Control

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT delivers a playable but resolution-sensitive experience in Control. The dataset shows a clear hierarchy where performance scales predictably with both graphical presets and pixel count, with the most significant bottlenecks emerging at 4K Ultra settings. This analysis breaks down the measured frame rates, the balance between CPU and GPU load, and how this specific combination positions itself against other tested hardware configurations.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance curve as resolution increases, indicating that the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor at higher pixel counts. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 115 FPS, which drops to 87 FPS at 1440p (-24%) and further to 59 FPS at 4K (-49% from 1080p). This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the RX 5700 XT’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are progressively taxed by the increasing pixel throughput.

The transition from 1080p to 1440p at High settings shows a similar proportional decline, from 73 FPS to 55 FPS (-25%), while the 4K High result of 37 FPS represents a -49% drop from 1440p. The consistency of these percentages across presets suggests that resolution scaling is uniform regardless of quality level, which points to a fixed hardware limitation rather than a software or driver quirk.

At Ultra settings, the pattern becomes more extreme. The 1080p Ultra average of 63 FPS falls to 48 FPS at 1440p (-24%) and reaches only 32 FPS at 4K (-49% from 1080p, -33% from 1440p). The 4K Ultra result of 32 FPS is the lowest recorded in the entire dataset, sitting just below the 37 FPS achieved at 4K High. This indicates that Ultra settings at 4K push the GPU beyond its comfortable operating range, with the 32 FPS average likely dipping into stutter territory during intense combat sequences.

The Medium preset provides the only complete min/max data, offering insight into frame pacing. At 1080p Medium, the 82 FPS average is bracketed by a 70 FPS minimum and 94 FPS maximum, a 24 FPS spread that suggests reasonably consistent performance. At 1440p Medium, the 62 FPS average drops to a 53 FPS minimum, while 4K Medium shows a 36 FPS minimum against a 42 FPS average. The narrowing of the gap between average and minimum at higher resolutions further confirms that the GPU is the limiting component—when the GPU is saturated, there is less headroom for frame time variation.

The data supports the conclusion that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combo, with all presets except Ultra maintaining averages above 70 FPS. At 1440p, the combo remains viable for High and Medium presets but dips below 60 FPS at Ultra. At 4K, only the Low preset achieves an average above 50 FPS, and even that result (59 FPS) is marginal.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Control at 60 FPS in 4K?*

A: No. The highest 4K average recorded is 59 FPS at Low settings, with High dropping to 37 FPS, Medium to 42 FPS, and Ultra to 32 FPS. None of the 4K presets sustain a 60 FPS average.

Q: What is the best resolution for maintaining high frame rates?

A: At 1080p, all four presets achieve averages above 60 FPS, with Low reaching 115 FPS, Medium 82 FPS, High 73 FPS, and Ultra 63 FPS. This makes 1080p the only resolution where every preset stays above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at the same resolution?

A: Ultra is consistently 10-14% slower than High across all resolutions. At 1080p, Ultra averages 63 FPS versus High’s 73 FPS; at 1440p, 48 FPS versus 55 FPS; and at 4K, 32 FPS versus 37 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The resolution scaling data indicates a GPU bottleneck. Frame rates drop by roughly 25% when moving from 1080p to 1440p and another 33-49% from 1440p to 4K, which is consistent with the RX 5700 XT being the limiting component rather than the i5-14400F.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for Medium settings?

A: The dataset includes min FPS only for the Medium preset. At 1080p the minimum is 70 FPS, at 1440p it is 53 FPS, and at 4K it is 36 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2767 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control, placing it in the bottom 26th percentile of all tested systems.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data indicates that the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance for this hardware. At 1080p Medium, the 82 FPS average with a 70 FPS minimum provides a smooth experience with headroom for demanding scenes. The 1440p Medium result of 62 FPS remains playable, though the 53 FPS minimum approaches the edge of comfortable frame rates.

For users prioritizing frame rate over visual fidelity, the Low preset is the clear choice. At 1080p, Low delivers 115 FPS, which drops to 87 FPS at 1440p and 59 FPS at 4K. This preset is the only option that allows 4K playability above 55 FPS, making it the sole viable choice for 4K displays.

The High preset is a middle-ground option that sacrifices some performance for improved visuals. At 1080p, it achieves 73 FPS, which is adequate for most players. However, at 1440p it drops to 55 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 37 FPS, making High unsuitable for higher resolutions.

The Ultra preset is difficult to recommend for this combo. Even at 1080p, the 63 FPS average is only marginally above the 60 FPS threshold, and the 48 FPS at 1440p and 32 FPS at 4K fall below acceptable playability standards. The visual gains from Ultra over High do not justify the consistent 10-14% performance penalty.

For a 1080p display, Medium is the optimal choice. For 1440p displays, Medium is the highest preset that maintains an average above 60 FPS. For 4K displays, Low is the only preset that approaches playable frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce a 115 FPS average, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. Medium follows with 82 FPS, while High achieves 73 FPS and Ultra drops to 63 FPS. The Medium preset’s min/max range of 70-94 FPS indicates that even the lowest recorded frame rate stays comfortably above 60 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, all presets see a reduction of approximately 22-25%. Low maintains a strong 87 FPS average, while Medium falls to 62 FPS with a 53 FPS minimum. High drops to 55 FPS, and Ultra reaches 48 FPS. The 62 FPS Medium result is the only 1440p preset that stays above 60 FPS, though it does so narrowly.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low achieves 59 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS target. Medium falls to 42 FPS with a 36 FPS minimum, High drops to 37 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 32 FPS. The 4K results show a clear pattern: the GPU is unable to sustain high frame rates regardless of settings.

The complete dataset shows a consistent hierarchy: Low > Medium > High > Ultra at every resolution. The performance gap between Low and Ultra is substantial, ranging from 45% at 1080p (115 vs 63) to 46% at 4K (59 vs 32).

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2767 out of 3720 tested combinations places this system in the bottom 26% of all configurations tested for Control. This ranking reflects the GPU’s age and position in the market—the RX 5700 XT sits at the 59th percentile among all GPUs, while the i5-14400F achieves the 83rd percentile among all CPUs.

The GPU’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (0.3% ahead), and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (0.3% ahead). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 is 0.9% ahead. These deltas are remarkably small, indicating that the RX 5700 XT’s performance is tightly clustered with a group of mid-range and professional cards.

The CPU’s nearest rivals show a similar tight grouping. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U is 0.1% ahead, the Intel Core i9-11900 is 0.2% ahead, and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS is 0.2% behind. The Intel Core i7-12800H is 0.5% ahead. These small deltas suggest that the i5-14400F’s processing power is well within the normal range for modern mid-range CPUs.

The low combined ranking is driven primarily by the GPU. While the CPU is competitive with its peers, the GPU’s mid-pack standing (59th percentile) drags the overall combo down. In a game like Control that is heavily GPU-bound, the GPU’s relative weakness becomes the dominant factor in the final ranking.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F provides substantial processing headroom for Control. With 10 cores and 16 threads operating at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, this CPU delivers strong multi-threaded performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and single-core score of 3055 place it comfortably in the upper tier of desktop processors.

The CPU’s 83rd percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms that it is not a bottleneck in this configuration. The resolution scaling data supports this conclusion—if the CPU were limiting performance, frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions. Instead, the measured 25% to 49% drops when moving from 1080p to 4K indicate that the GPU is the constraining factor.

The CPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (0.1% ahead) and the Intel Core i9-11900 (0.2% ahead), both of which are mobile or older desktop parts. This suggests that the i5-14400F is performing at a level consistent with higher-tier CPUs, providing ample processing power for Control’s physics and AI systems.

The 20 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support (DDR4 and DDR5) further contribute to the CPU’s ability to feed the GPU with data. In Control, where destruction physics and particle effects can create sudden CPU load spikes, the i5-14400F’s 16 threads provide sufficient parallelism to prevent frame drops that would otherwise be attributed to CPU limitations.

Given that the CPU is not the limiting component, users with this combo should focus their optimization efforts on GPU settings rather than CPU-related tweaks.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is the primary determinant of this combo’s performance in Control. With 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, the GPU provides 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming but becomes strained at 4K.

The GPU’s 59th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it in the middle of the performance spectrum. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (0.1% ahead) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (0.3% ahead), both of which are professional or mobile parts. The fact that the RX 5700 XT trades blows with much newer and more expensive cards highlights its enduring relevance for 1080p gaming.

The GPU’s 9.754 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 304.8 GTexel/s texture rate are sufficient for Control at lower resolutions. The measured results confirm this: at 1080p, the GPU maintains averages above 60 FPS across all presets, with Low reaching 115 FPS. However, the 4K results—ranging from 59 FPS at Low to 32 FPS at Ultra—show the GPU’s limitations when pixel count increases.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is likely a contributing factor to the steep 4K performance drop. Control’s high-resolution textures and complex environments can exceed 8 GB at 4K with higher presets, forcing the GPU to rely on slower memory paging. This would explain why the 4K High (37 FPS) and Ultra (32 FPS) results are disproportionately low compared to the 1440p results.

The GPU’s DirectX 12 support (12_1) is fully utilized by Control, and its Vulkan 1.4 API support provides additional compatibility options. The 1905 MHz boost clock and 1755 MHz game clock allow the GPU to maintain competitive performance in GPU-bound scenarios, but the architecture’s age limits its ability to handle the most demanding settings.

For users seeking to improve performance, reducing resolution or graphical presets will yield the most significant gains, as the GPU is the clear bottleneck in this system.