Control

The Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti combination delivers a decidedly mixed experience in Control, with performance heavily dependent on the resolution and quality preset selected. The data shows a system that is fundamentally constrained by its graphics hardware, yet also reveals surprising inconsistencies in how the game scales across different settings. This pairing sits near the very bottom of the database, ranking 1615th out of 1636 tested combos for this title, placing it in the bottom 2% of all configurations. The benchmark results paint a clear picture of a legacy setup struggling with a modern, visually demanding action-adventure game.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep, but the pattern is not uniform across all quality presets. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 47.1 FPS, which is the only playable result in the entire dataset. Moving to 1440p at the same Low preset drops performance to 32.9 FPS, a 30% reduction. At 4K Low, the average plummets to 22 FPS, representing a 53% loss from the 1080p figure. This scaling indicates that even at the lowest graphical fidelity, the GPU is being pushed hard by the pixel count.

The High preset shows a different bottleneck profile. At 1080p High, the average is 28.8 FPS. At 1440p High, it falls to 23 FPS, a 20% drop. The transition to 4K High yields 18.1 FPS, a 37% reduction from 1080p. The smaller percentage drop at higher resolutions suggests that the CPU is beginning to play a limiting role at 1080p, preventing the frame rate from rising as high as the GPU might otherwise allow. However, the absolute numbers remain far below the 60 FPS target.

A notable anomaly appears in the Medium and Ultra presets. At 1080p Medium, the average is 32.6 FPS, which is higher than the 28.8 FPS seen at High. More striking is the 4K resolution data: Medium produces 13.9 FPS, while Ultra delivers 15.9 FPS, and Low achieves 22 FPS. This non-linear scaling suggests that the Medium preset may be applying certain post-processing or rendering effects that are disproportionately expensive on this Pascal-based GPU, while the Low preset disables those specific features. The result is that the 4K Medium figure is 27% slower than 4K Low, making the preset hierarchy effectively inverted in this scenario. The data indicates that resolution scaling is the dominant factor, with the GTX 1050 Ti's 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 compute simply being overwhelmed by the pixel throughput required at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor from the Coffee Lake Refresh generation, running at a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. Its multi-threaded capabilities are modest by modern standards, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969, placing it in the 50th percentile of all CPUs. The single-core score of 1125 in the same test indicates adequate per-thread performance for gaming workloads. The processor’s 9 MB of shared L3 cache is sufficient for this title, but the 42.7 GB/s dual-channel memory bandwidth is unremarkable.

In Control, the CPU’s role appears secondary to the GPU, but not entirely passive. The fact that 1080p Low (47.1 FPS) is significantly higher than 1080p High (28.8 FPS) demonstrates that the graphics card is the primary limiting factor. However, the 1080p Low result suggests the CPU can feed the GPU enough data to reach nearly 50 FPS in lighter scenes. The processor’s performance relative to its nearest rivals is tight; it trails the Intel Core i7-8809G by 0.6% in average benchmark score, while leading the Intel Core i3-10305 and Intel Core i3-1125G4 by 0.2%, and the Intel Xeon E-2134 by 0.4%. This puts the i5-9400 in a narrow performance band, where a 6-core/6-thread configuration is sufficient to avoid being the sole bottleneck at lower resolutions, but it cannot compensate for the GPU’s limitations at higher settings.

The lack of hyper-threading is noteworthy. With only 6 threads, the CPU may struggle to maintain consistent frame pacing in Control’s more chaotic physics-heavy moments, but the aggregate data does not show a catastrophic CPU bottleneck. The 1080p Medium result (32.6 FPS) being higher than 1080p High (28.8 FPS) reinforces that the GPU is the binding constraint; had the CPU been the limit, the frame rate would have remained flat regardless of the graphics preset changes. The i5-9400’s 65W TDP and 14nm process node are typical for its generation, and the data suggests it is doing its job within the bounds of this pairing.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo achieve 60 FPS in Control at any setting?*

A: No. The highest measured average frame rate is 47.1 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. All other preset and resolution combinations fall below 33 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution to play at with this hardware?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where any preset reaches a playable average. At 2560x1440, the best result is 32.9 FPS (Low), and at 3840x2160, the best is 22 FPS (Low).

Q: Why is the 4K Medium preset slower than 4K Ultra?

A: The benchmark data shows 4K Medium averaging 13.9 FPS, while 4K Ultra averages 15.9 FPS. This is an unusual inversion that suggests the Medium preset may enable specific rendering features that are disproportionately costly on the GTX 1050 Ti, without the visual optimization present in the Ultra preset.

Q: How does the i5-9400 compare to its closest rivals in raw CPU performance?

A: The i5-9400’s average benchmark score is 2305. It is 0.2% faster than the Intel Core i3-10305 (2300) and Intel Core i3-1125G4 (2299), 0.4% faster than the Intel Xeon E-2134 (2295), but 0.6% slower than the Intel Core i7-8809G (2319).

Q: Is the GTX 1050 Ti the main bottleneck in this system?

A: Yes. The data shows that reducing graphics settings from High to Low at 1080p increases the average frame rate from 28.8 FPS to 47.1 FPS, a 63% improvement. This large swing indicates the GPU is the primary performance limiter across all tested configurations.

Q: What is the expected performance at 1080p with High settings?

A: The measured average is 28.8 FPS. This is below the 30 FPS threshold often considered the minimum for a playable experience, indicating the user would need to lower settings or resolution to improve smoothness.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of an Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti ranks 1615th out of 1636 tested combos for Control. This places it in the bottom 1.3% of all configurations in the database, a position that reflects the GPU’s age and limited compute resources. The GTX 1050 Ti’s average benchmark score is 5316, which puts it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0% delta), NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5297, 0.4% delta), and AMD Radeon R7 240 (5280, 0.7% delta), indicating it is grouped with entry-level and older mobile parts rather than desktop gaming cards.

The CPU’s rank is more favorable in isolation, sitting at the 50th percentile, but the combination’s overall rank is dragged down by the graphics card. The data shows that even a mid-pack CPU cannot rescue a GPU that is fundamentally outclassed by the game’s requirements. The rank of 1615 out of 1636 suggests that the vast majority of alternative hardware pairings will outperform this setup in Control. The only saving grace is that the system is functional at low settings, but it is clear that this combo is at the extreme low end of the performance spectrum for this title, with only 21 other tested combinations performing worse.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear hierarchy of playable configurations. The only preset that approaches a smooth experience is 1920x1080 Low, which delivers an average of 47.1 FPS. This is the single viable option for users seeking responsive gameplay, though it will not maintain a consistent 60 FPS. For those willing to accept a cinematic frame rate, 1920x1080 Medium at 32.6 FPS is the next best choice, offering improved visual fidelity over Low while staying above the 30 FPS line. The 1920x1080 High preset drops to 28.8 FPS, which is borderline playable but may suffer from visible stutter in action sequences.

At higher resolutions, the data strongly advises against anything above 1080p. The 2560x1440 Low preset yields 32.9 FPS, which is technically playable but not a meaningful improvement over 1080p Medium, despite the higher pixel count. All 4K presets fall below 22 FPS, rendering the game effectively unplayable. The Medium preset at any resolution above 1080p is particularly poor, with 4K Medium producing the worst result at 13.9 FPS. The optimal strategy is to prioritize the Low preset at 1080p for maximum frame rate, or the Medium preset at 1080p for a balance of visuals and performance. There is no scenario in the measured data where Ultra settings are recommended, as even the best Ultra result (24 FPS at 1080p) fails to reach a playable threshold. Users with this hardware should treat Control as a last-generation title and configure accordingly, focusing on the Low and Medium presets at 1080p exclusively.