Control

Control with the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT presents a pairing where a capable mid-range GPU is paired with a six-core processor from 2018. The benchmark data shows this combination delivers a genuinely playable experience across most settings and resolutions, though the CPU's age becomes apparent at lower resolutions and higher frame rates. This analysis breaks down exactly what each component contributes, how the system scales, and where the optimal experience lies.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a six-core, six-thread processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture, running on a 14 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 9 MB L3 cache. Memory support is dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, and the chip connects via PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. In terms of raw synthetic performance, the i5-9400 scores 6629 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 935 in single-core, 5141 in Geekbench multi-core, and 1389 in single-core. Its average benchmark score sits at 2254, placing it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. The data suggests the i5-9400 is sufficient but not exceptional. The nearest rivals based on average score are the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (0.2% slower), the Intel Core i7-10710U (0.3% faster), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (0.4% faster), and the Intel Core i3-10305 (0.4% slower). These deltas are minuscule, indicating the i5-9400 sits squarely in a performance tier where no single rival has a decisive edge. For Control, this means the CPU rarely becomes the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, but at 1080p with Low settings, the 141 FPS average suggests the CPU is working hard to keep up with the GPU's output.

The six cores and six threads are adequate for Control's engine, which is not heavily multithreaded. The 4.10 GHz boost clock helps maintain responsiveness in scenes with complex physics or particle effects. However, with a 47th percentile ranking, the data indicates this CPU is below average for the entire CPU market, meaning it is not a high-end part. In a game like Control, which is GPU-intensive at high settings, the i5-9400 holds up, but it lacks the headroom of more modern processors with higher thread counts or faster single-core performance.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is the dominant component in this pairing. Built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm process, the GPU features 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units, along with 40 ray accelerators. It has a base clock of 2321 MHz, a game clock of 2424 MHz, and a boost clock of 2581 MHz. The memory subsystem is substantial: 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with a bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s, operating at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The GPU's compute performance is rated at 13.21 TFLOPS FP32, with a pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 413.0 GTexel/s.

The RX 6700 XT's average benchmark score is 27425, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile (0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (0.5% faster), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell (1.1% slower), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (1.5% faster). This indicates the RX 6700 XT performs on par with an RTX 3090 in synthetic tests, which is impressive for a mid-range card. In Control, the GPU is clearly the primary driver of performance, especially at 4K, where the 12 GB VRAM and 384 GB/s bandwidth are put to use.

The 40 ray cores are relevant for Control, as the game features ray-traced reflections and indirect lighting. However, the measured FPS data does not specify whether ray tracing is enabled, and the high average FPS at 1080p suggests the settings tested likely do not include heavy ray tracing, or the GPU handles it well. At 4K Ultra, the GPU pushes 40 FPS, indicating a hard limit from the graphics card's compute and memory bandwidth. The 12 GB VRAM is more than sufficient for Control at any resolution, as the game's textures and geometry are unlikely to exceed 8 GB even at 4K Ultra.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear scaling pattern from 1080p to 4K, demonstrating where the bottleneck shifts between CPU and GPU. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 141 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops to 107 FPS (a 24% decrease), and 4K Low drops further to 72 FPS (a 49% decrease from 1080p). At High settings, the progression is 89 FPS at 1080p, 67 FPS at 1440p (a 25% decrease), and 46 FPS at 4K (a 48% decrease from 1080p). The consistent ~25% drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~50% drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions.

However, the gap between Low and High settings at 1080p is notable: 141 FPS versus 89 FPS, a 37% difference. This large delta suggests that at 1080p Low, the CPU is nearing its limit, preventing the GPU from fully stretching its legs. At 1440p, the difference between Low (107 FPS) and High (67 FPS) is 37%, similar to 1080p. At 4K, the difference narrows to 36% (72 FPS Low vs 46 FPS High), showing that the GPU becomes the sole limiting factor. The data indicates that at 1080p, the i5-9400 can cap performance in lighter scenes, but at 1440p and 4K, the RX 6700 XT is the definitive bottleneck.

The Medium settings provide a middle ground with min/max FPS data: at 4K Medium, the average is 51 FPS with a range of 44 to 59; at 1440p Medium, 76 FPS with a range of 65 to 87; and at 1080p Medium, 100 FPS with a range of 85 to 115. These ranges are tight, indicating stable frame pacing without severe stutterscars, which is a good sign for gameplay consistencyikuha.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows allow for a direct comparison of presets. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 141 FPS, which is far beyond the 60 FPS target, but the visual quality is likely compromised. High at 1080p gives 89 FPS, which is still very smooth, while Ultra drops to 77 FPS. Medium at 1080p offers 100 FPS with a minimum of 85, which is a strong balance of visual fidelity and performance. Given that Control is a visually rich game with destructible environments and particle effects, the Medium preset at 1080p appears to be the sweet spot, offering a 100 FPS average with a worst-case frame time that stays above 85 FPS.

At 1440p, the choice is clearer. Ultra drops to 59 FPS, which is borderline for a smooth experience on a high-refresh monitor. High at 67 FPS is playable but not ideal for fast-paced action. Medium at 76 FPS with a minimum of 65 FPS is the recommended setting, as it provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS while preserving most visual features. Low at 107 FPS is smooth but sacrifices too much visual quality for the resolution.

At 4K, the situation is more constrained. Ultra at 40 FPS is not recommended for a game like Control, which benefits from responsive aiming. High at 46 FPS is also below the 60 FPS threshold, but it may be acceptable for a slower-paced playthrough. Medium at 51 FPS with a minimum of 44 FPS is the best compromise, as it stays above 40 FPS consistently and provides a playable experience. Low at 72 FPS is the only preset that achieves a comfortable frame rate at 4K, but it comes at the cost of significant visual downgrades. For most users, the data suggests using Medium at 1440p as the default, or Medium at 1080p if a higher refresh rate is preferred.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT ranks 1968 out of 3720 tested combos in Control. This places it in the 47th percentile of all combinations, meaning it outperforms roughly half of the systems tested. The ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU, which is in the 72nd percentile, while the CPU is only in the 47th percentile. The disparity suggests that if the i5-9400 were upgraded to a more modern CPU, the combo's rank would likely improve significantly, as the GPU has headroom to push higher frame rates at lower resolutions.

The rank of 1968 out of 3720 is respectable but not elite. It indicates that this system is a solid mid-range performer, capable of handling Control at high settings at 1080p and 1440p, but it will not compete with high-end builds that pair top-tier CPUs with flagship GPUs. The data shows that the GPU is the star of this pairing, and the CPU is a limiting factor only in specific scenarios, such as 1080p Low where the frame rate is 141 FPS, which is likely near the CPU's maximum achievable FPS in this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080 resolution, the measured average FPS across settings is as follows: Low delivers 141 FPS, Medium delivers 100 FPS (with a min of 85 and max of 115), High delivers 89 FPS, and Ultra delivers 77 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 45% drop in performance, which is typical for a GPU-heavy game. The Medium preset's min FPS of 85 indicates that even in the most demanding scenes, the system stays well above 60 FPS, making it a highly consistent experience.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 107 FPS, Medium at 76 FPS (min 65, max 87), High at 67 FPS, and Ultra at 59 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent at roughly 24-25% for each setting, confirming that the GPU is the primary limiter in this range. The Ultra preset at 59 FPS is just below the 60 FPS threshold, which could cause minor stutters on a 60 Hz display, but it is close enough that V-sync would keep it playable.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 72 FPS, Medium at 51 FPS (min 44, max 59), High at 46 FPS, and Ultra at 40 FPS. The 4K results show a clear GPU limit, with even Low settings only reaching 72 FPS. The Medium preset's min FPS of 44 is the lowest recorded in the entire dataset, indicating that 4K Medium is the minimum viable setting for a consistent experience, and even then, there will be dips below 50 FPS in heavy scenes. The data suggests that 4K is best reserved for Low or Medium settings, depending on the user's tolerance for frame rate fluctuations.