Control

Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is a pairing that lands in the lower-middle tier of tested systems for Control, ranking 3176th out of 3720 combos. The 10-core, 16-thread Raptor Lake processor is far more capable than the Turing-based GPU, which becomes the clear limiting factor in this action-adventure title. The result is a system that can deliver playable frame rates at 1080p, but struggles to maintain smooth performance at higher resolutions, with the data showing a steep cliff as pixel count increases.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F sits in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, a strong position that puts it well ahead of most processors in the database. Its 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost of 4.60 GHz, provide substantial headroom for gaming workloads. The Raptor Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process, offers a large 20 MB shared L3 cache, which helps keep frequently accessed data close to the cores. In synthetic benchmarks, the chip scores 22,604 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3,191 in single-core, while Geekbench results show 11,068 multi-core and 1,996 single-core. These numbers indicate a CPU that can handle the physics and AI calculations in Control without breaking a sweat, even when the GPU is fully saturated.

Comparing the i5-13400F to its nearest rivals shows a tight cluster. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS and Intel Core 5 120 sit within 0.3% of its average score, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D is also within 0.3% and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H is 0.4% ahead. This means the CPU's performance envelope is well understood, and in Control, the processor is unlikely to be the bottleneck at any resolution. The Passmark multithread score of 25,032 and single-thread score of 3,634 reinforce that the i5-13400F has ample computational power. Even the data compression score of 311,364 and floating-point math score of 60,539 show a chip that handles varied workloads efficiently. For a game like Control, which is known for its physics-heavy combat scenarios, this CPU provides more than enough muscle to feed frames to the GTX 1660 SUPER.

The practical implication is that any frame rate drops observed in the measured data are almost entirely attributable to the GPU, not the processor. At 1080p Low, the system hits 91 FPS, which is well within the CPU's ability to maintain. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 7,314 and max-thread score of 7,307 demonstrate consistent scaling across all available threads, meaning the i5-13400F won't introduce stutter or frame-time spikes even when Control spawns multiple enemies and debris simultaneously. The CPU's 65 W TDP also indicates it runs cool enough for standard air cooling, though this is a qualitative observation since no specific cooler requirements are listed in the data.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is a Turing-architecture card on the 12 nm process, featuring 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by modern standards but sufficient for 1080p gaming. The card's base clock is 1530 MHz with a boost of 1785 MHz, and memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). These specs place the GPU in the 53rd percentile of all graphics cards, meaning it sits right at the median — a mid-range part that was never designed for high-refresh or high-resolution gaming.

The GTX 1660 SUPER's benchmark scores show a mixed bag. Its Passmark G3D score is 12,699, which is respectable for its class, but DirectX 12 performance is weak at 50, and DirectX 11 is only 104. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,278 confirms that modern API workloads are a challenge for this card. In Control, which uses DirectX 12 and features real-time ray tracing (though this card lacks dedicated RT cores), the GTX 1660 SUPER must rely on traditional rasterization. This explains why the measured frame rates drop so sharply at higher resolutions. The GPU's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (0.4% ahead), AMD Radeon RX 580 (0.4% ahead), and AMD Radeon 740M (0.9% ahead), showing it's competitive with other mid-range options but not a standout.

The 6 GB VRAM capacity is a crucial constraint in Control. At 4K Ultra settings, the card manages only 25 FPS, which suggests the memory buffer and texture bandwidth are being overwhelmed. The 336.0 GB/s bandwidth is simply not enough to feed 4K-resolution textures efficiently. Even at 1440p, the Ultra preset yields 38 FPS, which is borderline playable but only just. The GTX 1660 SUPER's 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is the fundamental limit here — it can process pixels at a reasonable rate for 1080p, but the pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s become bottlenecks as resolution climbs. The card's 125 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU indicate it's a power-efficient option, but that efficiency doesn't translate to high-end performance in demanding titles like Control.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Control at 1080p smoothly?*

A: Yes, at 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 91 FPS average, which is very smooth. Medium settings drop to 64 FPS, High to 57 FPS, and Ultra to 50 FPS. All of these are above the 45 FPS threshold that most players consider minimum for acceptable playability, though the Low and Medium presets provide the most comfortable margin.

*Q: Is 4K gaming viable with the GTX 1660 SUPER in Control?*

A: No, 4K is not a realistic option. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only produce 46 FPS, and Medium drops to 33 FPS with a minimum of 28 FPS. Ultra settings are unplayable at 25 FPS. The GPU's 6 GB VRAM and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for 4K texture workloads in this game.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The i5-13400F is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (0% delta), Intel Core 5 120 (-0.3%), and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (-0.3%). The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H is 0.4% faster. This means any of these CPUs would perform nearly identically in Control, confirming the GPU is the limiting factor.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the sweet spot. At Medium settings, the system delivers 64 FPS average with a minimum of 55 FPS, which is ideal for a smooth experience. 1440p is possible but requires Low settings to hit 69 FPS, while High settings at 1440p drop to 43 FPS.

*Q: Does the GPU support ray tracing in Control?*

A: No, the GTX 1660 SUPER has no dedicated RT cores, as indicated by the null value for rtCores in the specifications. The game features ray tracing, but this card must rely on traditional rasterization, which is why performance is heavily dependent on resolution and preset.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for this game's performance?

A: The GPU is decisively more important. The i5-13400F ranks in the 77th percentile of CPUs and shows no signs of bottlenecking, while the GTX 1660 SUPER is in the 53rd percentile. The measured FPS drops directly correlate with GPU workload, not CPU capability.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER combination ranks 3176th out of 3720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the bottom 15% of all systems. This ranking is driven almost entirely by the GPU's limitations, as the CPU is a strong performer. The combo's position means there are roughly 544 tested system configurations that perform worse, but a substantial majority of setups in the database deliver better frame rates in this game.

The ranking reflects the GPU's mid-range status. The GTX 1660 SUPER sits at the 53rd percentile of all graphics cards, which is exactly average, but Control is a demanding title that punishes mid-range hardware. The 4K results are particularly poor, with the Ultra preset hitting just 25 FPS, which is below playable thresholds. The 1440p results are better but still constrained, with only the Low preset exceeding 60 FPS. At 1080p, the combo performs adequately, but the ranking shows that most other tested systems can achieve higher frame rates at the same settings.

The combo's rank is a function of both components working together. The i5-13400F's high percentile ranking (77th) does little to boost the overall position because the GPU is the bottleneck in every measured scenario. This is a classic case of a CPU that is overqualified for its GPU pairing. The data suggests that upgrading the GPU to something in the 70th percentile or higher would dramatically improve the combo's rank, while upgrading the CPU would yield no measurable benefit in Control.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system shows its best performance. Low settings produce 91 FPS average, which is excellent for a mid-range GPU. Medium settings drop to 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 FPS and maximum of 74 FPS, providing a very playable experience with good visual quality. High settings yield 57 FPS, still smooth, while Ultra settings drop to 50 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 41 FPS, showing that the GTX 1660 SUPER has enough headroom at 1080p to handle higher presets, but the Ultra preset starts to strain the GPU.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance takes a noticeable hit. Low settings deliver 69 FPS, which is still playable, but Medium drops to 49 FPS with a minimum of 41 FPS and maximum of 56 FPS. High settings produce 43 FPS, and Ultra falls to 38 FPS. The 1440p results show that the GPU is now the limiting factor, with the gap between Low and Ultra being 31 FPS. The minimum frame rate of 41 FPS at Medium settings indicates occasional dips that could be noticeable during intense combat scenes.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles significantly. Low settings yield 46 FPS, which is borderline playable, but Medium drops to 33 FPS with a minimum of 28 FPS and maximum of 38 FPS. High settings produce 29 FPS, and Ultra falls to 25 FPS. The 4K results are consistently below the 30 FPS threshold that most players consider the absolute minimum for playability, except for Low settings. The data clearly shows that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo in Control, regardless of settings.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: the GTX 1660 SUPER can handle 1080p with ease, struggles at 1440p, and fails at 4K. The CPU's performance remains constant across all these scenarios, confirming that the GPU is the sole bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience with this combo, 1920x1080 with Medium settings is the optimal choice. The measured 64 FPS average with a 55 FPS minimum provides a smooth, consistent frame rate that is well above the 60 FPS target for most players. The Medium preset also offers a good balance of visual quality, including improved textures and effects over Low, without the performance penalty of High or Ultra. The 55 FPS minimum ensures that even during demanding scenes with multiple enemies and physics effects, the game won't stutter.

If you prefer higher visual fidelity, 1080p High at 57 FPS is a viable alternative, but the 7 FPS drop from Medium is noticeable. The Ultra preset at 50 FPS is playable but not recommended, as it sacrifices smoothness for marginal visual gains that are hard to perceive at this GPU's performance level. For players who prioritize frame rate above all else, 1080p Low at 91 FPS delivers a very responsive experience, ideal for fast-paced combat, but the visual downgrade is significant.

At 2560x1440, the only recommended setting is Low, which yields 69 FPS. Medium at 49 FPS is borderline, with a 41 FPS minimum that will cause visible stuttering. High and Ultra at 43 FPS and 38 FPS respectively are not recommended for a satisfying experience. 4K at any setting is not recommended, as even Low at 46 FPS will have frame pacing issues, and the visual quality at 4K Low is worse than 1080p Medium due to reduced detail.

In summary, the i5-13400F and GTX 1660 SUPER combo is best suited for 1080p gaming in Control. Stick to Medium settings for the best balance of performance and visuals, or drop to Low if you need higher frame rates. Avoid 1440p and 4K unless you're willing to accept sub-50 FPS gameplay with compromised graphical fidelity.