Control

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a six-core, six-thread desktop processor from the Coffee Lake Refresh generation, built on Intel's 14 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. This CPU sits at the 50th percentile among all tested processors, making it a squarely mid-pack performer. Its benchmark scores reflect this positioning: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969 and a single-core score of 1125, with an average benchmark score of 2305. The nearest rivals are closely clustered, with the Intel Core i3-10305 and Core i3-1125G4 both within 0.2% of its average score, and the Xeon E-2134 just 0.4% behind. The Intel Core i7-8809G is the only rival ahead, by a slim 0.6%. In a game like Control, this CPU provides a solid foundation, but its six threads without hyper-threading mean it can be a limiting factor in heavily threaded scenes, though the benchmark results across resolutions suggest it handles the game's demands adequately.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Core i5-9400's six physical cores running at up to 4.10 GHz boost are the engine driving the game's logic and physics. In Control, a title known for its complex environmental destruction and physics-based combat, the CPU's single-threaded performance is crucial. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1125 places it in a competitive position for older game engines that rely on a few fast threads. The multi-core score of 7969 shows it can handle background tasks and the game's broader simulation load, but the lack of extra threads means it won't excel in scenarios with many simultaneous AI calculations. The data bears this out: at 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 129.2 FPS, which is a high enough frame rate that the CPU is likely the primary limiter, as the GPU has headroom. At 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 36.8 FPS, a scenario where the GPU is clearly the bottleneck. The CPU's 50th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it is an average performer, but in this specific pairing, it does not drag down the overall experience as much as one might expect, given that the performance scaling from Low to Ultra settings is more pronounced at lower resolutions.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is a Turing-architecture GPU built on TSMC's 12 nm process, featuring 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. Its base clock is 1605 MHz with a boost of 1770 MHz, and it houses 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The GPU's 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs puts it above the average, and its average benchmark score of 22206 is competitive. Its nearest rival, the RTX A400, scores slightly higher at 22307 (a 0.5% difference), while the GTX TITAN Z is just 0.9% behind, and the RTX 4060 Mobile is 2.3% ahead. This GPU is well-suited for 1440p gaming, as evidenced by the measured results. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for Control's textures at 1440p and even 4K, though the memory bandwidth becomes a factor at higher resolutions. The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is significant, but the GPU's raw compute power (9.062 TFLOPS FP32) is what drives the frame rates in this title. The launch MSRP for this GPU was 499 USD.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling. At 1080p High settings, the combo delivers 85 FPS. Moving to 1440p High drops that to 63.3 FPS, a reduction of roughly 25.5%. Stepping up to 4K High yields 43.1 FPS, which is another 31.9% drop from 1440p. This steep decline as resolution increases is the classic signature of a GPU-limited scenario. At 1080p Low, the system hits 129.2 FPS, which is a very high frame rate. The fact that the frame rate nearly doubles from 4K Ultra (36.8 FPS) to 1080p Low (129.2 FPS) shows the GPU has plenty of headroom at lower resolutions. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the limiting component across all settings, as the frame rates are relatively low even at Low settings (67.7 FPS). At 1080p, however, the CPU starts to become more relevant, especially at lower settings where the GPU's load is reduced. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings shows a drop from 129.2 to 97.4 FPS, a 24.6% decrease, which is less severe than the High settings drop, suggesting the CPU is beginning to assert itself as a secondary limiter at 1080p Low.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER ranks 977th out of 1636 tested combos in Control. That places it in the 40th percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly 60% of the tested configurations perform better. This ranking is lower than the individual component percentiles (CPU at 50th, GPU at 65th) would suggest, indicating that the pairing is not optimally balanced for this title. The GPU is capable of much higher frame rates, as its own benchmark scores suggest, but the CPU may be holding it back in certain scenarios, particularly at high frame rates where the CPU's six-thread limit becomes a constraint. Despite this, the combo is far from the bottom of the list, and the measured FPS shows it can deliver playable performance at most settings. The rank of 977 indicates that there are many combos with stronger CPUs that can push this GPU further, but for a mid-range CPU from 2018 paired with a high-end GPU from 2019, this result is expected.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured data provides a comprehensive look at performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 3840x2160 (4K), the combo produces an average of 36.8 FPS on Ultra, 43.1 FPS on High, 50 FPS on Medium, and 67.7 FPS on Low. The jump from Ultra to Low at 4K is 30.9 FPS, an 84% improvement, which is substantial. At 2560x1440 (1440p), the results are 56.4 FPS on Ultra, 63.3 FPS on High, 71.2 FPS on Medium, and 97.4 FPS on Low. Here, the difference between Ultra and Low is 41 FPS, a 72.7% gain. At 1920x1080 (1080p), the frames are 72.3 FPS on Ultra, 85 FPS on High, 93.8 FPS on Medium, and 129.2 FPS on Low. The 1080p Low result is the highest in the entire dataset and shows the system's peak capability. The scaling between settings is consistent: Low to Medium yields a significant boost, Medium to High is a smaller step, and High to Ultra is the smallest increment. This pattern indicates that the Ultra preset is particularly demanding, likely due to advanced effects that tax the GPU's resources heavily.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based strictly on the measured FPS, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance for most users. At 1440p Medium, the system hits 71.2 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, while the visual upgrade from Low is noticeable. At 1080p Medium, the 93.8 FPS result provides a very smooth experience with room to spare for demanding action sequences. The High preset is also viable, with 85 FPS at 1080p and 63.3 FPS at 1440p, but the jump from Medium to High only yields a 9.2 FPS gain at 1080p (from 93.8 to 85, which is actually a decrease in performance, meaning the preset is more demanding but the FPS is still playable). For users with a 4K display, the Medium preset at 50 FPS is the only reasonable option, as High and Ultra dip below the 45 FPS mark, and even Low at 67.7 FPS is preferable to a sub-40 FPS experience. The Ultra preset, while visually impressive, is not recommended for this combo, as it produces the lowest frame rates at every resolution, including a 36.8 FPS result at 4K, which is below the acceptable range for a fast-paced action game. The data shows that Medium is the sweet spot, offering a playable frame rate at 4K and excellent performance at 1440p and 1080p.