Control

The Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER combination presents a mid-range pairing for Control, a 2019 action-adventure title that stresses both processor and graphics hardware. The measured frame rates across three resolutions and four quality presets reveal a system that is firmly balanced toward 1080p gaming, with performance degrading predictably as pixel count rises. The data indicates that the GTX 1660 SUPER, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus providing 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, becomes the primary constraint at higher resolutions, while the i5-9400’s six cores and six threads at a 4.10 GHz boost clock handle the game’s logic without becoming a bottleneck at 1080p.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and reveals the graphics card as the limiting component at higher pixel counts. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 58.7 FPS at 1920x1080 to 44.4 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 24.4%, and then to 30.3 FPS at 3840x2160, which is 48.4% below the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering load increases quadratically with resolution, and the GTX 1660 SUPER’s 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 85.68 GPixel/s pixel rate simply cannot sustain higher output.

At Low settings, the trend is similar but with a wider absolute spread. The average FPS at 1080p is 89.9, dropping to 69.5 at 1440p and 49.0 at 4K. The relative drop from 1080p to 4K is 45.5%, which is slightly less severe than at High settings, suggesting that reducing quality settings alleviates some of the pixel-shading burden but does not change the fundamental resolution limit. The gap between Low and High at 4K is 18.7 FPS, whereas at 1080p it is 31.2 FPS, indicating that the GPU has more headroom to exploit lower settings at lower resolutions.

The Ultra preset, which demands the most from the hardware, shows the steepest curve. At 1080p, the average is 52.9 FPS; at 1440p, it drops to 40.6 FPS; and at 4K, it bottoms out at 27.3 FPS. The 4K Ultra figure is below the 30 FPS threshold often considered the minimum for playable frame pacing, while the 1440p Ultra result is borderline. The data suggests that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the primary limiter at 1440p and above, as the CPU’s six cores are sufficient to feed the GPU at these lower frame rates. At 1080p Low, the 89.9 FPS average approaches the point where CPU overhead could become noticeable, but the i5-9400’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969 indicates ample headroom for this workload.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combination achieves in Control?

A: The best measured result is 89.9 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration in the data that exceeds 90 FPS, and it represents the ceiling for this pairing.

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

A: Yes, but with compromises. At 4K with Low settings, the average FPS is 49.0, which is playable. At High settings, it drops to 30.3 FPS, and at Ultra, it falls to 27.3 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS playability threshold.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest rival in terms of raw GPU score?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 14286. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, scores 14314, which is 0.2% higher. This puts the two cards virtually on par in synthetic tests.

Q: What is the performance difference between Medium and High settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Medium settings yield an average of 48.8 FPS, while High settings yield 44.4 FPS. This is a difference of 4.4 FPS, or approximately 9.9%, showing that the visual upgrade to High costs relatively little in this resolution range.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to bottleneck at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the data shows diminishing returns from lowering settings, with Low at 89.9 FPS versus Medium at 66.5 FPS. The large gap between Low and Medium suggests the GPU is still the primary constraint, as the i5-9400’s six threads are sufficient to maintain these frame rates.

Q: What is the combo’s overall rank among tested configurations?

A: This combination ranks 1405 out of 1636 tested combos in Control, placing it in the lower 14.1% of all configurations. This reflects the mid-range nature of the hardware.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to a clear recommendation: High settings at 1920x1080 offer the best balance of visual fidelity and frame rate. The 58.7 FPS average at High is above the 60 FPS target for most displays, and the step up from Medium adds only 7.8 FPS, while the step down to Ultra removes 5.8 FPS. For users with 1440p monitors, Medium settings at 48.8 FPS are the most sensible choice, as they stay above the 45 FPS comfort zone and are only 4.4 FPS behind High. The 4K resolution is best paired with Low settings, where the 49.0 FPS average is surprisingly playable, given the GPU’s modest 6 GB memory capacity.

For those prioritizing frame rate over visuals, Low at 1080p delivers 89.9 FPS, which is ideal for competitive play or high-refresh-rate displays. However, the jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 23.4 FPS, which is a significant penalty for the quality increase. The Ultra preset is only advisable at 1080p, where it maintains a 52.9 FPS average, but the 5.8 FPS loss versus High makes it a poor trade-off unless maximum shadows and reflections are essential. At 1440p and above, Ultra should be avoided entirely, as the 40.6 FPS and 27.3 FPS results fall below acceptable smoothness thresholds.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the frame rates span a wide range across settings. Low settings produce an average of 89.9 FPS, which is the highest measured value for this combination. Medium settings drop to 66.5 FPS, a 26.0% reduction. High settings yield 58.7 FPS, and Ultra trails at 52.9 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 37.0 FPS, indicating that the GTX 1660 SUPER has significant headroom at this resolution when settings are reduced.

At 2560x1440, the averages compress. Low settings achieve 69.5 FPS, which is still comfortably playable. Medium settings drop to 48.8 FPS, and High settings produce 44.4 FPS. Ultra falls to 40.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 28.9 FPS, showing that the GPU’s pixel throughput limits begin to dominate. The 1440p Low result is 22.7% lower than the 1080p Low result, while the 1440p Ultra result is 23.3% lower than 1080p Ultra, demonstrating a consistent scaling factor.

At 3840x2160, the performance hits the wall. Low settings average 49.0 FPS, which is the only 4K result above 40 FPS. Medium settings fall to 35.2 FPS, High drops to 30.3 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 27.3 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 21.7 FPS, and the 4K Low figure is 45.5% lower than 1080p Low. These numbers confirm that 4K gaming with this hardware requires the lowest quality preset to maintain playable frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Control, this pairing of the Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER achieves a rank of 1405 out of 1636 total combos. This places it in the lower 14.1% of all configurations, which is consistent with the mid-range positioning of the individual components. The CPU’s percentile rank against all processors is 50, meaning it sits exactly at the median, while the GPU’s percentile rank is 55, slightly above the median for all graphics cards.

The rank indicates that most other tested combinations produce higher average frame rates in Control. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i3-10305 with an average score of 2300, are within 0.2% of the i5-9400’s 2305 average, so processor choice is not the differentiator here. The GPU’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT, scores 14389, which is 0.7% higher than the GTX 1660 SUPER’s 14286, showing that the graphics card is also not significantly below its peer group. The low combo rank is therefore a function of the absolute performance level of both parts, not a mismatch or bottleneck.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 provides six cores and six threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. This Coffee Lake architecture processor, built on Intel’s 14 nm process, has 9 MB of shared L3 cache and supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. In Control, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations, and the six threads are adequate for this task, as evidenced by the frame rates scaling primarily with GPU settings rather than resolution.

The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969 and single-core score of 1125 indicate solid performance for a six-core part from 2018. Its average benchmark score of 2305 puts it at the 50th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i3-10305 and Intel Xeon E-2134, both within 0.4% of its score. This suggests that the i5-9400 is not a limiting factor at 1080p, where the GPU is clearly the bottleneck given the 37.0 FPS spread between Low and Ultra settings. At 4K, the CPU’s role diminishes further, as the GPU struggles to maintain even 30 FPS at High settings, leaving the processor with idle capacity. The 65 W TDP and Intel Socket 1151 compatibility make it a modest power draw, but the data shows that upgrading the graphics card would yield far greater gains in Control than swapping the processor.