Control

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread Raptor Lake-S desktop processor with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. It uses a 10 nm process, supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a dual-channel bus, and carries 20 MB of shared L3 cache plus 1.25 MB of L2 per core. Its benchmark profile shows a strong multithreaded presence: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 21279, while the single-core score reaches 3004, and Geekbench multicore lands at 10971 with a single-core result of 2301. The CPU sits at the 82nd percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 25236.

Against nearest rivals, the i5-13400F is essentially neck-and-neck with the Intel Core i7-13620H, which averages 25201 (a delta of 0.1%), and it trails the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D by just 0.5% (25365 average). The AMD EPYC 9474F and AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 are within 0.5% as well, at 25103 and 25099 respectively. In Control, this CPU has ample headroom at most settings; the measured frame rates show that GPU load dominates, but the 16-thread capability matters for the game's asynchronous physics and destruction systems, which can scale with additional cores. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314 versus the max-thread score of 7307 indicates the chip is fully utilized across its 10 cores, with no hyperthreading penalty in synthetic loads.

Control is not a CPU-bound title at 1080p with this processor; the data shows that lowering graphics settings from Ultra to Low at 1920x1080 increases average FPS from 49.9 to 92.7, a jump that would not occur if the CPU were the limiting factor. The single-thread performance, reflected in a 3DMark single-thread score of 960 and PassMark single-thread of 3634, is sufficient for the game's main thread, while the 20 MB shared L3 cache helps with scene data streaming. The CPU's 65 W TDP suggests it runs cool enough to sustain boost clocks during extended play, and its PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes does not bottleneck the GPU's PCIe 3.0 x16 connection.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing-architecture GPU on TSMC's 12 nm process, with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock runs at 1500 MHz with a boost of 1770 MHz, and memory operates at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The GPU packs 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s. Raw FP32 throughput is 5.437 TFLOPS. It has no dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, which is relevant for Control's optional ray-traced reflections, but the game's standard rasterized rendering is the focus here.

The GTX 1660 Ti sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13925. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 570X at 13871 (0.4% lower), the NVIDIA Tesla K10 at 14029 (0.7% higher), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at 13821 (0.8% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 at 13812 (0.8% lower). In Control, the GPU's 6 GB VRAM is a critical constraint at higher resolutions; at 4K Ultra the average FPS drops to 26.7, and even at 4K High it only reaches 29.8. The 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is the limiting factor at 3840x2160, as the game's texture streaming and particle effects require substantial data movement.

The 120 W TDP and dual-slot design are modest, and the GPU's DirectX 12 (12_1) support aligns with Control's API usage. Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6 are also supported, but the measured data reflects DirectX 12 behavior. The GTX 1660 Ti's 5.437 TFLOPS is adequate for 1080p but struggles at 4K, where the average FPS at Low settings (47.1) is the only playable result. The GPU's 55th percentile ranking puts it squarely in mid-range territory, and the benchmark results confirm that it is the primary bottleneck in this combo for Control, especially as resolution climbs.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data across four presets and three resolutions provides a clear picture of where this combo performs best. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 92.7 average FPS, which is smooth and responsive, but the Medium preset at 65.4 average FPS offers a substantial visual upgrade while still maintaining fluid gameplay. High at 1080p drops to 58.9 average FPS, which is borderline for fast-paced action, and Ultra falls to 49.9, which dips below the 60 FPS target.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset yields 69.2 average FPS, making it the only 1440p setting that clears 60 FPS. Medium at 1440p produces 52.6 average FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a game with intense combat sequences, while High (46.7) and Ultra (36.8) are increasingly compromised. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS; Low is the best at 47.1, with Medium at 33.9, High at 29.8, and Ultra at 26.7.

The optimal experience per the measured rows is 1080p Medium, which balances the 65.4 average FPS with the game's visual fidelity. It stays above the 60 FPS threshold while avoiding the visual degradation of Low. For users prioritizing frame rate above all, 1080p Low's 92.7 average FPS is the clear choice. At 1440p, the data suggests that only Low is viable for consistent 60+ FPS gameplay, and 4K should be avoided unless the user accepts sub-50 FPS performance.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and preset for this CPU and GPU combo in Control?

A: The data shows 1080p Medium as the sweet spot, yielding 65.4 average FPS. This is the highest preset that remains above 60 FPS at 1080p. For 1440p, only Low reaches 60+ FPS (69.2), and no 4K preset exceeds 47.1 FPS.

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

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25236, placing it 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13620H (25201) and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 (25099). It trails the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D by 0.5% (25365) and matches the AMD EPYC 9474F within 0.5% (25103).

Q: Is the GPU the limiting factor at 4K?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only reach 47.1 average FPS, while Ultra drops to 26.7. The GTX 1660 Ti's 6 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth cannot sustain Control's demands at 4K, and the performance gap between Low and Ultra is 20.4 FPS, indicating GPU-bound scaling.

Q: How does the GPU rank against its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti scores 13925 on average, which is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 570X (13871) and 0.8% ahead of both the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (13821) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (13812). It trails the NVIDIA Tesla K10 by 0.7% (14029).

Q: What is the FPS difference between 1080p and 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 58.9 at 1920x1080 to 46.7 at 2560x1440, then to 29.8 at 3840x2160. This represents a 49.4% reduction from 1080p to 4K, highlighting the GPU's struggle as resolution increases.

Q: Does the CPU's single-thread performance matter for this game?

A: The i5-13400F's single-thread score of 3004 in Cinebench R23 and 960 in 3DMark single-thread is adequate. The FPS scaling from Low to Ultra at 1080p (92.7 to 49.9) shows that the GPU is the bottleneck, not the CPU's single-thread capability.

Resolution Scaling

The measured data reveals a steep performance degradation as resolution increases, a hallmark of GPU-limited scenarios. At High settings, the average FPS goes from 58.9 at 1920x1080 to 46.7 at 2560x1440, a 20.7% drop, and then to 29.8 at 3840x2160, a further 36.2% reduction from 1440p. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 49.4%. At Low settings, the pattern is similar: 92.7 at 1080p, 69.2 at 1440p (25.3% lower), and 47.1 at 4K (31.9% lower from 1440p), for a 49.2% total reduction.

This consistent halving of frame rates from 1080p to 4K across all presets points squarely at the GPU as the limiting component. The CPU's 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314 and Cinebench R23 multicore of 21279 show no signs of bottlenecking at any resolution; if the CPU were the constraint, the FPS would remain flat or drop less severely when moving to higher resolutions. Instead, the GTX 1660 Ti's 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 5.437 TFLOPS are insufficient for 4K, where even Low settings cannot maintain 50 FPS.

The scaling also shows that the Ultra preset is particularly punishing at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 26.7, which is 43.3% lower than 4K Low (47.1). This spread widens at 1440p (36.8 Ultra vs. 69.2 Low, a 46.8% gap) and narrows at 1080p (49.9 Ultra vs. 92.7 Low, a 46.2% gap). The data indicates that the GPU's ROP count of 48 and pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s are the limiting factors for the higher preset's additional shading and texture work. For this combo, the practical ceiling is 1440p with Low settings, and 1080p offers the full range of presets with playable frame rates.