Control

# Control — Intel Core i5-14400F + AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT

The combination of the Intel Core i5-14400F and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT delivers a mid-range 1440p experience in Control, with the benchmark data showing a clear progression from smooth 1080p gameplay to increasingly demanding 4K performance. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings presets indicate a system that is GPU-bound at higher resolutions, while the CPU's strong single-thread performance ensures headroom at lower settings. The combo ranks 797th out of 1,636 tested combinations, placing it in the 49th percentile — essentially the median of all tested systems, which is consistent with a pairing of a capable mid-range processor with a last-generation RDNA 2 graphics card.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 94 FPS at 1920x1080 to 68.9 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of approximately 27%. Moving to 3840x2160, the frame rate drops further to 49.7 FPS, which represents a 47% decline from the 1080p result. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-limited scenario; the RX 6750 XT's rendering throughput becomes the constraint as pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K.

The Low settings preset shows even more dramatic scaling behavior. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 146.6 FPS, which drops to 115 FPS at 1440p and 77 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is about 22%, and from 1440p to 4K it is 33%. Interestingly, the gap between Low and High settings narrows as resolution increases: at 1080p, Low is 52.6 FPS faster than High, but at 4K, that difference shrinks to 27.3 FPS. This convergence indicates that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily loaded that settings changes have diminishing returns — the card is simply maxed out regardless of preset.

The Medium and Ultra presets follow the same trajectory. Medium goes from 104.2 FPS at 1080p to 80.1 FPS at 1440p and 51.4 FPS at 4K, while Ultra drops from 82 FPS to 63.3 FPS to 40.3 FPS across the same resolutions. The Ultra preset at 4K is the only configuration that falls below 45 FPS, suggesting that this setting combination pushes the card beyond its comfortable operating range. Overall, the data indicates that the RX 6750 XT is the limiting component at 1440p and above, while the i5-14400F provides sufficient headroom at 1080p to let the GPU stretch its legs.

How This Combo Ranks

With a rank of 797 out of 1,636 tested combos, this system sits almost exactly at the midpoint of the database. This positioning is noteworthy because it places the pairing ahead of many older or less balanced configurations while trailing dedicated high-end builds. The rank reflects Control's specific demands — the game benefits from both strong CPU single-thread performance and substantial GPU throughput, and this combo delivers a balanced but not exceptional mix of both.

The CPU's own benchmark standing provides context for the overall rank. The i5-14400F scores an average benchmark score of 32,508, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs tested. Its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are the Intel Core i7-12800H with a score of 32,513 (a 0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 7645 with 32,446 (0.2% faster), the AMD Ryzen 7 250 with 32,584 (0.2% slower), and the Intel Core i7-13705H with 32,586 (0.2% slower). This cluster of scores within 0.2% indicates that the i5-14400F is performing at the expected level for its class, with no anomalous behavior dragging down the combo's rank.

On the GPU side, the RX 6750 XT achieves an average benchmark score of 35,327, placing it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are tightly grouped as well: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M scores 35,264 (0.2% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile scores 35,435 (0.3% slower), the AMD Radeon 880M scores 35,646 (0.9% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 scores 35,787 (1.3% slower). The fact that the GPU's percentile is lower than the CPU's suggests that the graphics card is the more limiting factor in this pairing, which aligns with the resolution scaling analysis showing GPU-bound behavior at higher resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 22 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The GPU contains 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die, with a transistor density of 51.3M per mm². It houses 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines, along with 40 ray tracing cores. The card's FP32 compute throughput is rated at 13.31 TFLOPS, with FP16 performance at 26.62 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio.

Memory configuration plays a critical role in Control's performance at high resolutions. The card features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2250 MHz, or 18 Gbps effective. This 12 GB capacity is sufficient for Control's texture-heavy environments at 4K, as evidenced by the measured frame rates not collapsing due to memory exhaustion. The pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s provide the raw throughput needed to sustain the observed FPS figures across all tested presets.

Clock speeds are also relevant to understanding performance consistency. The GPU has a base clock of 2150 MHz, a game clock of 2495 MHz, and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. The relatively modest gap between base and boost clocks suggests that the card can maintain high frequencies under sustained load, which helps explain why the frame rates at 1440p High (68.9 FPS) and 4K High (49.7 FPS) remain stable without sudden drops. The card's 250 W TDP and dual-slot cooler design indicate that thermal throttling is unlikely to be a major factor in typical desktop airflow scenarios.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers playable frame rates across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 146.6 FPS, Medium achieves 104.2 FPS, High reaches 94 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 82 FPS. All four presets exceed 60 FPS, making 1080p a comfortable resolution for this combo regardless of visual preferences. The spread from Low to Ultra is 64.6 FPS, which gives users substantial flexibility to trade visual quality for smoothness.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain respectable but the impact of increased pixel count becomes evident. Low settings yield 115 FPS, Medium drops to 80.1 FPS, High produces 68.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 63.3 FPS. The Ultra preset still clears 60 FPS, which is notable for a demanding title like Control at 1440p. The gap between Medium and High at this resolution is 11.2 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 5.6 FPS — suggesting that the visual difference between High and Ultra may not justify the performance cost.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain high refresh rates. Low settings deliver 77 FPS, Medium achieves 51.4 FPS, High produces 49.7 FPS, and Ultra drops to 40.3 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium at 4K costs 25.6 FPS, which is a significant penalty for the additional visual fidelity. Notably, the difference between Medium and High at 4K is only 1.7 FPS, while High to Ultra costs 9.4 FPS. This non-linear scaling suggests that the High preset at 4K offers a poor trade-off, delivering nearly identical performance to Medium while presumably adding graphical features that the GPU cannot fully render.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p displays, the Ultra preset at 82 FPS is the best choice for users prioritizing visual quality, as it remains well above the 60 FPS threshold and provides the full graphical feature set Control has to offer. Those with high-refresh-rate monitors may prefer the High preset at 94 FPS or even Medium at 104.2 FPS, depending on whether the extra 12-22 FPS outweighs the visual degradation. The Low preset at 146.6 FPS is only recommended for competitive play or extreme refresh rate displays, as the visual compromise is substantial.

At 1440p, the High preset at 68.9 FPS represents the sweet spot for most users. It stays comfortably above 60 FPS while retaining good visual fidelity. The Ultra preset at 63.3 FPS is also viable, but the marginal FPS gain from dropping to High (5.6 FPS) is minimal compared to the visual difference. Medium at 80.1 FPS is the choice for users who prioritize frame rate smoothness over maximum detail, and Low at 115 FPS serves those targeting 100+ FPS gameplay.

For 4K, the data clearly points to the Low preset at 77 FPS as the only setting that maintains a consistently playable experience above 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 51.4 FPS is borderline for slower-paced exploration but will feel less responsive during combat sequences. High at 49.7 FPS and Ultra at 40.3 FPS are best avoided at this resolution, as the performance cost yields diminishing visual returns. Users with 4K displays should either accept the Low preset or consider lowering the resolution to 1440p to unlock the higher quality presets.