Control

The Intel Core i5-9400 pairs a six-core, six-thread configuration with a 2.90 GHz base clock and a 4.10 GHz boost clock, built on the Coffee Lake architecture. In the context of Control, this older desktop CPU sits at the 50th percentile among all tested processors, placing it squarely in the mid-range of the benchmark database. Its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark scores include the Intel Core i3-10305, which trails by a mere 0.2%, and the Intel Core i7-8809G, which leads by 0.6%; these tight deltas indicate that the i5-9400’s computational throughput is competitive with those parts, but it does not offer a decisive edge in raw processing power. The six threads mean the CPU relies on frequency rather than multi-threading to keep up, and with a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, it has enough headroom to handle the game’s physics and AI logic without becoming the primary bottleneck at most settings. However, the 9 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support at 42.7 GB/s suggest that data-heavy scenes could strain the memory subsystem, a factor that becomes more relevant when the GPU is pushing very high frame rates. The benchmark results for this combo show that at 1080p Low, the average FPS reaches 161.5, which is high enough to expose any CPU limitations; the fact that Ultra settings at the same resolution drop to 107.1 FPS indicates that the GPU is taking on more work, but the CPU still keeps pace, as the frame rate does not collapse under load. The data implies that the i5-9400 is a capable partner for this game, though its age shows in the percentile ranking, and users with higher-refresh monitors may find the ceiling at lower settings to be a limiting factor.

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the dominant component in this pairing, built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a Navi 48 chip on a 4 nm process. It carries 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s, which is substantial for a game like Control that features destructible environments and high-resolution textures. The GPU’s boost clock reaches 2970 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz, and its 4096 shading units provide a strong foundation for rasterization performance. In the database, the RX 9070 XT sits at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, a much higher standing than the CPU, and its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 575, shows a negligible 0.1% difference in aggregate score, while the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile is 0.2% behind. The GPU’s 128 ROPs and 256 TMUs help sustain high fill rates, which are critical for Control’s particle effects and physics-based interactions. The measured FPS data shows that at 4K Ultra, the average is 54.5 FPS, which is just above playable thresholds, while dropping to 4K Low yields 97.1 FPS, a 78% improvement that underscores how much headroom the GPU has when texture and shading demands are reduced. The VRAM capacity of 16 GB is likely sufficient for all tested settings, as no data indicates memory overflow, and the PCIe 5.0 x16 interface ensures that the CPU-to-GPU data path does not bottleneck communication, even though the i5-9400 only supports PCIe Gen 3, which may slightly limit peak transfer rates in theory but does not appear to hurt measured results. The GPU’s performance is clearly the star here, and the data suggests that the RX 9070 XT can carry the combo to high frame rates at lower resolutions, but at 4K Ultra, it is the component that determines whether the experience stays smooth.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows provide a clear hierarchy for optimizing the experience in Control with this hardware combo. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 161.5 FPS, which is the highest recorded across all configurations, but Medium drops to 135.7 FPS, a 16% reduction that still maintains excellent fluidity. High at 1080p yields 121.4 FPS, and Ultra falls to 107.1 FPS, meaning that even the most demanding preset at this resolution stays above the 100 FPS mark. For users prioritizing frame rate, Low is the obvious choice, but the data shows that Medium offers a better balance: the 25.8 FPS difference between Low and Medium is noticeable, yet the visual quality gains typically justify it. At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts slightly; Low produces 143.4 FPS, Medium drops to 106.2 FPS, High to 92.5 FPS, and Ultra to 82 FPS. Here, Medium is the sweet spot, as it keeps the frame rate above 100 FPS while still benefiting from improved textures and effects over Low. High at 1440p is playable at 92.5 FPS, but it falls below the 100 FPS threshold, which may matter for competitive play. At 3840x2160, the situation changes dramatically: Low averages 97.1 FPS, Medium 69.3 FPS, High 63.5 FPS, and Ultra 54.5 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs nearly 28 FPS, which is a steep penalty, and Ultra barely holds above 50 FPS. The data suggests that for a consistent experience across resolutions, Medium is the recommended preset, as it provides the best compromise between visual fidelity and frame rate, especially at 1440p where it hits 106.2 FPS. At 4K, users must decide between Low for smoothness (97.1 FPS) or Medium for quality (69.3 FPS), and the data leans toward Low if frame rate stability is paramount, given that the drop from Medium to High is only 5.8 FPS but the visual difference may be minimal.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo in Control?

A: The highest measured average is 161.5 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset.

Q: How does the CPU's benchmark percentile compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 sits at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 2305 is within 0.6% of the Intel Core i7-8809G, which leads at 2319.

Q: Does the GPU maintain a high frame rate at 4K Ultra settings?

A: No, at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 54.5, which is below the 60 FPS threshold commonly used for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p Low and 1080p Ultra?

A: The difference is 54.4 FPS, with Low at 161.5 FPS and Ultra at 107.1 FPS, indicating that the GPU has significant headroom at lower settings.

Q: How does the RX 9070 XT's percentile rank compare to the CPU's?

A: The GPU ranks at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU ranks at the 50th percentile, showing that the GPU is a much stronger performer relative to its peers.

Q: Which resolution shows the smallest FPS drop between Medium and High?

A: At 3840x2160, the drop from Medium (69.3 FPS) to High (63.5 FPS) is only 5.8 FPS, which is the smallest absolute difference among all resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K reveals how the workload shifts between the CPU and GPU. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 161.5 FPS, and moving to 1440p Low reduces this to 143.4 FPS, an 11.2% drop, while 4K Low falls to 97.1 FPS, a 32.3% drop from 1440p. This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is increasingly the limiting factor as resolution rises, because the CPU’s workload remains relatively constant while the GPU must render more pixels. At Ultra settings, the trend is steeper: 1080p Ultra hits 107.1 FPS, 1440p Ultra drops to 82 FPS (a 23.4% reduction), and 4K Ultra falls to 54.5 FPS (a 33.5% reduction from 1440p). The fact that the percentage drop from 1440p to 4K is similar at Low (32.3%) and Ultra (33.5%) suggests that the GPU is consistently the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, regardless of settings. However, the absolute FPS values tell a more nuanced story: at 1080p Ultra, the CPU still manages to feed the GPU enough to exceed 100 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, the GPU’s rendering demands overwhelm the pipeline, and the frame rate drops below 60 FPS. The data implies that this combo is well-balanced for 1440p, where the CPU can keep up with the GPU’s output, but at 4K, users must reduce settings to Low to maintain playable frame rates, as the 54.5 FPS at Ultra is marginal. The scaling also shows that the GPU has a massive headroom at lower resolutions, with 1080p Low exceeding 160 FPS, which is far beyond what the CPU’s 50th percentile ranking would suggest, meaning the i5-9400 does not hold back the RX 9070 XT until frame rates climb very high.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo produces a spread of results across presets. Low leads with 161.5 FPS, followed by Medium at 135.7 FPS, High at 121.4 FPS, and Ultra at 107.1 FPS. The gaps between presets are consistent, with each step up costing roughly 14-26 FPS, indicating a smooth scaling curve. At 2560x1440, Low remains the top performer at 143.4 FPS, Medium drops to 106.2 FPS, High to 92.5 FPS, and Ultra to 82 FPS. Here, the gap between Low and Medium is larger at 37.2 FPS, suggesting that the GPU’s fill rate is being tested more heavily at this resolution. The 1440p data shows that High and Ultra are close, with only a 10.5 FPS difference, which may make High the better choice for visual fidelity without a major frame rate hit. At 3840x2160, the results compress further: Low averages 97.1 FPS, Medium 69.3 FPS, High 63.5 FPS, and Ultra 54.5 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is only 9 FPS, while the drop from Low to Medium is 27.8 FPS, highlighting that the Medium preset at 4K is a significant step down in performance. Across all resolutions, the data shows that the combo can hit 60 FPS at 4K on Low, 1440p on Ultra, and 1080p on Ultra, but the margin for error shrinks as resolution increases. The lack of min and max FPS data means the analysis relies solely on averages, but the consistency of the scaling suggests stable performance without major spikes or drops. For users targeting 60 FPS as a baseline, the combo delivers at 4K Low (97.1 FPS), 1440p Ultra (82 FPS), and 1080p Ultra (107.1 FPS), with the caveat that 4K Ultra falls short at 54.5 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT ranks 476th out of 1636 tested combos in Control, placing it in the top 29% of all systems in the database. This ranking is notable because the CPU is only at the 50th percentile, while the GPU is at the 82nd percentile, suggesting that the GPU’s strength propels the combo higher than the CPU’s modest standing would imply. The rank of 476 means that 1,160 other combos outperform this setup in this specific game, likely featuring newer CPUs with higher core counts or faster single-thread performance. However, the measured FPS data shows that this combo is far from weak, and its rank is likely influenced by the fact that many competing combos use top-tier CPUs that can push frame rates higher at lower resolutions. The delta between the CPU’s percentile and the combo’s rank indicates that the RX 9070 XT is doing most of the heavy lifting, and if paired with a stronger CPU, the same GPU would likely rank much higher. The inverse is also true: the i5-9400’s 50th percentile score means it is an average performer, and in a game like Control, which is not heavily CPU-bound at high settings, this is sufficient. The data shows that the combo’s rank of 476 is a reflection of the GPU’s ability to maintain high FPS at 1440p and 1080p, with the CPU only becoming a potential bottleneck at very high frame rates, such as the 161.5 FPS seen at 1080p Low. Overall, this pairing is a solid mid-to-high-tier option in the database, with the GPU providing most of the performance headroom, and users considering upgrades should focus on the CPU to improve the combo’s standing further.