Control

The pairing of AMD's Ryzen 5 2600 with NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 4080 is an unbalanced configuration on paper, a 65 W six-core from 2018 feeding a flagship-class Ada Lovelace GPU, but the recorded data for Control shows it clears the 60 FPS playable threshold at every resolution and every preset, including 4K Ultra at 69 FPS average. Control is a 2019 action adventure title built around DirectX 12 Ultimate-tier rendering, and it leans heavily on GPU throughput, which plays directly to this combo's strengths and away from its CPU-side weakness.

Best Settings per Resolution

The most demanding preset that holds at or above 60 FPS at each resolution is straightforward here, because Ultra clears the bar everywhere.

• 1920x1080: Ultra, 120 FPS average. The ceiling on CPU-limited headroom sits far above the threshold; even the top preset leaves double the playable margin.
• 2560x1440: Ultra, 102 FPS average. A substantial drop from 1080p, roughly 15 percent, but still comfortably above 60 FPS with maximum image quality.
• 3840x2160: Ultra, 69 FPS average. This is the tightest result in the dataset. Ultra at 4K lands 9 frames above the 60 FPS threshold, a thin but sufficient margin. Medium at 89 FPS is the safer pick if consistency matters more than peak fidelity.

CPU and GPU Roles

Control at these settings is GPU-bound in this configuration, and the scaling data makes that explicit. From 1080p Ultra to 1440p Ultra, average FPS falls from 120 to 102. From 1440p to 4K, it falls further to 69. That steady decline as pixel count rises is the signature of a GPU-limited workload: the RTX 4080's frame delivery shrinks in proportion to the rendering load while the Ryzen 5 2600 is never the constraint.

The preset scaling confirms it. At 4K, moving from Low (119 FPS) to Ultra (69 FPS) costs 50 frames, a 42 percent reduction driven entirely by GPU-side feature load. If the CPU were the bottleneck, preset changes would move averages far less and resolution changes almost not at all. Instead, 1080p shows the flattest preset spread in the dataset: Low at 149 FPS versus Ultra at 120, only a 29-frame gap across the entire quality range. That flatness at the lowest resolution is the first hint of a processor ceiling, where the six-core, twelve-thread Zen+ design with its 3.90 GHz boost clock saturates before the graphics card does. The data indicates the practical conclusion: at 1080p the CPU caps peak FPS, while at 1440p and 4K the RTX 4080 governs everything.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All figures below are recorded averages from the database.

1920x1080

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|

| Low | 149 | not recorded | not recorded |

| Medium | 132 | 112 | 151 |

| High | 126 | not recorded | not recorded |

| Ultra | 120 | not recorded | not recorded |

The Medium row carries the only complete min/avg/max triplet at this resolution, and it is a healthy one: the minimum of 112 FPS sits far above the playable threshold, and the maximum of 151 FPS aligns neatly with the Low preset average, showing the engine rarely wastes frames. The compressed 29-frame spread between Low and Ultra at this resolution is the clearest evidence of the processor limiting upside.

2560x1440

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|

| Low | 136 | not recorded | not recorded |

| Medium | 120 | 102 | 138 |

| High | 115 | not recorded | not recorded |

| Ultra | 102 | not recorded | not recorded |

Medium again provides the full frame-time picture, with a minimum of 102 FPS and a maximum of 138 FPS bracketing the average exactly. Every preset at 1440p delivers a triple-digit average, meaning even the Ultra preset exceeds the playable threshold by 70 percent.

3840x2160

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|

| Low | 119 | not recorded | not recorded |

| Medium | 89 | 76 | 103 |

| High | 79 | not recorded | not recorded |

| Ultra | 69 | not recorded | not recorded |

The 4K Medium row records a minimum of 76 FPS, comfortably above 60, which strongly suggests the Ultra preset's 69 FPS average also holds acceptable frame times, since the next preset down never dips near the threshold. Note the Low average at 4K (119 FPS) matches the 1080p Ultra average almost exactly, a neat illustration of how resolution load and preset load trade off against the same GPU budget.

How This Combo Ranks

Against the full field of hardware combinations tested for Control in the database, this pairing ranks 773 out of 3720 combos, placing it in roughly the top 21 percent. That is a strong position, and it is earned almost entirely by the graphics card. The RTX 4080 sits in the 86th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 54247, including a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6567 and a PassMark G3D score of 34457, figures that reflect its 9728 shading units, 76 RT cores, and 716.8 GB/s of GDDR6X bandwidth across a 256-bit bus.

The Ryzen 5 2600, by contrast, sits in the 75th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 21484, built on a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 1248 and a single-core score of 157.3. Its PassMark single-thread result of 2239 is the number most relevant to a game like Control, and it is modest by modern standards. The rank of 773 therefore reflects a GPU dragging an older processor upward: the combo outperforms more than three quarters of tested pairings despite the CPU being the visibly older component, manufactured on GlobalFoundries' 12 nm node against the GPU's 5 nm TSMC silicon.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the graphics side, the database's nearest rivals for the RTX 4080 are effectively interchangeable. The RTX 4080 SUPER lands within 0.1 percent of its average score, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X within 1.1 percent, the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB within 2.6 percent, and the Radeon 8060S within 2.7 percent. Any of these cards should reproduce nearly identical Control results when paired with a comparable processor, with the 4080 SUPER being the closest possible substitution.

On the CPU side, the Ryzen 5 2600's rivals span a surprisingly wide architectural range: the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V scores within 0.2 percent of its average, the Core i9-11900H within 0.5 percent, the Xeon D-1746TER within 0.7 percent, and even an AMD EPYC 9454 within 1.2 percent. Since Control in this configuration is GPU-bound at 1440p and 4K, any of these processors should deliver near-identical framerates at those resolutions; differences would only surface at 1080p, where the recorded data shows the processor becoming the limiting factor.

The Verdict

Yes, and decisively. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: every preset at every tested resolution clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 1920x1080 the best setting is Ultra at 120 FPS average, at 2560x1440 it is Ultra at 102 FPS, and at 3840x2160 it is Ultra at 69 FPS. There is no configuration in the recorded dataset where this machine fails to run Control acceptably.

The nuance is in the margins. At 4K Ultra the 9-frame cushion over the threshold is real but thin, and the recorded 76 FPS minimum at 4K Medium suggests dropping one preset tier is the prudent choice for a high-refresh 4K display. At 1080p the Ryzen 5 2600's older Zen+ architecture caps the ceiling, which matters only for refresh rates well beyond 60 Hz. For a straightforward 60 FPS experience at any resolution, this combo handles Control at maximum settings, and the graphics card has headroom to spare at everything below 4K.