Control

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT holds the 740th position out of 3720 tested combos in Control. This places the configuration in the top 20% of all tested systems, a strong showing for a mid-range CPU paired with a high-end GPU. The rank is driven primarily by the GPU's ability to push high frame rates, though the CPU's 10-core, 16-thread configuration ensures the system does not bottleneck in most scenarios.

The combo's percentile positioning is notable when considering the CPU's standalone benchmark percentile of 83 (versus all CPUs) and the GPU's percentile of 55 (versus all GPUs). The gap between these two percentiles suggests the graphics card is the more limiting factor in this pairing, as its relative standing is lower. Yet the in-game rank of 740 out of 3720 indicates that the combination outperforms what either component's individual percentile might suggest, benefiting from the CPU's strong single-thread performance in a game that does not scale heavily with core counts.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT brings 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For Control, a game that loads detailed environments and physics-heavy scenes, this memory capacity is more than sufficient, preventing any texture streaming or asset loading bottlenecks at any resolution. The GPU's 192 ROPs and 5376 shading units provide the raw fill rate and compute throughput needed for the game's particle effects and destructible environments.

Clock speeds are modest by current flagships: a base clock of 1387 MHz and a boost clock of 2394 MHz, with a game clock of 2025 MHz. The measured FPS data shows that these clocks translate into playable performance even at 4K, where the High preset averages 67 FPS. The GPU's 51.48 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is the key driver here, as Control relies heavily on standard rasterization rather than ray tracing for its visual effects. The 84 RT cores are present but the game's implementation of ray tracing is not the primary workload in the measured settings.

Power delivery is robust with a 300 W TDP and 2x 8-pin connectors, and the 700 W suggested PSU indicates the system draws significant power under load. The GPU's PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides ample bandwidth for the card's data transfers. Notably, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5623 and PassMark G3D score of 29009 show strong raw performance, but the game-specific results reveal how this hardware translates into actual frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

Analyzing the measured FPS across all settings and resolutions, the High preset offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance for most users. At 1080p, High delivers 131 FPS, which is smooth for fast-paced action. At 1440p, it maintains 99 FPS, still well above the 60 FPS threshold for fluid gameplay. Even at 4K, High manages 67 FPS, which is playable on most displays.

The Medium preset provides a modest performance uplift over High but at the cost of visual quality. At 1080p, Medium yields 148 FPS (a 13% increase over High), and at 1440p it reaches 112 FPS (also a 13% increase). The jump from Medium to High is not as steep as the jump from Low to Medium, suggesting diminishing returns at the higher end. For users with high-refresh-rate monitors at 1080p, Medium is a safer choice to stay above 144 FPS.

The Low preset is only recommended for competitive play or for pushing extreme refresh rates. At 1080p, Low achieves 208 FPS, and at 1440p it hits 157 FPS. However, the visual downgrade in Control is significant, losing lighting and particle effects that define the game's atmosphere. The Ultra preset is taxing: at 4K, it drops to 58 FPS, just under the 60 FPS mark, while at 1440p it delivers 86 FPS and at 1080p 114 FPS. For 4K users, High is the clear choice, as it provides a 15% FPS increase over Ultra while retaining most visual features.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset provides complete FPS measurements for four settings across three resolutions, with some entries including minimum and maximum frame rates. The Medium preset is the only one with full min/max data, offering insight into frame pacing.

At 1920x1080, the progression is steep: Low averages 208 FPS, Medium averages 148 FPS (with a minimum of 125 FPS and maximum of 170 FPS), High averages 131 FPS, and Ultra averages 114 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 60 FPS (40% reduction), while the gap between Medium and High is 17 FPS (11% reduction), and between High and Ultra is 17 FPS (13% reduction). The min FPS of 125 at Medium suggests occasional dips but never below playable thresholds.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds with lower absolute numbers: Low averages 157 FPS, Medium averages 112 FPS (min 95 FPS, max 128 FPS), High averages 99 FPS, and Ultra averages 86 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 25% across all settings, indicating the GPU is still the primary driver. The min FPS of 95 at Medium shows the system remains fluid even during demanding scenes.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes more constrained: Low averages 106 FPS, Medium averages 75 FPS (min 64 FPS, max 87 FPS), High averages 67 FPS, and Ultra averages 58 FPS. The min FPS of 64 at Medium is concerning for 4K gaming, as it approaches the 60 FPS threshold. However, the average of 75 FPS shows that most scenes run well above the minimum.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and reveals the GPU-bound nature of this configuration. At High settings, the progression is 131 FPS at 1080p, 99 FPS at 1440p, and 67 FPS at 4K. This represents a 24% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The scaling is nearly linear with pixel count, confirming that the RX 7900 XT is the limiting component.

At Low settings, the scaling is even more dramatic: 208 FPS at 1080p, 157 FPS at 1440p, and 106 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K is 49%, identical to the High preset. This consistency across settings indicates that resolution scaling is purely a function of GPU pixel throughput, not CPU limitations.

The Medium preset shows the same pattern: 148 FPS at 1080p, 112 FPS at 1440p, and 75 FPS at 4K, a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The uniformity of this scaling (49-50% across all settings) strongly suggests the CPU is not a bottleneck at any resolution. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect the 1080p numbers to plateau while 4K numbers continued to scale, but the consistent percentage drops indicate the GPU is doing all the heavy lifting.

FAQ

Q: Is the i5-14400F + RX 7900 XT combo capable of 4K gaming in Control?

A: Yes, but only on High settings, where it averages 67 FPS. The Ultra preset drops to 58 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium and Low presets run at 75 FPS and 106 FPS respectively at 4K.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming?

A: The High preset is recommended, delivering 99 FPS at 1440p. This is well above the 60 FPS target and provides better visual quality than Medium (112 FPS) without the performance hit of Ultra (86 FPS).

Q: How does the CPU's benchmark performance compare to its rivals?

A: The i5-14400F has an average benchmark score of 32279, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, 0.2% higher than the Intel Core i9-11900, and 0.5% higher than the Intel Core i7-12800H. It trails the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS by 0.2%.

Q: Does the GPU's memory capacity matter for this game?

A: The 20 GB of GDDR6 memory with 800.0 GB/s bandwidth is more than sufficient for Control at any resolution. The game's texture and asset streaming demands do not approach this capacity, making memory a non-issue.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: The average is 148 FPS, with a minimum of 125 FPS and maximum of 170 FPS. This ensures smooth gameplay even during intense combat sequences with heavy particle effects.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor in this combo?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The consistent 49% FPS drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings shows resolution scaling is purely GPU-bound. The CPU's 83rd percentile standing versus the GPU's 55th percentile further supports this conclusion.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor from the Raptor Lake architecture, featuring 6 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores (inferred from the 10-core count and 16-thread count). Its base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.70 GHz provide strong single-thread performance, which is critical for Control's game logic and physics calculations. The 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB L2 per core ensure data locality for the game's assets.

Benchmark results show the CPU's capabilities: Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and single-core score of 3055, with a Geekbench multi-core score of 11268 and single-core score of 2058. The PassMark multithread score of 25470 and single-thread score of 3701 confirm the processor's balance. Its 83rd percentile ranking versus all CPUs places it above most mainstream processors, though its nearest rivals are all mobile or older desktop parts.

In Control, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU, as the measured FPS scaling demonstrates. The 65 W TDP and Intel Socket 1700 compatibility make it a power-efficient choice, but the launch MSRP of $196 positions it as a mid-range part. The CPU's PCIe Gen 5 support with 16 lanes (CPU only) ensures the GPU receives full bandwidth, though the RX 7900 XT uses PCIe 4.0. The DDR4 and DDR5 memory support with dual-channel configuration provides flexibility, though memory bandwidth is not listed as a bottleneck for this game.

The data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the system reaches 208 FPS, which approaches the limit of what the CPU can feed the GPU. The fact that 1080p Low (208 FPS) is only 31% faster than 1440p Low (157 FPS), while 1440p Low is 48% faster than 4K Low (106 FPS), suggests the CPU begins to have influence at very high frame rates. However, for the settings most users will play (High or Ultra), the CPU remains comfortably ahead of the GPU's demandsebb.