Control

# Control — Intel Core i5-13400F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

The pairing of Intel's Core i5-13400F with NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1650 in Control produces a system that is firmly entry-level for this 2019 Action Adventure title, ranking 1575th out of 1636 tested combinations. The benchmark data reveals a system where the GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck across all resolutions, yet the CPU's strong multi-threaded foundation prevents it from ever becoming the limiting factor. The measured frame rates tell a story of a configuration that can deliver playable performance only at 1080p with settings dialed back, while higher resolutions quickly push it into slideshow territory.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals the GPU's limited headroom. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 38.4 FPS at 1920x1080 to 26.8 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of about 30%. Pushing further to 3840x2160 drops the average to 19.5 FPS, meaning 4K High delivers roughly half the frame rate of 1080p High. The scaling pattern across all settings shows a consistent theme: the GTX 1650's 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth simply cannot feed enough pixels at higher resolutions.

At Low settings, the resolution scaling is even more telling. The 1080p Low result of 56 FPS falls to 44 FPS at 1440p and then to 26.9 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1440p and 4K at Low settings is a 17.1 FPS drop, which is the largest single-resolution jump in the entire dataset. This suggests that at 4K, even with minimal graphical load, the GPU's raw fill rate — 53.28 GPixel/s — becomes the hard ceiling. The pixel rate figure is particularly relevant here, as Control's particle-heavy effects and destructible environments demand substantial pixel throughput.

What is curious is the relatively small difference between High and Medium at each resolution. At 1080p, High delivers 38.4 FPS while Medium delivers 39.9 FPS, a gap of just 1.5 FPS. At 1440p, the difference narrows further to 4 FPS (26.8 vs 30.8). This implies that the High and Medium presets impose similar shading loads, and the GPU is already saturated regardless of which one is selected. The data suggests that the limiting component shifts from being purely GPU-bound at 4K to a more balanced state at 1080p Low, where the CPU's performance can finally stretch its legs.

GPU Role

The GeForce GTX 1650's specifications paint a clear picture of why it struggles in Control. With only 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, the card has both capacity and bandwidth constraints. The 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is particularly telling when considering Control's use of high-resolution textures and real-time ray tracing options, though the latter is not supported by this architecture. The 896 shading units operating at a boost clock of 1665 MHz produce just 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which places the GPU in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is likely a hidden bottleneck even at 1080p. Control is known for demanding texture memory, and while the measured FPS data does not show stutter metrics, the average frame rates suggest the card is constantly swapping assets. The memory clock of 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) is modest, and the 75 W TDP with no power connectors indicates this is a slot-powered design that cannot sustain high clocks under prolonged load. The boost clock of 1665 MHz is the maximum, but sustained workloads likely cause thermal or power throttling that the average FPS figures do not fully capture.

The GPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (0.4% slower) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (0.5% faster), which puts the GTX 1650 in a narrow performance band. However, in Control specifically, the measured results show the GPU dropping below 30 FPS at 1440p Medium and below 20 FPS at 4K High, confirming that the 43rd percentile standing translates to sub-30 FPS in modern titles at mainstream resolutions. The pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are the physical limits that the resolution scaling data consistently hits.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread Raptor Lake processor with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its benchmark scores are strong for the entry-level market segment, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21279 and single-core score of 3004. The processor sits in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i7-13620H (0.1% faster) and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (0.5% slower). This CPU is clearly not the bottleneck in this pairing.

The 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample capacity for Control's game logic and physics calculations. The 3DMark scores show excellent scaling from 2 threads (1880) to 16 threads (7314), indicating that the processor can effectively utilize its full core count when needed. For a game like Control, which uses the Northlight engine's asynchronous compute and multi-threaded job system, the 16 threads give the CPU headroom to maintain consistent frame pacing even when the GPU is saturated.

However, the data reveals that the CPU's performance is largely untapped in this configuration. The FPS differences between Low and Ultra settings at the same resolution are entirely attributable to GPU load changes, not CPU limitations. At 1080p, going from Low (56 FPS) to Ultra (32.4 FPS) shows a 23.6 FPS drop, which is purely GPU-driven. The CPU's single-thread score of 3004 in Cinebench R23 and PassMark single-thread score of 3634 indicate it could likely push higher frame rates if paired with a more capable GPU. The 65 W TDP and 10 nm process node make it an efficient choice, but in this system, its capabilities are severely underutilized.

FAQ

Q: Why does the FPS drop so much from 1080p to 4K even at Low settings?

A: The 1080p Low average of 56 FPS falls to 26.9 FPS at 4K Low, a 52% reduction. This is due to the GPU's 53.28 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, which are insufficient to handle the 8.3 million pixels of 4K resolution regardless of graphics settings.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-13400F holding back the GTX 1650 in this game?

A: No. The CPU ranks in the 82nd percentile of all processors with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21279, while the GPU ranks in the 43rd percentile. The measured frame rates show GPU-bound behavior across all resolutions, meaning the CPU has significant headroom.

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

A: The data shows 1080p is the only resolution where playable frame rates are achievable. At 1080p Low, the average is 56 FPS, while 1440p Low drops to 44 FPS and 4K Low falls to 26.9 FPS. Higher resolutions consistently produce sub-30 FPS results.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 8713 is 0.4% slower than the RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746) and 0.5% faster than the Quadro P2200 (8671). The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is 0.5% faster at 8761.

Q: Does the 4 GB VRAM affect performance in Control?

A: The 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is a limiting factor, as evidenced by the tight FPS grouping between High and Medium settings at each resolution (e.g., 38.4 vs 39.9 FPS at 1080p), suggesting texture memory constraints rather than pure shading limitations.

Q: What is the combo's overall ranking in this game?

A: This configuration ranks 1575th out of 1636 tested combos for Control, placing it in the bottom 4% of all tested systems. This confirms the GPU is the primary constraint in achieving higher frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured averages across settings are: Low 56 FPS, Medium 39.9 FPS, High 38.4 FPS, and Ultra 32.4 FPS. The 16.1 FPS gap between Low and Medium is the largest step in the 1080p range, while the jump from High to Ultra costs only 6 FPS. This suggests that Medium is the last setting tier before diminishing returns become severe.

Moving to 2560x1440, the results are: Low 44 FPS, Medium 30.8 FPS, High 26.8 FPS, and Ultra 21.7 FPS. The 1440p Low result is the only 1440p configuration that remains above 30 FPS, and even that is marginal. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 12 FPS, while the same resolution change at Ultra costs 10.7 FPS, indicating the GPU is equally strained at both ends of the settings spectrum.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low 26.9 FPS, Medium 20.3 FPS, High 19.5 FPS, and Ultra 15.5 FPS. Every 4K configuration falls below 30 FPS, with the Ultra preset delivering less than half the frame rate of 1080p Low. The 4K Low result is still 11.4 FPS higher than 4K Ultra, showing that even at 4K, settings reductions provide meaningful gains. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at each setting tier is: Low -17.1 FPS, Medium -10.5 FPS, High -7.3 FPS, and Ultra -6.2 FPS, which indicates that lower settings see larger absolute drops due to the pixel fill rate ceiling.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal preset for this configuration is 1080p Low, which delivers an average of 56 FPS. This is the only tested configuration that approaches the 60 FPS target, and it does so by a wide margin over the next best option. The 1080p Medium preset at 39.9 FPS is playable but leaves a 16.1 FPS gap to Low, which is substantial for a game with fast-paced combat sequences.

For players who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, 1080p High at 38.4 FPS is the best compromise, as it is only 1.5 FPS slower than Medium while providing noticeably better visuals. The Ultra preset at 1080p delivers 32.4 FPS, which is below the 35 FPS threshold where most players begin to notice judder in action games. At 1440p, only the Low preset (44 FPS) is recommended, while Medium (30.8 FPS) and above should be avoided due to sub-30 FPS averages.

The 4K resolution is not viable for this combo, as even the Low preset at 26.9 FPS fails to maintain playable frame rates. The data suggests that players should either accept 1080p Low for smooth performance or 1080p High for a balanced experience, with no configuration at higher resolutions providing a satisfactory result. The tight grouping between Medium and High at each resolution (never more than 4 FPS apart) indicates that the High preset is the better choice when visual fidelity matters, as the performance cost is minimal.

How This Combo Ranks

This Intel Core i5-13400F + GTX 1650 combination ranks 1575th out of 1636 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 4% of all configurations. The ranking reflects the GPU's 43rd percentile standing among all GPUs, which is the dominant factor in this game. The CPU's 82nd percentile ranking does little to boost the combo's position, as Control's performance is overwhelmingly GPU-limited at all tested resolutions.

The combo's position becomes clearer when examining the delta between CPU and GPU capabilities. The i5-13400F's nearest rival, the Core i7-13620H, scores within 0.1% in average benchmark, while the GPU's nearest rival, the RTX 3050 A Mobile, is a mere 0.4% faster. This means the combo sits in a narrow performance band where small GPU differences could shift the ranking by dozens of positions. The fact that the combo ranks 61 slots from the bottom suggests that there are few configurations less capable for this specific title, and those that are lower likely pair similarly weak GPUs with even more constrained CPUs or memory configurations.

The ranking also implies that the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus are fundamental limitations for Control's engine, which was designed for the higher-bandwidth GPUs of its 2019 release era. The combo's bottom-4% standing is consistent with the measured frame rates, which only exceed 50 FPS in a single configuration (1080p Low). For a game that launched in 2019, this hardware combination represents the entry-level floor, and the data confirms that substantial GPU upgrades would be required to move this combo meaningfully up the rankings.