Control

# Control with Intel Core i5-13400F + AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT delivers a mixed bag of performance across Control's four preset levels and three resolutions. The measured data reveals a configuration that is clearly GPU-bound at higher settings, but the CPU's 10 cores and 16 threads provide enough headroom to push frame rates substantially when graphical load is reduced. With a combo rank of 1021 out of 1636 tested combinations, this pairing sits in the lower-middle tier of all systems tested for this title, though its behavior across the resolution spectrum tells a more nuanced story than the raw rank suggests.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, pointing to a system where the Radeon RX 6650 XT is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions. At High settings, average FPS falls from 77.1 at 1920x1080 to 61.2 at 2560x1440, a 20.6% reduction, and then to 41.5 at 3840x2160, which is 46.2% lower than the 1080p result. This pattern intensifies at Ultra settings: 70.3 FPS at 1080p drops to 51.8 at 1440p (a 26.3% decline) and bottoms out at 35.4 at 4K, representing a 49.6% loss from the baseline. The scaling is nearly linear with pixel count, which is the signature of a GPU-bound scenario.

However, the Low preset reveals a different dynamic. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 124.3 FPS, and at 1440p Low it still manages 91.7 FPS. The 4K Low result of 62.4 FPS is still playable, but the drop from 1440p to 4K is 32.0%, which is disproportionately large compared to the 26.2% decline from 1080p to 1440p. This suggests that even at Low settings, the 4K resolution begins to strain the GPU's 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus, which provides 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6650 XT's 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs are simply not enough to maintain the same scaling efficiency at 4K when the CPU is no longer the bottleneck.

The data indicates that the i5-13400F is never the limiting factor in this game. Even at 1080p Low, where the CPU's single-thread performance (3dmark single-thread score of 960) and multi-thread capability (cinebench r23 multicore score of 21279) are fully exercised, the frame rate is still dictated by the GPU's rendering throughput. The 82nd percentile CPU ranking versus all processors, combined with its 3dmark max-threads score of 7307, confirms ample processing headroom for Control's physics and AI workloads.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows clearly indicate that High settings at 1440p is the sweet spot for this configuration. The 61.2 FPS average at 2560x1440 High is above the 60 FPS threshold that most players target, and it comes with a substantial visual quality improvement over Medium's 67 FPS at the same resolution. The difference between High and Medium at 1440p is only 5.8 FPS, but High delivers better textures and effects for that minor cost. At 1080p, High settings produce 77.1 FPS, which is excellent, but the jump to Medium at 90.2 FPS is not worth the visual downgrade for most users.

For 4K users, the situation is more constrained. Ultra settings at 3840x2160 yield only 35.4 FPS, which is below the playability threshold for action-adventure titles. Dropping to High at 4K improves the average to 41.5 FPS, but this is still marginal. The Low preset at 4K, at 62.4 FPS, is the only 4K option that achieves a smooth experience, but it sacrifices most of the game's visual fidelity. Given that the Medium preset at 4K produces 42.9 FPS — nearly identical to High's 41.5 FPS — there is no meaningful advantage to choosing Medium over High at this resolution, so users should either commit to Low for playability or accept High for visual quality at reduced frame rates.

The most balanced recommendation is 1440p High. It provides a 61.2 FPS average, which is 18.2% faster than the 4K High result and only 20.6% slower than the 1080p High figure. This resolution balances the GPU's 10.79 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 337.3 GTexel/s texture rate against the visual demands of Control's environments.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-13400F sufficient for Control at 1080p?

A: Yes. The CPU's benchmark results, including a cinebench r23 multicore score of 21279 and a passmark single-thread score of 3634, indicate it is not the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 124.3 FPS, which is 60.9% higher than the 4K High result, demonstrating that the CPU can feed the GPU effectively even at lower resolutions.

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for a smooth 60 FPS experience?

A: The 2560x1440 High preset delivers 61.2 FPS average, which is the only configuration above 1080p that crosses the 60 FPS threshold. At 1080p, both High (77.1 FPS) and Medium (90.2 FPS) exceed 60 FPS comfortably, but 1440p High offers the best balance of resolution and frame rate.

Q: How does the RX 6650 XT compare to its nearest rivals in this game's context?

A: The RX 6650 XT's average benchmark score of 29024 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (29011, 0.0% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996, 0.1% delta). It trails the Intel Arc A370M by 0.5% and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH by 0.6%, but these differences are negligible in real-world gameplay.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this configuration?

A: At 4K, only the Low preset achieves a playable 62.4 FPS average. High and Medium settings produce 41.5 and 42.9 FPS respectively, while Ultra drops to 35.4 FPS. Users seeking 4K should expect to use Low settings or accept sub-60 FPS performance.

Q: Does the CPU's 65 W TDP and 10-core configuration affect Control's performance?

A: The i5-13400F's 10 cores and 16 threads, combined with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, provide ample processing power. Its 3dmark 16-thread score of 7314 and 2-thread score of 1880 show strong scaling, but Control's frame rates are consistently GPU-limited, so the CPU's TDP does not constrain results.

Q: What is the performance difference between Ultra and Low settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 124.3 FPS, which is 76.9% higher than Ultra's 70.3 FPS. The gap narrows at higher resolutions: at 1440p, Low (91.7 FPS) is 77.0% faster than Ultra (51.8 FPS), and at 4K, Low (62.4 FPS) is 76.3% faster than Ultra (35.4 FPS).

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the configuration delivers its highest frame rates across all presets. Low settings achieve 124.3 FPS average, which is the peak performance for this system. Medium drops to 90.2 FPS, a 27.4% reduction from Low. High settings produce 77.1 FPS, and Ultra falls to 70.3 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 54.0 FPS, indicating that the GPU's 2048 shading units are the primary constraint as settings increase. All 1080p presets exceed 70 FPS, making this resolution the most versatile for any settings choice.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain playable but show a clearer hierarchy. Low settings yield 91.7 FPS, which is still above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium produces 67 FPS, a 26.9% drop from Low. High settings deliver 61.2 FPS, which is only 5.8 FPS below Medium, suggesting diminishing returns for the visual upgrade. Ultra drops to 51.8 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target. The 1440p results show a 39.9 FPS spread from Low to Ultra, and the gap between High and Ultra (9.4 FPS) is larger than the gap between Medium and High (5.8 FPS), indicating that Ultra settings impose a disproportionate cost at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates at higher presets. Low settings achieve 62.4 FPS, which is the only 4K preset above 60 FPS. Medium produces 42.9 FPS, and High is nearly identical at 41.5 FPS, a difference of only 1.4 FPS. Ultra drops further to 35.4 FPS. The 4K results show a 27.0 FPS spread from Low to Ultra, which is the narrowest of all resolutions. This compression indicates that the RX 6650 XT's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are saturated at 4K, limiting the impact of settings changes. The memory bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s and pixel rate of 168.6 GPixel/s are insufficient to differentiate presets at this resolution.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the dominant component in this configuration for Control. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for 1080p and 1440p but becomes a limiting factor at 4K. The GPU's boost clock of 2635 MHz and game clock of 2410 MHz enable a peak FP32 throughput of 10.79 TFLOPS, which drives the frame rates observed across all presets. The 64 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 168.6 GPixel/s, and the 128 texture units achieve 337.3 GTexel/s, both of which scale predictably with resolution as shown in the measured data.

The GPU's 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29024, places it in the mid-range tier. Its nearest rivals — the RX 6800M (29011, 0.0% delta), RX 470 (28996, 0.1% delta), Arc A370M (29175, -0.5% delta), and RX Vega M GH (29197, -0.6% delta) — all perform within 0.6% of each other, confirming that this GPU class is tightly clustered. In Control specifically, the RX 6650 XT's performance at 1440p High (61.2 FPS) suggests it is well-matched to the i5-13400F's capabilities, as neither component consistently bottlenecks the other across the tested settings.

The 7 nm process node and 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die indicate a mature design that balances power efficiency with throughput. The GPU's 176 W TDP and suggested 450 W PSU requirement are consistent with its mid-range positioning. The RDNA 2.0 architecture's 32 ray accelerators and DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) are relevant for Control's visual effects, but the measured data shows that traditional rasterization performance, driven by the 2048 shading units, is what determines the final frame rates. The GPU's end-of-life production status and 399 USD launch MSRP place it as a previous-generation part that still delivers competitive results in this title, particularly at 1080p and 1440p where its memory bandwidth is sufficient to avoid severe bottlenecks.