Control

The Intel Core i5-14400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 combination delivers a compelling performance profile in Control, with the data revealing a system that is clearly capable of high-refresh-rate gaming at 1080p and 1440p, while still maintaining respectable frame rates at 4K. The measured results show a significant shift in bottleneck behavior depending on resolution and settings, moving from a CPU-bound scenario at low settings to a GPU-bound one as visual fidelity increases.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

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. Its 20 MB of shared L3 cache and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory make it a versatile mid-range option. In the context of Control, a game that is not typically known for extreme CPU demands, this processor’s specifications suggest it should provide ample headroom for the game’s physics and AI systems.

The benchmark data confirms this assumption. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 340 FPS, a figure so high that it strongly suggests the CPU is the primary limiting factor, as the GPU is not being pushed hard enough to create a bottleneck. This is reinforced by the fact that the i5-14400F has a passmark_multithread score of 25470 and a passmark_single_thread score of 3701, indicating strong performance in both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads. The processor’s percentileVsAllCpus of 83 places it well above the majority of tested CPUs, meaning it has the raw computational power to feed even a high-end GPU in less demanding scenarios.

However, the CPU’s influence wanes as the settings increase. The delta between 1080p Low (340 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (156 FPS) is substantial, but this is not due to the CPU failing; rather, the GPU begins to take on more of the rendering load. The data points to a processor that is more than sufficient for Control, providing a stable foundation that rarely, if ever, becomes a limiting factor. The processor’s cinebench_r23_multicore score of 21645 and singlecore score of 3055 further illustrate its balanced capability, ensuring that even if the game were to spawn numerous objects or complex physics interactions, the 10 cores and 16 threads would likely handle it without significant frame drops. In essence, the CPU role here is to be a reliable, high-throughput partner that allows the GPU to operate at its full potential, especially at higher resolutions.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, is the primary driver of visual fidelity in this pairing. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 272.0 GB/s. The GPU’s boost clock of 2460 MHz and its 3072 shading units are key factors in its ability to render the complex environments and particle effects of Control. The GPU’s percentileVsAllGpus of 61 indicates it is a solid mid-range performer, and its passmark_g3d score of 19545 confirms its capability in DirectX 11 and other standard graphics APIs.

The data reveals a clear GPU-centric performance scaling. As resolution and settings increase, the frame rates drop in a pattern that is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages an average of 51 FPS, a significant drop from the 340 FPS seen at 1080p Low. This is the GPU’s workload becoming the dominant factor. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for Control at these settings, as the game does not appear to exceed this limit based on the measured FPS figures, which remain consistent without signs of severe stuttering or texture pop-in.

The GPU’s performance relative to its nearest rivals is interesting. The nearestRivals data shows the RTX 4060’s avgBenchmarkScore of 17639 is nearly identical to that of the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (17666, deltaPct -0.2) and AMD Radeon 780M (17588, deltaPct 0.3). This is a surprising comparison, as these are not modern equivalents, but the data suggests that in raw synthetic benchmarks, the scores are similar. However, the RTX 4060’s support for modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and its dedicated RT cores give it a feature set that these older rivals lack. In Control, a game that supports ray tracing, this architectural advantage could translate to better visual quality without a proportional performance penalty, although the measured FPS data here is for non-RT settings.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling data provides a clear narrative of how the system’s bottleneck shifts. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 and then to 3840x2160, the average FPS drops consistently across all settings, but the rate of the drop is telling.

At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 340 FPS at 1080p to 215 FPS at 1440p, a 37% decrease. This is a massive drop, which indicates that even at Low settings, the GPU is starting to feel the pressure of the increased pixel count. However, at 4K Low, the FPS is 112, a further 48% drop from 1440p. This steep decline suggests that the GPU is becoming the primary bottleneck, as the CPU is likely still not saturated.

For High settings, the pattern is similar but with lower absolute numbers: 217 FPS at 1080p, 137 FPS at 1440p, and 72 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 37% and 47%, respectively, mirroring the Low setting pattern. This consistency indicates that the scaling is predominantly driven by the GPU’s pixel processing capability. The Medium and Ultra settings show the same trend, with the Ultra setting being the most demanding, dropping from 156 FPS at 1080p to 98 FPS at 1440p and finally to 51 FPS at 4K.

The data implies that at 1080p, the system is often CPU-bound or at least balanced, but by 4K, the GPU is definitively the limiting component. The fact that the 4K Ultra average is 51 FPS, just above the threshold for smooth gameplay, shows that the RTX 4060 is stretched to its limits at this resolution with maximum settings. The data suggests that for a consistently smooth experience at 4K, players would need to either lower settings or accept a frame rate that hovers around 60 FPS. At 1440p, the system shows a much healthier balance, with High settings delivering 137 FPS and Ultra delivering 98 FPS, making it the sweet spot for high-refresh-rate monitors.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a granular view of performance across all twelve tested configurations. The following breakdown uses only the information from the FACT PACK.

1920x1080:

• Low: Average 340 FPS. This is the highest score recorded for this combo, indicating a scenario where the CPU is likely the limiting factor, as the GPU has minimal work to do.
• Medium: Average 253 FPS, with a minimum of 215 FPS and a maximum of 291 FPS. This shows a significant step down from Low, but still well above the territory of any display refresh rate concerns.
• High: Average 217 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 36 FPS, suggesting that the higher settings introduce more complex shading and effects that the GPU must process.
• Ultra: Average 156 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra is 61 FPS, the largest single-setting jump at this resolution. This indicates that Ultra settings are particularly demanding on the GPU.

2560x1440:

• Low: Average 215 FPS. The resolution increase from 1080p causes a 125 FPS drop, highlighting the GPU’s growing workload.
• Medium: Average 160 FPS, with a minimum of 136 FPS and a maximum of 183 FPS. The minimum is still high enough for a smooth experience on a 144Hz monitor.
• High: Average 137 FPS. This is a very playable frame rate for competitive or action games, providing a fluid experience.
• Ultra: Average 98 FPS. This is the first setting where the average dips below 100 FPS, but it remains perfectly smooth for a single-player title.

3840x2160:

• Low: Average 112 FPS. This is a surprisingly high score for 4K, indicating that the GPU can handle the pixel count when the visual effects are minimal.
• Medium: Average 83 FPS, with a minimum of 71 FPS and a maximum of 96 FPS. The minimum is still above 60 FPS, ensuring a mostly smooth experience.
• High: Average 72 FPS. This is a solid result for 4K, offering a good balance between visual quality and performance.
• Ultra: Average 51 FPS. This is the most demanding configuration, and the frame rate hovers near the 50 FPS mark, which may be acceptable for some players but is not ideal for fast-paced action.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: the frame rate scales almost linearly with the resolution and settings, but the impact of settings is more pronounced at higher resolutions. For example, the difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 184 FPS, while at 4K it is only 61 FPS. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily loaded that the relative cost of additional settings is smaller, but the absolute performance is lower.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combined performance of the Intel Core i5-14400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 in Control is ranked 40th out of 3720 tested combos. This is a strong result, placing the system in the top 1% of all combinations tested on this benchmark database. A rank of 40 out of 3720 means that there are only 39 other CPU-GPU pairings that achieve higher frame rates in this game.

This high ranking confirms the balance of the components. The i5-14400F is a capable processor that does not hold back the RTX 4060, and the RTX 4060 is powerful enough to take full advantage of the CPU’s capabilities. The data suggests that this combo outperforms the vast majority of systems, likely including those with older or lower-tier CPUs paired with similar or even slightly better GPUs.

The ranking also implies that the system is well-suited for high-refresh-rate gaming. Given that the combo achieves over 200 FPS at 1080p High and over 130 FPS at 1440p High, it is clear that this pairing is designed to deliver a fluid experience on most monitors. The fact that it is ranked so highly among 3720 combos indicates that it is a well-optimized pairing for Control, and users can expect excellent performance without needing to make significant compromises. While the 4K Ultra performance is less impressive, the overall ranking is a strong indicator that this is a top-tier combination for the game.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Control?*

A: The highest average FPS is 340, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: At which resolution and settings does the combo drop below 60 FPS?

A: The combo drops below 60 FPS only at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings, where it averages 51 FPS.

Q: How does the combo’s performance at 1440p High compare to 4K High?

A: At 1440p High, the combo averages 137 FPS, while at 4K High, it averages 72 FPS. This represents a 48% drop in performance when moving to the higher resolution.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the bottleneck at 1080p Low settings?

A: The data suggests the CPU is the likely bottleneck at 1080p Low, as the 340 FPS average is exceptionally high and indicates the GPU is not being fully utilized.

*Q: How does this combo rank compared to all other tested combinations in Control?*

A: The combo ranks 40th out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the top 1% of all systems tested.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo in the measured data?

A: The minimum FPS recorded is 71, which occurs at 3840x2160 resolution with Medium settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate.

For 1920x1080, the system is so powerful that even Ultra settings provide an average of 156 FPS. This is far beyond the refresh rate of most standard monitors, so players can confidently use Ultra settings to maximize visual quality without any performance concerns. The data shows that the jump from High (217 FPS) to Ultra (156 FPS) is significant, but the resulting frame rate is still exceptionally high, making Ultra the clear choice for the best visual experience at this resolution.

For 2560x1440, the choice is between High and Ultra. High settings deliver an average of 137 FPS, which is ideal for 144Hz monitors, while Ultra delivers 98 FPS, which is still smooth but may not fully saturate a high-refresh display. Given the strong performance, Ultra is recommended for players who prioritize image quality over raw frame rate, but High is the better option for those with 144Hz or higher refresh rate monitors.

For 3840x2160, the data shows that High settings (72 FPS) provide a good balance between visual fidelity and performance, offering a playable experience that is close to 60 FPS. Medium settings (83 FPS) offer a slight performance boost with a minor visual compromise, while Ultra settings (51 FPS) dip below the 60 FPS threshold, which may be noticeable in fast-paced scenes. For the best experience at 4K, High settings are recommended, as they provide the highest visual quality while maintaining a smooth, playable frame rate. Low settings (112 FPS) are an option for players who prioritize a high frame rate at 4K, but the visual compromise is substantial. The data suggests that High is the sweet spot for 4K gaming on this hardware.