Control

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a mainstream combination that lands near the bottom of the performance hierarchy for Control. The benchmark data places this combo at rank 1556 out of 1636 tested configurations, which puts it in the lower 5th percentile of all systems running this title. This is not a setup for high-refresh gaming; it is a configuration that will require strict settings discipline to achieve playable frame rates, and even then, only at 1080p. The data shows a system that is consistently GPU-limited across all resolutions, with the processor having enough headroom to spare in most scenarios.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution increases, which is a classic signature of a GPU-bound workload. At 1080p with High settings, the system averages 39.2 FPS. Moving to 1440p drops that average to 28.7 FPS, a reduction of roughly 27%. Pushing further to 4K at High settings yields an average of just 17.8 FPS, which is a 55% drop from the 1080p result. This linear degradation pattern indicates that the GTX 1650's rendering pipeline is the limiting factor; the pixel count is overwhelming the GPU’s fillrate and shading capacity.

The scaling behavior suggests that the CPU is not a bottleneck at any resolution. If the i5-9400 were the constraint, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions, as the CPU would be unable to feed the GPU faster regardless of pixel count. Instead, the FPS drops consistently with every resolution increase, proving that the GTX 1650 is working at maximum capacity even at 1080p. For example, at 1440p Low settings, the system manages 43.8 FPS, which is actually higher than the 1080p Ultra result of 28.8 FPS. This demonstrates that reducing graphical load directly translates to higher frame rates, confirming the GPU is the primary performance governor in Control.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture with a 12 nm process node, featuring 896 shading units and 56 texture mapping units. It operates with a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, paired with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. These specifications place the GTX 1650 at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 8713 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon 550X, which scores 8749 (a delta of -0.4%), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200, which scores 8671 (a delta of 0.5%).

In Control, the 4 GB VRAM capacity is a significant concern. The data shows that at 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra settings is substantial: 56 FPS versus 28.8 FPS. This 27.2 FPS difference is likely exacerbated by the GPU hitting its memory capacity limit at higher settings, forcing texture swapping and reducing effective throughput. The 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is also modest by modern standards, which explains why the game struggles to maintain fluid performance even at 1440p Medium (28.4 FPS). The GPU’s FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is the raw compute ceiling, and Control’s particle effects and physics simulations appear to push this architecture to its absolute limit.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Control at 4K?*

A: Technically yes, but practically no. The highest average FPS at 3840x2160 is 26.9 FPS on Low settings. High settings drop this to 17.8 FPS, and Ultra yields 18.8 FPS. None of these results approach a playable threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo?

A: The data clearly favors 1920x1080. At this resolution, the system achieves 56 FPS on Low settings and 42.5 FPS on Medium, which are the only settings where the average FPS stays above 40.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 550X?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The GTX 1650 scores 8713, while the Radeon 550X scores 8749, a delta of -0.4%. In practical terms, this means the two GPUs perform virtually the same in synthetic benchmarks, but the GTX 1650’s driver optimizations may yield different results in specific game titles.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-9400 holding back the GTX 1650 in this game?

A: No. The benchmark results show a consistent FPS drop with increasing resolution, which indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. The i5-9400, with its 6 cores and 6 threads boosting to 4.10 GHz, is sufficient to feed the GTX 1650.

Q: What is the impact of lowering settings from Ultra to Low at 1080p?

A: The average FPS jumps from 28.8 to 56, an improvement of 27.2 FPS (or roughly 94%). This is a massive gain that suggests the Ultra preset includes effects that the GTX 1650 cannot handle efficiently.

*Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems for Control?*

A: It ranks 1556 out of 1636 total combinations, placing it in the bottom 5% of all configurations. This is a low-end result, reflecting the GTX 1650’s 43rd percentile GPU ranking.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its only playable results. Low settings produce an average of 56 FPS, which is smooth for most action sequences. Medium settings drop to 42.5 FPS, still acceptable for a single-player title. High settings yield 39.2 FPS, which is playable but with noticeable stutter during intense combat. Ultra settings fall to 28.8 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS threshold and not recommended.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance degrades significantly. Low settings manage 43.8 FPS, which is surprisingly good and suggests the CPU has headroom. Medium settings drop to 28.4 FPS, High to 28.7 FPS, and Ultra to 26 FPS. The similarity between Medium and High here is notable; both hover around 28.5 FPS, indicating a VRAM or bandwidth limit that prevents higher settings from scaling properly.

At 3840x2160, the system is overwhelmed. Low settings produce 26.9 FPS, which is technically the highest 4K result. Medium drops to 19.9 FPS, High to 17.8 FPS, and Ultra to 18.8 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is negligible (0.9 FPS), reinforcing that the GPU is completely saturated and settings have minimal impact at this resolution.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, with 9 MB of shared L3 cache. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969 places it at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 2305 is within 0.4% of the Intel Xeon E-2134 (2295). This is a mid-range processor that is more than adequate for gaming tasks.

In Control, the CPU’s role is secondary. The resolution scaling data proves that the GTX 1650 is the limiting factor; the i5-9400’s 6 physical cores are enough to handle the game’s threading. The processor’s single-core performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1125, is sufficient for the game’s main render thread. The 4.10 GHz boost clock ensures that the CPU does not introduce frame pacing issues, but the data shows no scenario where the CPU is the bottleneck. Even at 1080p Low, where the GPU has the least work, the system achieves 56 FPS, which is below the CPU’s potential maximum.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this hardware is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, yielding 56 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches a 60 FPS target and provides a responsive feel. If visual fidelity is prioritized, Medium settings at 1080p provide 42.5 FPS, which is a balanced compromise between smoothness and image quality. High settings at 1080p (39.2 FPS) are acceptable but offer diminishing returns over Medium.

At 1440p, only Low settings (43.8 FPS) are viable for consistent play. Any higher setting at this resolution drops below 30 FPS, which will feel sluggish. 4K is not a practical option; even Low settings only achieve 26.9 FPS. The data suggests that users should avoid Ultra entirely, as it provides a negligible visual improvement over High in this benchmark while costing significant frame rates (e.g., 28.8 FPS at 1080p Ultra versus 39.2 FPS at 1080p High). For the best experience, prioritize resolution (1080p) and settings (Low or Medium) over graphical presets that this GPU cannot sustain.