Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title from 2019, and the data for this pairing of an Intel Core i5-9400 and an AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB reveals a system that handles the game’s supernatural chaos with varying degrees of success depending on resolution and quality settings. Benchmark results indicate a configuration that is clearly capable of smooth gameplay at 1080p and 1440p, but which begins to struggle when pushed to the highest visual fidelity at 4K. The following analysis breaks down the measured FPS data to understand the relationship between this CPU, GPU, and the game’s rendering demands.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control to maintain high frame rates?

A: The data shows the strongest performance at 1920x1080, where average FPS ranges from 143 on Low settings to 78 on Ultra. At 2560x1440, the average FPS stays respectable, from 108 on Low to 59 on Ultra. At 3840x2160, the average FPS drops to a range of 73 on Low to 40 on Ultra, which is less ideal for fast-paced action.

Q: How does the average frame rate change between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the average frame rate drops from 108 FPS on Low settings to 59 FPS on Ultra settings. This represents a significant 49 FPS reduction, showing that the Ultra preset imposes a much heavier load on the GPU.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB more likely to be the limiting factor at higher resolutions?

A: Yes, the measured FPS data suggests a growing GPU bottleneck as resolution increases. For instance, at 1920x1080 the drop from Medium to Ultra is 23 FPS (from 101 to 78), but at 3840x2160, the drop from Medium to Ultra is smaller at 12 FPS (from 52 to 40), indicating that the resolution increase itself is heavily taxing the GPU's 8 GB memory and 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the GPU compared to all other GPUs in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB has a percentile rank of 24, meaning it scores higher than 24% of all GPUs in the benchmark database. Its average benchmark score is 4093 points.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-core performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, scores 2259, which is a performance difference of -0.2%. This places the i5-9400 in a very tight performance cluster with other CPUs like the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500, which scores 2246 (a 0.4% difference).

Q: Does the data include a minimum FPS reading for all settings presets?

A: No, the data only includes minimum FPS (minFps) values for the Medium settings preset at all three resolutions. For example, at 1920x1080 Medium, the minFps is 86, and at 3840x2160 Medium, it is 44. The Low, High, and Ultra presets do not have minFps values listed in the data.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB is the primary driver of visual output in this system, and its specifications are central to interpreting the game’s performance. The GPU features a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost clock of 3130 MHz, with a game clock of 2530 MHz. This RDNA 4.0 architecture chip, codenamed Strix Point, is built on a 4 nm process. Its memory configuration consists of 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 322.3 GB/s. The measured frame rates in Control suggest this memory bandwidth and capacity are adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming but become a significant constraint at 4K.

The performance data shows a clear pattern: the GPU is capable of high frame rates at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080, the system achieves an average of 143 FPS on Low settings, indicating a strong ability to push frames when the pixel count is lower. However, as the resolution increases, the GPU's workload expands dramatically. The transition from 1080p to 1440p sees average frame rates drop by roughly 20-25% across all settings. Moving from 1440p to 4K results in an even more severe drop, with average FPS falling by about 30-35%. This scaling is characteristic of a GPU that is becoming saturated by the sheer number of pixels it must render, even without considering the game's complex particle effects and physics. The 8 GB memory buffer is also a likely factor at 3840x2160 with High and Ultra settings, as the game's textures and effects can easily consume that capacity, potentially leading to texture streaming or stutter, which the lower average FPS numbers reflect.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of tested system combinations, this specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-9400 and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB achieves a rank of 1908 out of 3720 combos for Control. This places the system almost exactly in the 51st percentile, meaning it performs better than just over half of all tested configurations. This middle-of-the-road ranking is consistent with the measured FPS, which shows it can handle the game comfortably at mainstream resolutions but does not deliver top-tier performance for 4K maxed-out gaming.

The ranking suggests that while this is a competent setup, it is not a high-end one. The combo's position is influenced by both components, but the GPU's performance relative to its peers is particularly telling. The GPU's percentile rank is 24, which is notably lower than the combo's overall rank of 1908 out of 3720. This discrepancy implies that the GPU is a limiting factor holding the system back from a higher overall position. In contrast, the CPU has a percentile rank of 47, which is closer to the combo's final ranking. This suggests that while the CPU is also not a top performer, it is less of a bottleneck for this specific title than the GPU. The data points to a system where the graphics card is the primary constraint, especially when pushing for higher resolutions and detail levels in Control.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at performance across twelve different scenarios, spanning three resolutions and four quality presets.

1920x1080: At this resolution, the system performs admirably. The Low preset yields an average of 143 FPS, providing a very fluid experience. The Medium preset averages 101 FPS, with a minimum of 86 FPS and a maximum of 117 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay. The High preset drops to an average of 90 FPS, still well within the range for a responsive experience. The Ultra preset, which is the most demanding, still achieves a solid 78 FPS average, showing that the GPU has enough headroom for high-refresh-rate 1080p monitors even at maximum settings.

2560x1440: Moving to 1440p, the frame rates remain playable but show a clear step down. The Low preset averages 108 FPS, still excellent for competitive play. The Medium preset averages 77 FPS, with a minimum of 65 FPS and a maximum of 88 FPS, which is still very smooth. The High preset averages 68 FPS, which is good for a visually rich game. The Ultra preset brings the average down to 59 FPS, which is at the threshold for smooth gameplay but might be noticeable for some users during intense scenes.

3840x2160: At 4K, the system begins to struggle with the higher presets. The Low preset is still playable, averaging 73 FPS. The Medium preset averages 52 FPS, with a minimum of 44 FPS and a maximum of 60 FPS, which is borderline for a smooth experience. The High preset drops to an average of 46 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a fast-paced game. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, and the system manages an average of only 40 FPS, which may feel less fluid and responsive.

Resolution Scaling

The performance scaling across resolutions provides insight into the system's bottleneck. The data shows a consistent and expected drop in average FPS as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. For instance, with the High preset, the average FPS goes from 90 at 1080p, to 68 at 1440p, and finally to 46 at 4K. This represents a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 32% drop from 1440p to 4K. This trend is very similar for the Ultra preset, which goes from 78 to 59 to 40 FPS.

The pattern of these drops is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario, particularly at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU has ample power to feed the GPU, and the frame rate is high. As the resolution scales up, the GPU must process more pixels, and its workload increases non-linearly. The fact that the FPS drops significantly at each step, even from 1440p to 4K, indicates that the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB is the primary limiting component. The CPU is not holding back performance; rather, the GPU's raw compute power and memory bandwidth are being exhausted by the increased pixel count. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rates to be more similar across resolutions, as the CPU would limit the frame rate regardless of resolution. The data clearly shows this is not the case, confirming the GPU as the performance ceiling.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 provides the processing foundation for this system. It is a 6-core, 6-thread processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. It has a 9 MB shared L3 cache. While it lacks hyper-threading, its six physical cores are sufficient for most modern games. In the context of Control, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics calculations, and draw calls, while the GPU handles the actual rendering.

The benchmark data suggests that the i5-9400 is not a major limiting factor in this title. Its average benchmark score of 2254 places it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs, and it is closely matched with rivals like the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, which has a score of 2259 (a -0.2% difference). This level of CPU performance is more than adequate to keep up with the GPU at lower resolutions. However, the question is whether it holds the system back at 1080p, where the GPU is able to produce very high frame rates. At 1080p Low, the system averages 143 FPS, which is a high frame rate that could potentially start to strain the CPU's single-thread performance. While the data doesn't show a definitive CPU bottleneck, the 6-thread processor could be a limiting factor in the absolute highest frame rate scenarios. In contrast, at 4K, the CPU is almost certainly not the issue, as the GPU is heavily constrained, and the CPU has more than enough time to prepare frames.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS, the optimal settings depend on the user's resolution and preference for frame rate versus visual fidelity.

For 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is the clear recommendation. The system achieves an average of 78 FPS, which is well within the range for smooth, responsive gameplay. This allows the player to experience the game with all its visual effects and high-resolution textures without sacrificing performance. If a user has a 144 Hz monitor, the High preset at 90 FPS or even the Medium preset at 101 FPS would be better choices to push closer to that refresh rate.

At 2560x1440, the High preset offers the best balance. It delivers an average of 68 FPS, which is smooth and visually appealing. The Ultra preset, at 59 FPS, is also playable but may feel less fluid in combat-heavy scenes. The Medium preset, at 77 FPS, is a good choice for those who prioritize higher frame rates, but the visual jump from Medium to High is often significant in Control.

For 3840x2160, users will need to make compromises. The Low preset, at 73 FPS, is the only way to achieve a truly smooth 4K experience. The Medium preset, at 52 FPS, is a playable middle ground, but the minimum FPS of 44 suggests there could be noticeable dips. The High and Ultra presets, at 46 and 40 FPS respectively, are best avoided for a game that requires fast reactions, as the lower frame rates can hinder gameplay. The data suggests that for a 4K experience, sacrificing visual quality for a higher frame rate is the most sensible approach.