact.

At 3840x2160, only Low (71 FPS) and Medium (51 FPS) achieve playable averages. High drops to 45 FPS and Ultra to 39 FPS. The 4K numbers confirm that this combo is not designed for 4K gaming in Control—even at Low settings, the average is just above 60 FPS, and any demanding scene could push it below that threshold. For 4K, players would need to accept frame rates in the 40s or lower, or reduce resolution scaling.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Control at 60 FPS on a 1440p monitor?*

A: Yes, at Low, Medium, and High settings. The measured averages are 106 FPS (Low), 75 FPS (Medium), and 67 FPS (High) at 2560x1440. Ultra averages 58 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain 100+ FPS?

A: 1080p at Low settings, which averages 140 FPS. No other resolution/settings combination in the measured data reaches 100 FPS average.

Q: How much performance is lost when going from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: The average drops from 88 FPS to 45 FPS, a 48.9% reduction. This indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 1080p Low?

A: The data suggests the GPU is still the primary limiter, as the average of 140 FPS at 1080p Low is not limited by the CPU's single-thread performance, which scores 909 in 3dmark_single_thread. The CPU can feed frames faster than this, but the GPU cannot render them faster.

Q: What is the frame time stability like at Medium settings?

A: The min/max data shows the narrowest range at 4K (43-58 FPS) and the widest at 1080p (84-114 FPS). This indicates more consistent frame pacing at higher resolutions where the GPU is fully saturated.

Q: Does the combo rank higher or lower than the component percentiles suggest?

A: The combo ranks 2008 of 3720 (46th percentile), which is lower than the CPU's 73rd percentile and the GPU's 61st percentile individually. This is because the combination pairs a relatively strong CPU with a weaker GPU, capping overall gaming performance.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p gaming, the High preset delivers 88 FPS average, which is the best balance of visual quality and performance for most players. Medium at 99 FPS is a reasonable choice for those who prioritize frame rate over detail, while Ultra at 77 FPS is still perfectly playable and adds the highest-quality effects. Low at 140 FPS is only recommended for competitive play or if the user has a 144Hz+ monitor and wants to maximize frame rate.

For 1440p, the High preset at 67 FPS is the recommended starting pointholically. Medium at 75 FPS provides a small performance boost with a minor visual downgrade, while Ultra at 58 FPS is acceptable for players who prefer visual fidelity over a locked 60 FPS. Low at 106 FPS is overkill in terms of frame rate for most 1440p monitors (which typically cap at 144Hz or 165Hz) and sacrifices too much visual detail.

For 4K, only Low (71 FPS) and Medium (51 FPS) are recommended. Low provides a playable experience, though the visual quality is significantly reduced from what the game can produce at lower resolutions. Medium at 51 FPS is borderline—it is below 60 FPS but the min FPS of 43 suggests occasional dips that could be noticeable in combat. High (45 FPS) and Ultra (39 FPS) are not recommended for a game that requires precise aiming and spatial awareness.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with a 5 nm process from TSMC, featuring 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 272.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is the key specification for understanding Control's performance at 4K. The game's textures and lighting effects at 4K require substantial memory bandwidth, and the 4060's 128-bit bus is a limiting factor compared to wider-bus GPUs.

The GPU's boost clock of 2460 MHz and base clock of 1830 MHz are relatively high, contributing to its 15.11 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. This raw compute is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming, as evidenced by the measured frame rates. The 3072 shading units and 96 texture mapping units provide the pixel throughput needed for the game's particle effects and destructible environments.

The RTX 4060's 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores support ray tracing and DLSS, though the measured data does not include ray-traced configurations. The 118.1 GPixel/s pixel rate and 236.2 GTexel/s texture rate are adequate for the resolutions tested, but the 4K results (39-71 FPS depending on settings) show that the GPU is pushed to its limits. The 115 W TDP and suggested 300 W PSU indicate an efficient design that does not require excessive power delivery.

The GPU's percentile rank of 61 among all GPUs places it in the upper-mid range, but its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmarks are older or integrated parts, which are not representative of its gaming performance in Control. The 4060's benchmark scores—Passmark G3D of 19,545 and 3dmark Steel Nomad DX12 of 2,302—confirm it is a capable 1080p and 1440p card, but the 4K data clearly shows its limits in this game.