Control

Control’s benchmark data for the Intel Core i5-14400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination shows a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics card, with frame rates that collapse as resolution climbs. The GTX 1650, with its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus, is the clear bottleneck in this pairing, while the 10-core, 16-thread i5-14400F has ample headroom. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, contextualizes the combo’s rank among 3,720 tested configurations, and offers practical settings guidance for playing Control.

Resolution Scaling

The data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, a classic sign of GPU-bound rendering. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 56 FPS, which is playable. Dropping to 2560x1440 at Low yields 43 FPS, a 23% reduction. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average plunges to 29 FPS, which is a 48% drop from the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern is typical for a GPU with limited memory bandwidth and raw throughput; the GTX 1650’s 128.1 GB/s bandwidth and 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are simply insufficient for 4K workloads.

The gap between High and Ultra presets at each resolution further underscores GPU limitations. At 4K, High averages 18 FPS, while Ultra drops to 16 FPS. The difference is modest, suggesting that the card is already saturated and additional settings have diminishing returns. At 1440p, High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra falls to 23 FPS. At 1080p, High averages 36 FPS, with Ultra at 31 FPS. The consistent pattern — where raising settings from High to Ultra costs roughly 5-6 FPS at every resolution — indicates that the GPU is the limiting component, not the CPU. The i5-14400F’s boost clock of 4.70 GHz and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3055 are more than sufficient for Control’s frame pacing.

The 4K results are uniformly poor: even at Low, the average is 29 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. Medium at 4K averages 20 FPS with a minimum of 17 and maximum of 24, showing significant frame time variance. The resolution scaling data suggests that the GTX 1650 cannot handle 4K in any settings configuration; the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus are the primary culprits, as texture and geometry loads at 3840x2160 exceed what the card can process efficiently. The i5-14400F’s 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 10 cores do not compensate for this GPU-side deficiency.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the decisive factor in this combo’s performance, and its specifications explain the measured results. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, with memory running at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth — a figure that is adequate for 1080p but insufficient for higher resolutions. The card’s 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s, which align with the observed FPS drops at 1440p and 4K.

The GTX 1650’s percentile rank of 40 (meaning it outperforms 40% of all GPUs) and average benchmark score of 7472 place it as an entry-level part. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% slower), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% slower), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% slower), with the Intel Arc A310 being 1% faster. This positioning confirms that the GTX 1650 is at the low end of discrete GPUs, and Control’s benchmark results reflect that: even at 1080p Low, the combo only hits 56 FPS, leaving no headroom for demanding scenes.

VRAM usage is a critical concern. Control is a game that can exceed 4 GB of VRAM at high settings and higher resolutions, and the measured FPS at 1440p and 4K suggests the card is hitting memory capacity limits. At 4K Ultra, the average drops to 16 FPS, which is likely due to both compute and memory bandwidth saturation. The GDDR5 memory type and 128-bit bus are outdated by modern standards, and the GPU’s 75 W TDP (with no power connectors) indicates a design focused on efficiency rather than performance. The benchmark data shows that the GTX 1650 is the sole bottleneck: the i5-14400F’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 is overkill for this GPU pairing.

How This Combo Ranks

Among 3,720 tested CPU-GPU combinations in Control, this i5-14400F + GTX 1650 pairing ranks 3,588th. This places it in the bottom 4% of all tested combos, which is a stark indication of its performance ceiling. The rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, as the CPU is a strong performer on its own — the i5-14400F has a percentile rank of 83 versus all CPUs flagged in the data. The mismatch between a high-tier CPU and a low-tier GPU creates a system that is balanced for productivity but not for high-end gaming.

The combo’s rank is consistent with the measured FPS numbers. With an average of 56 FPS at 1080p Low, it falls short of the 60 FPS target that many gamers consider the baseline for smooth play. At higher settings, the system drops into the 30-40 FPS range at 1080p, which is playable but not ideal. The 4K results, ranging from 16 to 29 FPS, are firmly in the unplayable category. The rank of 3,588 out of 3,720 means that only 132 tested combos are slower, and those are likely to feature even older or more integrated graphics solutions.

For context, the CPU’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks — such as the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (0.1% faster) and Intel Core i9-11900 (0.2% faster) — show that the i5-14400F is a mid-to-high-tier processor. However, the GPU’s nearest rivals, like the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% slower) and AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% slower), are integrated or entry-level parts. This contrast highlights the imbalance: the CPU is in the 83rd percentile, while the GPU is in the 40th percentile. In Control specifically, the combo’s rank reflects the GPU’s inability to push frames, regardless of CPU capability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark results provide a full matrix of average FPS across three resolutions and four settings presetsasi. At 3840x2160, the numbers are: Low averages 29 FPS, Medium averages 20 FPS (with a minimum of 17 and maximum of 24), High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 16 FPS. None of these are playable, and the tight spread from 16 to 29 FPS shows that the GPU is overwhelmed at 4K, with settings having limited impact. The minimum FPS of 17 at Medium indicates stuttering, which is common when VRAM is exhausted.

At 2560x1440, performance improves but remains marginal. Low settings yield 43 FPS, Medium averages 30 FPS (minimum 26, maximum 35), High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra drops to 23 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is a 13 FPS loss, while Medium to High is only 3 FPS, and High to Ultra is 4 FPS. This suggests that the Low preset is the only viable option at 1440p for consistent frame rates, though 43 FPS is still below 60. The data shows that 1440p is not a realistic target for this combo in Control, as even Low settings hover near the edge of playability.

At 1920x1080, the results are more usable. Low settings average 56 FPS, which is the best measured result across all configurations. Medium averages 40 FPS (minimum 34, maximum 46), High averages 36 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 16 FPS, which is significant, while the gap from Medium to High is 4 FPS and High to Ultra is 5 FPS. The 1080p Low preset is the only configuration that approaches a smooth experience, and even then, the 56 FPS average leaves little margin for demanding scenes. The minimum FPS of 34 at Medium suggests that dips below 30 FPS are possible during combat or heavy effects.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo are 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This configuration produces an average of 56 FPS, which is the only tested row that approaches the 60 FPS target. The 1080p Medium preset drops to 40 FPS, which is still playable but with a noticeable reduction in smoothness. The 1440p and 4K resolutions are not recommended, as even the Low preset at 1440p averages only 43 FPS, and 4K Low averages 29 FPS — both below acceptable thresholds for action games.

If a user prioritizes visual quality over frame rate, 1080p Medium (40 FPS) is the highest settings preset that maintains an average above 30 FPS. However, the minimum FPS of 34 at Medium means that frame drops below 30 are possible, which can impact gameplay. The High preset at 1080p averages 36 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS, both of which are riskier due to lower averages and potential stuttering. The data suggests that the Low preset is the sweet spot: it provides the highest average FPS and avoids the VRAM pressure that likely contributes to the lower minimum FPS at Medium.

For users with adaptive sync monitors, 1080p Medium might be acceptable, but the benchmark results indicate that the GTX 1650 does not have the headroom for consistent 40 FPS gameplay in Control’s more intense scenes. The 4K and 1440p settings are not viable, and any attempt to run them will result in sub-30 FPS averages. The recommendation is clear: use 1080p Low for the best balance of performance and playability, with 1080p Medium as a secondary option for those who can tolerate occasional frame drops.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. It has 20 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 21,645 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3,055 in single-core, with a Geekbench multi-core score of 11,268 and single-core score of 2,058. These numbers place it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (0.1% faster) and Intel Core i9-11900 (0.2% faster).

In Control, the CPU is not the limiting factor. The measured FPS drops from 1080p to 4K align with GPU-bound behavior, and the i5-14400F’s single-core performance (boost clock of 4.70 GHz) is more than sufficient for the game’s physics and AI calculations. The CPU’s 10 cores and 16 threads provide ample multi-threaded capability, but Control’s benchmark data shows that the GTX 1650 is the constraint. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 32,279 and percentile rank of 83 confirm that it is a high-tier part, but in this combo, its potential is wasted.

The i5-14400F does not contribute to the FPS numbers in a meaningful way; instead, it ensures that the GPU is always the bottleneckheb. If the GTX 1650 were replaced with a more powerful GPU, the CPU could handle higher frame rates without becoming a constraint. However, as tested, the CPU’s role is to maintain frame pacing and avoid stuttering, which it does effectively given the low FPS values. The benchmark data indicates that the CPU is not causing any performance issues — the GPU is solely responsible for the measured results. The i5-14400F’s 65 W TDP and 10 nm process node also mean it runs cool, but that is irrelevant to Control’s performance.