Control

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB produces a combo that ranks 3265th out of 3720 tested configurations in Control, placing it in the lower 13% of all combinations. This is a low-tier position that signals the pairing is heavily constrained by its components. The data shows that while the system is capable of running the game, it does so with substantial compromises, particularly at higher resolutions and quality settings. The ranking reflects a setup that is fundamentally mismatched for a demanding action-adventure title, where the GPU’s limited memory and the CPU’s modest multi-threaded performance combine to hold back the experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame of 3265 out of 3720 puts this configuration in the bottom tier of all tested hardware pairings. This percentile position is not merely a minor shortfall; it indicates that nearly 88% of all tested combos deliver better performance in Control. The data suggests that this pairing is at the edge of playability, offering a base level of performance that will require significant settings and resolution reductions to achieve smooth framerates. The ranking is a direct consequence of the hardware’s characteristics: the RTX 3050 4 GB is a low-end entry point, and the i5-9400, while competent for its era, is now a dated six-core processor without hyper-threading.

Benchmark results indicate that the setup’s position is not an anomaly; it aligns with the CPU’s overall standing in the broader market. The i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254, which places it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs. This is a mid-pack result for the processor, but when combined with the GPU’s 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, the overall combo suffers because the two components do not synergize well in a game like Control. The data shows that the CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-10710U (avg score 2248, deltaPct 0.3) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (avg score 2246, deltaPct 0.4), are nearly identical in processing power, which means the bottleneck is not purely the CPU’s raw compute but rather its interaction with the GPU’s constraints. This pairing is a clear example of a balanced-down system where neither component can lift the other out of the low-performance bracket.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is the primary limiting factor in this configuration. Its memory configuration of 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus yields a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s, which is a modest figure for a modern game. The GPU’s base clock is 1545 MHz, with a boost clock of 1740 MHz, and it relies on 2048 shading units to process graphics. In Control, a game known for its heavy visual effects and destructible environments, this memory capacity becomes a critical constraint. At 4K resolution, the data shows average FPS dropping to 27 at High settings and just 23 at Ultra, which are unplayable framerates. Even at 1440p, the GPU struggles, with High settings yielding only 40 FPS average.

The GPU’s 4 GB VRAM is insufficient for the high-resolution textures and complex scenes that Control presents. The measured FPS at Medium settings provides a clearer picture: at 4K, the average is 30 FPS with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 35, indicating severe frame pacing issues. This is the GPU hitting its memory ceiling, causing stutter and drops. The data shows that the card’s performance is more consistent at 1080p, where it achieves 83 FPS on Low settings, but even then, the Ultra setting drops to 46 FPS. The RTX 3050’s architecture, Ampere, is capable, but this specific variant with 4 GB is a cut-down version that cannot handle the memory demands of a high-fidelity title. The GPU’s pixel rate of 55.68 GPixel/s and texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s are sufficient for lower resolutions, but they cannot compensate for the lack of VRAM when the resolution scales up.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a clear pattern of resolution scaling that underscores the GPU’s limitations. Moving from 1080p to 1440p to 4K at the same settings shows a significant performance drop. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 53 at 1080p to 40 at 1440p, a 24.5% decrease, and then to 27 at 4K, a further 32.5% decrease from the 1440p figure. This steep decline indicates that the system is heavily GPU-bound, as the CPU can maintain the frame output at lower resolutions but the GPU cannot keep up as pixel count increases. The data shows that at Low settings, the drop from 1080p (83 FPS) to 1440p (63 FPS) is 24.1%, and then to 4K (43 FPS) is 31.7%, showing a consistent pattern of degradation.

This scaling behavior points to the limiting component being the GPU, specifically its memory bandwidth and capacity. The CPU’s role becomes less significant as resolution increases, because the GPU must process more pixels and access more texture data. The measured FPS at 1080p Medium (59 FPS) versus 4K Medium (30 FPS) shows a 49.2% drop, which is a massive reduction. The fact that the minimum FPS at 1080p Medium is 50 and at 1440p Medium is 38, while the maximum at 1080p is 68 and at 1440p is 51, further indicates that the frame time variance increases with resolution, a classic sign of memory pressure. The data suggests that to maintain a playable experience, users must significantly lower settings or resolution, with 1080p Low being the only configuration that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed view of the performance across different resolutions and settings. At 1080p, the best result is 83 FPS on Low settings, which is smooth and responsive. Medium settings reduce this to 59 FPS, with a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 68, showing some variance but still playable. High settings yield 53 FPS, which is adequate but not ideal, and Ultra drops to 46 FPS, which is borderline for a fast-paced action game. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 44.6% reduction in average FPS, from 83 to 46, indicating that the GPU struggles with the high-quality effects at this resolution.

At 1440p, the performance becomes more constrained. Low settings deliver 63 FPS, which is still playable, but Medium drops to 45 FPS with a minimum of 38 and a maximum of 51. High settings yield 40 FPS, and Ultra falls to 35 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra at 1440p is 44.4%, similar to 1080p, but the absolute numbers are lower, highlighting the resolution’s impact. At 4K, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings only achieve 43 FPS, Medium drops to 30 FPS (minimum 26, maximum 35), High yields 27 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 23 FPS. The data shows a clear pattern: the system can only handle 4K at very low quality, and even then, the frame rate is not stable.

The settings breakdown reveals that the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM is the primary bottleneck. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Medium is 24 FPS, which is substantial, but the difference between High and Ultra is only 7 FPS. This suggests that beyond a certain point, the GPU’s compute units are not the limiting factor; instead, the memory bandwidth and capacity cause diminishing returns. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (23 FPS) is a stark indication that this combo is not designed for high-end gaming.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. This is a Coffee Lake architecture processor on a 14 nm process node, and it has a 9 MB shared L3 cache. In terms of raw processing power, the CPU’s benchmark scores show it is a solid mid-range performer. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 6629, and its single-core score is 935, which are respectable figures for a six-core part. However, in Control, the CPU’s role is less critical than the GPU’s, as the game is graphically intensive.

The data indicates that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck in most scenarios. At 1080p Low settings, where the GPU is less stressed, the CPU must work harder to feed frames, and the result is 83 FPS. This suggests that the i5-9400 can handle the game’s physics and AI at this resolution. However, the CPU’s lack of hyper-threading means it has only 6 threads, which can be a limitation in a game that utilizes multiple cores. The average benchmark score of 2254 places it in the 47th percentile, and its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (avg score 2259, deltaPct -0.2), show that it is on par with other mid-range processors.

The CPU’s performance becomes more relevant at lower resolutions and settings, where the GPU is not the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the FPS of 83 is likely close to what the CPU can sustain, as the GPU has headroom. But as resolution increases, the GPU takes over as the bottleneck, and the CPU’s influence diminishes. The data shows that the CPU’s memory support of DDR4 with dual-channel configuration and a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s is adequate, but it does not provide any advantage in this scenario. The i5-9400 is a capable processor that does not actively hinder performance, but it also does not boost the combo beyond its low rank.

FAQ

*Q: What is the maximum average FPS this combo can achieve in Control?*

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 83, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K resolution with Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combo achieves an average of 23 FPS. This is unplayable for a fast-paced action game like Control, indicating that 4K Ultra is not a viable option for this hardware.

*Q: Is the CPU or GPU more limiting for this combo in Control?*

A: The data shows the GPU is the primary limiting factor. The FPS drops significantly with resolution increases, from 83 FPS at 1080p Low to 43 FPS at 4K Low, which is a 48.2% reduction. The CPU’s performance, as indicated by its 47th percentile ranking, is sufficient but not the main constraint.

Q: What is the best settings configuration for a playable experience?

A: Based on the measured FPS, 1920x1080 with Low settings (83 FPS) offers the smoothest experience. 1920x1080 with Medium settings (59 FPS) is also playable, but higher resolutions or settings will result in frame rates below 50 FPS.

Q: How does the combo’s performance at 1440p Medium compare to 1080p Medium?

A: At 1440p Medium, the average FPS is 45, with a minimum of 38 and a maximum of 51. At 1080p Medium, the average is 59, with a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 68. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 23.7%, showing significant degradation.

Q: What is the overall ranking of this combo in the benchmark database?

A: The combo ranks 3265th out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. This places it in the bottom 12.2% of all tested hardware pairings, indicating a low-performance setup that struggles with the game’s demands.