Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 combination delivers a playable experience in Control, but the margin for error varies significantly depending on the target resolution. The recorded data shows that this system is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can handle the highest settings, while 1440p requires a compromise, and 4K is only viable at the lowest preset.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160 (4K), the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS is Low. The measured average frame rate at this setting is 63 FPS. The step up to Medium drops the average to 45 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold, so Low is the only playable option at this resolution.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the most demanding playable preset is Medium. The database records an average of 67 FPS at Medium settings. High settings at 1440p yield an average of 59 FPS, which is marginally below the 60 FPS threshold, making Medium the optimal choice for a smooth experience.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the most demanding preset that clears the 60 FPS mark is Ultra. The average frame rate at Ultra settings is 68 FPS. All four presets, Low, Medium, High, and Ultra, are playable at this resolution, but Ultra provides the highest visual quality while still exceeding the playable threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data indicates that the GPU is the primary performance limiter for this combination in Control. The evidence for this comes from the scaling of frame rates across resolutions and presets. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 124 FPS, but at 4K Low, it drops to 63 FPS. This substantial reduction, roughly half the frame rate, is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario where the rendering resolution directly impacts the workload.

Further supporting the GPU-bound nature is the performance drop when increasing settings at a fixed resolution. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra reduces the average from 124 FPS to 68 FPS, a 45% decrease. At 1440p, the same change from Low to Ultra reduces the average from 94 FPS to 52 FPS, a 45% decrease as well. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, appears to be adequate for feeding the GPU, as the frame rate scaling is consistent with pure rendering load changes rather than CPU bottlenecks.

The CPU’s role is more apparent when considering the minimum frame times recorded. At 1440p Medium, the minimum FPS is 57, and at 1080p Medium, it is 75. These minimums are relatively close to the averages, suggesting that the CPU can maintain a steady frame delivery without introducing significant stutters. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the minimum frame rates would likely be lower relative to the averages, especially at lower resolutions where the GPU has more headroom.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: Average 63 FPS, no min/max recorded.
• Medium: Average 45 FPS, minimum 38 FPS, maximum 52 FPS.
• High: Average 40 FPS, no min/max recorded.
• Ultra: Average 35 FPS, no min/max recorded.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: Average 94 FPS, no min/max recorded.
• Medium: Average 67 FPS, minimum 57 FPS, maximum 77 FPS.
• High: Average 59 FPS, no min/max recorded.
• Ultra: Average 52 FPS, no min/max recorded.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: Average 124 FPS, no min/max recorded.
• Medium: Average 88 FPS, minimum 75 FPS, maximum 101 FPS.
• High: Average 78 FPS, no min/max recorded.
• Ultra: Average 68 FPS, no min/max recorded.

The data shows a clear pattern: each resolution step down from 4K to 1080p yields a significant performance increase across all settings. For instance, at High settings, the average frame rate jumps from 40 FPS at 4K to 59 FPS at 1440p, and then to 78 FPS at 1080p. Similarly, at Ultra, the progression is 35 FPS at 4K, 52 FPS at 1440p, and 68 FPS at 1080p.

The Verdict

The recorded data confirms that this PC can run Control, but the experience is heavily dependent on the resolution and settings chosen.

At 3840x2160, the system is only playable on the Low preset, with an average of 63 FPS. This is a viable option for 4K owners who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, but the jump to Medium brings an average of 45 FPS, which is below the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the system is playable on Low and Medium presets. The best playable setting is Medium, delivering an average of 67 FPS. High settings at 59 FPS are slightly below the threshold, so users seeking higher quality at 1440p would need to accept a marginal frame rate deficit.

At 1920x1080, the system is fully playable on all presets. The best setting is Ultra, with an average of 68 FPS. This is the resolution where the hardware shines, providing a high-quality experience with a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with maximum settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate is 35 FPS, which is well below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming?

A: The Medium preset is the best playable option, delivering an average of 67 FPS. The High preset averages 59 FPS, which is just below the playable threshold.

Q: Is the RTX 5050 or the Ryzen 5 3600 the main bottleneck for this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The frame rate scales consistently with resolution and settings, which is typical of a GPU-bound workload.

Q: What frame rate can be expected at 1080p with High settings?

A: The recorded average is 78 FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings, which is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Does the system maintain smooth frame delivery at 1440p Medium?

A: Yes. The average is 67 FPS with a minimum of 57 FPS, indicating that the frame time stays within a playable range without large drops.

Q: How does the frame rate at 4K Low compare to 1080p Ultra?

A: The 4K Low setting averages 63 FPS, while 1080p Ultra averages 68 FPS. Both are playable, but the 1080p Ultra setting provides higher visual quality with a slightly higher frame rate.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database, this specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 ranks 2296 out of 3720 tested combos for Control. This places it in the lower-middle portion of all tested systems. The ranking reflects that while the system is capable of running the game, it does not offer the headroom of higher-tier hardware. For a game released in 2019, this system is adequate for 1080p gaming but struggles to maintain high frame rates at higher resolutions.

The percentile standings for the individual components support this. The CPU is in the 71st percentile among all tested CPUs, while the GPU is in the 66th percentile among all tested GPUs. This suggests a balanced pairing, but the GPU’s relatively lower percentile means it is the component that will likely limit performance in more demanding titles.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide context for what other hardware might behave similarly in this game.

For the AMD Ryzen 5 3600, the closest performance matches are the Intel Core i7-1260P and the Intel Core i5-11400. The i7-1260P has a benchmark score 0.2% higher, while the i5-11400 is 0.2% lower. Also nearby are the AMD EPYC 7573X and the AMD EPYC 7742, both with scores within 0.2% of the Ryzen 5 3600. These processors would likely produce similar frame rates in Control when paired with the same GPU.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050, the closest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, which scores 0.6% higher, and the AMD Radeon HD 8970M, which scores 1% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT is 1.6% lower in score, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile is 1.6% higher. A system built with any of these GPUs paired with a similarly performing CPU would likely deliver frame rates within a few percentage points of the measurements recorded for this combination.

Users considering an upgrade path could look at these alternatives to gauge expected performance deltas. The data suggests that moving to a GPU with a score about 1.6% higher, such as the RX 5600 XT, would provide a marginal improvement in frame rates, while the CPU alternatives would have a negligible impact on overall performance given the GPU-bound nature of this workload.