Control

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT produces a highly playable experience in Control, with the GPU clearly dominating the performance equation across all tested resolutions and settings. The measured frame rates show a system that scales predictably with graphical load, though the older six-core processor begins to exert a noticeable influence at lower resolutions where the GPU is less taxed.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 163.9 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does this combo perform at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combo delivers an average of 61.1 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: The average frame rate drops from 144.5 FPS at Low settings to 88.9 FPS at Ultra settings, representing a 55.6 FPS reduction when moving to the highest quality preset.

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

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, as the frame rate drops significantly from 1080p to 4K (from 133.6 to 69.9 FPS at High settings). At 1080p Low, the 163.9 FPS result indicates the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU adequately, though the scaling between settings suggests diminishing returns.

*Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations in Control?*

A: The combo ranks 372nd out of 1636 tested combinations, placing it in the top quarter of all configurations tested for this game.

Q: What is the average FPS difference between Medium and High settings at 4K?

A: Moving from Medium (77.6 FPS) to High (69.9 FPS) at 3840x2160 results in a 7.7 FPS decrease, showing that the High preset costs a modest amount of performance over Medium.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is the dominant component in this pairing, and its 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus with 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth provides ample headroom for Control's demands. The GPU's boost clock of 2394 MHz and game clock of 2025 MHz help drive the high frame rates observed, particularly at 1080p where the card can stretch its legs. With 5376 shading units and 84 ray tracing cores, the architecture is well-suited for the game's visual effects, though the measured results show that even at 4K Ultra, the card sustains 61.1 FPS average.

The GPU's 82nd percentile ranking among all GPUs and its average benchmark score of 38358 place it as a high-end performer. In the context of Control, the measured FPS data reveals that the card's raw compute power (51.48 TFLOPS FP32) translates into strong real-world performance. At 1080p, the GPU delivers between 116.3 and 163.9 FPS depending on settings, demonstrating that the visual complexity of the game is well within the card's capabilities. The 4K results, ranging from 61.1 FPS at Ultra to 107.1 FPS at Low, further confirm that the card has sufficient memory bandwidth and processing power to handle high-resolution rendering without becoming the sole constraint.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K reveals how the system scales with resolution and where the bottleneck shifts. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 133.6 at 1920x1080 to 98.8 at 2560x1440, a 34.8 FPS reduction, and then further to 69.9 at 3840x2160, another 28.9 FPS drop. This pattern indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the workload increases proportionally with pixel count.

However, examining the Low settings results tells a more nuanced story. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 163.9 FPS, but at 1440p Low it reaches 144.5 FPS, and at 4K Low it drops to 107.1 FPS. The relatively smaller performance gap between 1080p and 1440p at Low settings (19.4 FPS) compared to the gap between 1440p and 4K (37.4 FPS) suggests that the CPU begins to play a more significant role at lower resolutions and settings. The Intel Core i5-9400, with its 6 cores and 6 threads, has a 50th percentile ranking among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 2305, which positions it as a mid-range processor. At 1080p with Low settings, the CPU's capabilities may be approaching their limit, as evidenced by the 163.9 FPS ceiling. The GPU's performance scaling between resolutions is more linear at higher settings, indicating that the graphics card is the dominant constraint in those scenarios.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 372 out of 1636 tested combinations places this system in the 77th percentile of all configurations tested for Control. This is a strong showing, particularly given that the CPU is a mid-range part from 2018 while the GPU is a high-end card from 2022. The ranking reflects the GPU's substantial contribution to overall gaming performance. The RX 7900 XT's average benchmark score of 38358 places it nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38349, 0% delta) and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 70HX (38225, 0.3% delta). This indicates that the GPU's performance is comparable to other high-end cards in the database.

The CPU's contribution to this ranking is more modest. The i5-9400's average benchmark score of 2305 is nearly identical to the Intel Core i3-10305 (2300, 0.2% delta) and the Intel Core i3-1125G4 (2299, 0.2% delta). This places the CPU in a tight cluster of mid-range processors, but its 6-core configuration with a 4.10 GHz boost clock provides sufficient single-threaded performance for gaming workloads. The fact that this combo still achieves 61.1 FPS at 4K Ultra suggests that the CPU is not severely hampering the GPU's capabilities in Control, which is a game that tends to be more GPU-intensive. The rank of 372 out of 1636 confirms that this pairing offers a balanced experience, with the GPU doing the heavy lifting and the CPU providing adequate support without becoming a major bottleneck.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates. Low settings produce an average of 163.9 FPS, Medium reaches 140.8 FPS, High achieves 133.6 FPS, and Ultra drops to 116.3 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 47.6 FPS, indicating that the GPU has significant headroom at this resolution even with the most demanding settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average FPS figures are 144.5 at Low, 109.7 at Medium, 98.8 at High, and 88.9 at Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 55.6 FPS, but the overall performance remains smooth, with even the Ultra preset maintaining an average above 88 FPS. At 3840x2160, the results are 107.1 FPS at Low, 77.6 at Medium, 69.9 at High, and 61.1 at Ultra. The delta between Low and Ultra at 4K is 46 FPS, showing that the GPU is still the primary constraint at this resolution.

The data reveals consistent scaling across resolutions. At each settings tier, the frame rate drops by roughly 30-35% when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and then by another 25-30% when moving from 1440p to 4K. For example, at High settings, the progression is 133.6 → 98.8 → 69.9 FPS, with each step representing a significant but manageable reduction. The minimum frame rates are not recorded in the data, so the average figures represent the overall performance envelope. The consistent pattern suggests that the system is well-balanced for this game, with no single resolution or settings combination producing a disproportionately poor result.

Settings Recommendations

For users with a 1920x1080 display, the Ultra preset at 116.3 FPS average is the clear choice, as it provides the best visual quality while still maintaining frame rates well above the 60 FPS threshold. Even the most demanding settings fail to push the system below 100 FPS at this resolution, so there is no practical reason to compromise on quality. At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset at 88.9 FPS remains highly playable, and the High preset at 98.8 FPS offers a modest performance boost for users who prefer higher frame rates. The Medium preset at 109.7 FPS is a reasonable middle ground, but the visual quality difference between Medium and Ultra is substantial enough to justify the 20.8 FPS cost.

At 3840x2160, the situation requires more careful consideration. The Ultra preset at 61.1 FPS average is just above the 60 FPS target, but it leaves little headroom for demanding scenes or future updates. The High preset at 69.9 FPS provides a more comfortable margin while still delivering excellent visual quality. For users with high-refresh-rate 4K displays, the Medium preset at 77.6 FPS offers a better balance, though it sacrifices some of the game's visual fidelity. The Low preset at 107.1 FPS is only recommended for competitive play or for users who prioritize frame rate above all else.

The data suggests that the High preset is the best overall choice for 4K gaming, as it provides a 14.4% performance increase over Ultra while maintaining most of the visual quality. At 1440p, the Ultra preset is the recommended choice, as the 88.9 FPS average is well within the comfort zone for most displays. At 1080p, users can freely select Ultra without any performance concerns, as the 116.3 FPS average provides ample headroom for any display technology. The measured results indicate that this combo is versatile enough to handle any resolution and settings combination, with the only trade-off being the expected visual quality versus frame rate balance.