Control

Control with an Intel Core i5-9400 and Intel Arc B370 is a combination that lands near the bottom of the database for this title, ranking 2657th out of 2888 tested combos. The measured frame rates tell a consistent story: this pairing is only viable at 1080p with Low settings, where it reaches an average of 59 FPS, and it falls below 30 FPS at 4K across all settings. The bottleneck is overwhelmingly the GPU, which sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU holds a middling 47th percentile position. This is not a combo for high-refresh or high-resolution play; it is a setup that can deliver a playable experience only under the most modest graphical demands.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for playable frame rates?

A: The only measured configuration that achieves an average of 59 FPS is 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 30 FPS. For a consistent 60 FPS target, 1080p Low is the sole option.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-9400 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254. Its closest rival, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, scores 2259, a delta of -0.2%. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, which is 0.4% lower than the i5-9400. The Intel Core i3-10305 leads this group with 2264, a 0.4% advantage over the i5-9400.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all tested GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its average 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1184. Its nearest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher.

Q: Does the GPU have dedicated VRAM?

A: No, the Intel Arc B370 uses System Shared memory. Its memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," and bandwidth is "System Dependent." This means the GPU relies on the system's main memory rather than dedicated VRAM.

Q: What are the CPU's core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has 6 cores and 6 threads. It does not support hyper-threading, so thread count equals core count. Its base clock is 2.90 GHz and boost clock is 4.10 GHz.

Q: How does the combo rank in Control specifically?

A: The combo ranks 2657th out of 2888 tested combinations for this game. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested combos, indicating that most other CPU-GPU pairings deliver better performance in Control.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 provides 6 physical cores and 6 threads, a configuration that is adequate for modern gaming but not exceptional. Its base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.10 GHz are typical for a Coffee Lake refresh part. The CPU has a 9 MB shared L3 cache, with 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. This translates to a benchmark percentile of 47, meaning it performs better than roughly half of all CPUs in the database.

In synthetic tests, the i5-9400 achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6629 and a single-core score of 935. Its Geekbench scores are 5141 multi-core and 1389 single-core. These numbers place it in a tight cluster with rivals like the Intel Core i7-10710U (avg score 2248, 0.3% lower) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (avg score 2246, 0.4% lower). The deltaPct values are all under 1%, meaning that in pure CPU compute, this processor is essentially equivalent to its nearest competitors.

For Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. The measured FPS data shows that the i5-9400 is not the primary limiter in this combo, because the frame rates scale dramatically with resolution changes. At 1920x1080 Low, the combo hits 59 FPS, but at 2560x1440 Low, it drops to 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 30 FPS. This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck; if the CPU were the limiter, reducing resolution would not yield such significant FPS gains. The i5-9400's 6 threads are sufficient to keep up with the Arc B370's output, even at the lowest settings where the GPU is working hardest relative to its capability.

The CPU's memory support is DDR4 with dual-channel configuration and a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. This is a standard setup for its generation. The i5-9400 connects via PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, which is adequate for the Arc B370, an integrated-class GPU. The CPU's integrated graphics are UHD 630, but in this benchmark configuration, it is paired with the discrete Arc B370. The CPU's 65W TDP and end-of-life production status indicate it is a mature platform with no headroom for overclocking, as the multiplier is locked.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank in Control is 2657 out of 2888 tested combinations. This places it in the 92nd percentile of worst-performing combos, meaning only 231 combos perform worse. This ranking is driven almost entirely by the GPU's low standing; the Arc B370's 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs is a severe handicap. The CPU's 47th percentile is unremarkable, but it is not the reason this combo fails to deliver playable frame rates at higher resolutions.

To contextualize the rank, consider that the GPU's nearest rivals are all legacy parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186, 0.2% higher), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190, 0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192, 0.7% higher). These are all older, low-power GPUs that would similarly struggle with a demanding title like Control. The Arc B370's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is just barely below these parts, indicating it is in the same performance class as a decade-old mid-range GPU.

In Control specifically, the combo's rank of 2657 suggests that the vast majority of tested combos—including those with CPUs in the same performance tier but paired with better GPUs—will outperform this setup. The data shows that the i5-9400 is capable of driving higher frame rates when paired with a stronger GPU, but the Arc B370 cannot deliver the fill rate or shading power needed for Control's visual effects at higher settings. The rank is a direct reflection of the GPU's limitation, not a condemnation of the CPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Control provides a complete picture of this combo's capabilities. At 1920x1080, the resolution most likely to yield playable frame rates, the results are as follows: Low settings average 59 FPS, High averages 37 FPS, Medium averages 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 and maximum of 48, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is notable—a 17 FPS drop—but the further drop from Medium to High is only 5 FPS, and from High to Ultra is another 5 FPS. This suggests that Low is the only preset that approaches a 60 FPS target, while Medium and High are playable if the user tolerates sub-60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, performance degrades significantly. Low settings average 45 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS (with min 27 and max 37), High averages 28 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. None of these configurations reach 60 FPS, and even Low is below the 60 FPS threshold by 15 FPS. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 14 FPS, indicating that the GPU's limited fill rate is heavily taxed by the increased pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the combo becomes largely unplayable. Low settings average 30 FPS, Medium averages 21 FPS (with min 18 and max 25), High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The 4K resolution overwhelms the Arc B370's 1280 shading units and 20 ROPs. Even at Low settings, the frame rate is at the edge of playability, and any action sequences would likely cause noticeable stutter. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are insufficient for 4K rendering in a game like Control.

The data shows a consistent pattern: each resolution step down (from 4K to 1440p, and from 1440p to 1080p) yields approximately a 50% increase in average FPS at the same settings. For example, Low goes from 30 FPS at 4K to 45 FPS at 1440p (a 50% increase) and then to 59 FPS at 1080p (a 31% increase). This scaling confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the CPU has enough headroom to handle lower resolutions without becoming a bottleneck.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the decisive component in this combo's performance. Its specifications are those of an integrated GPU: base clock of 300 MHz, boost clock of 2400 MHz, and a TDP of just 25 W. It has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 ROPs, along with 10 ray tracing cores. The GPU's memory is System Shared, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM; this is a critical limitation for a game like Control, which relies on texture streaming and high-resolution assets.

The GPU's compute capabilities are modest: FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1). It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which means it can run modern APIs, but its raw performance is far below what Control demands for high settings. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all over a decade old. This is not a GPU designed for 1440p or 4K gaming; it is an integrated solution for light workloads.

In Control, the GPU's role is to render the game's physics-based destruction and particle effects. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (59 FPS) shows that the GPU can handle the game at its most basic visual settings, but the moment settings increase, the frame rate collapses. The lack of dedicated VRAM means the GPU must share system memory bandwidth, which further limits its ability to handle Control's texture-heavy environments. The system-dependent bandwidth is a wildcard, but the measured results indicate it is insufficient for smooth performance at higher settings.

The GPU's 20 ROPs are the primary constraint at higher resolutions. At 4K, even Low settings only hit 30 FPS, and Medium drops to 21 FPS. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s means the GPU can theoretically fill 48 million pixels per second, but a 4K frame requires over 8 million pixels, and at 30 FPS, that is 250 million pixels per second—far beyond the GPU's capability. The boost clock of 2400 MHz helps at lower resolutions, but it cannot overcome the fundamental lack of shading units and memory bandwidth.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only configuration that delivers a near-60 FPS experience is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which averages 59 FPS. This should be the default recommendation for any user pairing these components. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 42 FPS, which is playable but noticeably less smooth; the minimum of 36 FPS could cause perceptible stutter in combat-heavy scenes. High and Ultra at 1080p are not recommended, as they average 37 and 32 FPS respectively, falling below the 40 FPS threshold for acceptable action gameplay.

For users with 1440p monitors, the data suggests that Low settings (45 FPS average) are the only viable option, though this still falls short of 60 FPS. Medium at 1440p averages 32 FPS, which is borderline, and High (28 FPS) and Ultra (25 FPS) are not playable for a fast-paced action game. At 4K, no settings produce a playable experience; Low averages 30 FPS, and Medium, High, and Ultra all average below 22 FPS. Users with 4K displays should avoid this combo for Control entirely.

The best experience, per the measured rows, is unequivocally 1920x1080 Low. It is the only configuration that reaches 59 FPS, and it does so without the minimum FPS data points that plague the Medium settings at all resolutions. The Medium presets at 1080p and 1440p have recorded minimums of 36 and 27 FPS respectively, indicating frame time spikes that could be jarring. Low settings at 1080p have no reported minimum, suggesting a more stable frame delivery.

In summary, this combo should be configured for 1080p Low to achieve playable performance. If a user insists on higher settings, they must accept frame rates in the 30s, which is not recommended for Control's combat mechanics. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking and lack of dedicated VRAM make it unsuitable for any resolution above 1080p, and even at 1080p, only the lowest preset is viable. The CPU's 47th percentile ranking is irrelevant here; the GPU is the sole determinant of the experience.