Control

Control, Remedy’s 2019 action-adventure, presents a demanding environment for the Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the Intel Arc B370. The measured data reveals a configuration that is heavily constrained by its graphics solution, struggling to maintain smooth frame rates even at lower resolutions. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, focusing on resolution scaling, settings impact, and the distinct roles played by the CPU and GPU in shaping the final experience.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a steep and consistent decline as resolution increases, clearly identifying the Intel Arc B370 as the primary performance bottleneck. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the combo averages 37 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 drops the average to 28 FPS, a reduction of 9 frames. The jump to 3840x2160 is even more punishing, with the average falling to 19 FPS. This pattern—a roughly 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a further 32% drop from 1440p to 4K—indicates a GPU that is overwhelmed by the increasing pixel count.

The scaling from Low to Ultra settings further reinforces this. At 1080p, the difference between Low (59 FPS) and Ultra (32 FPS) is 27 frames, showing that even at the entry-level resolution, the graphics card’s limits are quickly reached. At 4K, the spread narrows to just 13 frames (30 FPS on Low versus 17 FPS on Ultra), suggesting that at this extreme resolution, the GPU is so saturated that even reducing graphical fidelity provides only marginal gains. The data implies that the system is not CPU-limited in any scenario; the frame rate is dictated almost entirely by the Arc B370’s ability to process geometry and pixels.

This is a classic case of a GPU-bound system. The Intel Core i5-13400F, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, is likely idling in terms of game performance, waiting for the graphics card to feed it frames. The benchmark results indicate that for a playable experience, users must be willing to make significant compromises on resolution and settings, as the hardware combination simply cannot deliver high frame rates at higher quality presets. The 4K numbers are particularly telling, with even the Low preset failing to hit 30 FPS, rendering this resolution unusable for this title with this combo.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal balance between visual quality and performance is found at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, yielding an average of 42 FPS. This is the only settings/resolution combination that approaches a playable 60 FPS while offering a moderate level of visual fidelity. The Low preset at 1080p achieves 59 FPS, which is technically the highest average recorded, but the visual downgrade is significant. The data suggests that the Medium preset provides a 13.5% performance improvement over High (42 vs 37 FPS) while likely retaining a substantial portion of the game’s atmospheric effects.

At 2560x1440, the situation is more challenging. The Low preset manages 45 FPS, which is respectable, but the Medium preset drops to 32 FPS, and High falls to 28 FPS. For users prioritizing resolution over detail, 1440p Low is a viable option, but it requires accepting the lowest quality textures and effects. The 4K resolution should be avoided entirely; even the Low preset’s 30 FPS average will feel stuttery and uncomfortable in a fast-paced action game. The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution, as its performance penalty is substantial, yielding only 32 FPS at 1080p and 17 FPS at 4K.

The data implies that the "best experience" is a trade-off. For a smoother, more responsive game, 1080p Medium is the sweet spot. For those who are willing to sacrifice visual flair for resolution, 1440p Low is the only reasonable alternative. The measured numbers clearly show that there is no configuration that offers both high resolution and high frame rates with this hardware. The system’s performance ceiling is fundamentally limited, and the settings menu becomes a tool for damage control rather than enhancement.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-13400F and Intel Arc B370 ranks at 2657 out of 2888 combos for Control. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, underscoring its position as a low-performance configuration for this title. The rank is a direct consequence of the GPU’s limited capabilities, as the CPU is a mid-range part that, in other contexts, would score much higher.

The GPU’s individual benchmark percentile is telling. The Intel Arc B370 scores in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of just 1184. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2% delta) and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5% delta), which are both legacy parts from over a decade ago. This context is crucial: the Arc B370 is performing at a level comparable to ancient discrete graphics cards, which explains why the combo rank is so low. The CPU, in contrast, sits in the 77th percentile, demonstrating that the processor is not the limiting factor in this equation.

The data suggests that if the goal is to play Control, this particular combination is a poor choice. The rank is not an indictment of the CPU, but rather a clear signal that the GPU is severely underpowered for the task. The combo’s position near the bottom of the rankings is a direct result of pairing a capable processor with a graphics solution that is not designed for gaming at this level. The measured FPS numbers are consistent with this ranking, confirming that the system is operating far outside the performance envelope required for a smooth experience.

FAQ

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

A: According to the data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution that offers a playable frame rate. At Medium settings, it achieves an average of 42 FPS, while the Low preset reaches 59 FPS. The 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 resolutions produce averages that are too low for a comfortable gaming experience.

Q: Can this system handle Control at 4K?

A: No. The measured FPS at 3840x2160 is between 17 FPS (Ultra) and 30 FPS (Low). Even the highest average at this resolution (30 FPS on Low) is below the threshold for smooth gameplay, indicating that the GPU is overwhelmed.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-13400F holding back the performance?

A: The data does not indicate CPU limitation. The CPU scores in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals have similar average scores. The GPU, however, is in the 5th percentile, strongly suggesting that the Intel Arc B370 is the primary bottleneck.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B370’s average 3DMark score is 1184. Its closest competitors are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2% faster) and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% faster). This shows it is performing at a level similar to those older GPUs.

Q: What is the most balanced settings preset?

A: The 1920x1080 Medium preset offers the best compromise, with an average of 42 FPS. It provides a significant improvement over High (37 FPS) while maintaining a higher quality than Low (59 FPS).

Q: Does the Ultra preset provide a good experience?

A: No. The Ultra preset yields the lowest frame rates at every resolution, including 32 FPS at 1080p. The performance cost is too high, and it is not a recommended setting for this hardware.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the decisive component in this system’s performance, and the data shows it is a severe limiting factor. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, a staggeringly low position that indicates it is not designed for modern gaming workloads. The chip operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, but these clocks do not translate into gaming capability. The GPU’s memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the system’s main memory, and its bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent." This is a major disadvantage for a game like Control, which requires fast, dedicated video memory for textures and effects.

The card’s specifications—1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs—are modest, and its FP32 performance is rated at 6.144 TFLOPS. These numbers are far below what is needed to drive a demanding title. The fact that it shares memory with the system means that bandwidth is likely a significant bottleneck, especially at higher resolutions. The measured FPS data shows a GPU that is barely able to produce 30 FPS at 1080p Low, and it struggles to maintain even that at 4K. The benchmark results indicate that this GPU is the sole reason for the combo’s poor ranking, as it is unable to process the game’s rendering demands at an acceptable rate. Its performance is comparable to decade-old parts, confirming its unsuitability for this game.

CPU Role

In stark contrast to the GPU, the Intel Core i5-13400F is a robust processor that is not the source of the performance issues. With 10 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, it is a capable mid-range CPU. Its benchmark scores are solid, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22604 and a single-core score of 3191. The CPU’s 20 MB of shared L3 cache and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory provide a strong foundation for gaming. Its 77th percentile ranking among all CPUs shows that it is more than adequate for most tasks.

The data suggests that the CPU is not a limiting factor in Control. The frame rates drop so drastically with increasing resolution that the processor is clearly not the bottleneck; it is waiting for the GPU to provide frames. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (25284 avg score, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (25201 avg score, 0.4% delta), have similar average benchmark scores, reinforcing that the i5-13400F is performing as expected. In this specific combo, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with data, and it is doing so without issue. The performance ceiling is entirely defined by the Arc B370, not the processor. The measured FPS is a direct reflection of the GPU’s limitations, not any deficiency in the CPU's processing power.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system’s performance across all tested configurations.

At 1920x1080, the system performs at its best:

• Low: 59 FPS average.
• Medium: 42 FPS average, with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 48 FPS.
• High: 37 FPS average.
• Ultra: 32 FPS average.

At 2560x1440, performance drops significantly:

• Low: 45 FPS average.
• Medium: 32 FPS average, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 37 FPS.
• High: 28 FPS average.
• Ultra: 25 FPS average.

At 3840x2160, the system is overwhelmed:

• Low: 30 FPS average.
• Medium: 21 FPS average, with a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 25 FPS.
• High: 19 FPS average.
• Ultra: 17 FPS average.

These numbers reveal a linear and expected performance curve, but one that is anchored at a very low level. The step from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 30% performance across most presets, and the step to 4K costs another 30-40%. The only configuration that approaches a standard 60 FPS target is 1080p Low, while 1080p Medium offers a more balanced experience at 42 FPS. The data confirms that this combo is only suitable for 1080p gaming with reduced settings, and it is entirely inadequate for higher resolutions in Control.