Control

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Control with the AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 shows a clear picture: this combination struggles to maintain playable frame rates at most settings and resolutions. The playable threshold for this database is 60 FPS, and none of the tested configurations reach that mark.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly low. Low settings produce an average of 28.3 FPS, Medium drops to 21.3 FPS, High yields 20.5 FPS, and Ultra falls to 17.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 10.5 FPS, which represents a 37% performance loss when maxing out the visual quality. None of these numbers approach playability, and the spread across settings shows a GPU that is heavily overburdened at 4K resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440 improves things somewhat, but the story remains the same. Low settings deliver 44.6 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium produces 28.1 FPS, High drops to 26 FPS, and Ultra settles at 24.4 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is particularly stark at 16.5 FPS, suggesting that the step from minimal to moderate graphical fidelity carries a heavy cost. The jump from Medium to High is smaller at 2.1 FPS, and High to Ultra is just 1.6 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at the upper end of the settings range.

At 1920x1080, the numbers are the strongest in the dataset, but still fall short of the 60 FPS target. Low settings average 56.8 FPS, which is close to playable but not quite there. Medium yields 42.2 FPS, High drops to 38 FPS, and Ultra manages 32.1 FPS. The scaling pattern here mirrors the other resolutions: Low stands apart from the rest, while Medium, High, and Ultra cluster together in a narrower band. The total spread at 1080p is 24.7 FPS between Low and Ultra, the largest absolute difference across all three resolutions.

The min and max FPS values are not recorded in the database, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates. This means the data captures central tendency but not frame time consistency, which could be relevant for a game with sudden action spikes like Control.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results indicate that the GTX 1650 is the dominant bottleneck in this pairing across all tested configurations. The evidence lies in how frame rates scale with resolution and settings.

At 3840x2160, the performance is consistently poor regardless of settings. Low settings average 28.3 FPS, and Ultra drops to 17.8 FPS. The relatively small difference between settings at this resolution points to a GPU that is saturated by the raw pixel count. The Ryzen 5 7600, with its six cores and twelve threads, has ample headroom to feed the graphics card, but the GPU cannot translate that into higher frame rates at 4K.

The resolution scaling reinforces this conclusion. Dropping from 2160p to 1440p at Low settings improves performance from 28.3 FPS to 44.6 FPS, a 57.6% gain. At Medium settings, the improvement from 21.3 FPS to 28.1 FPS is 31.9%. At High settings, the gain from 20.5 FPS to 26 FPS is 26.8%. And at Ultra, the jump from 17.8 FPS to 24.4 FPS is 37.1%. These are large percentage increases driven by reducing the pixel workload, which is a classic sign of a GPU-limited scenario.

The same pattern appears when moving from 1440p to 1080p. At Low settings, performance goes from 44.6 FPS to 56.8 FPS, a 27.4% improvement. At Medium, it goes from 28.1 FPS to 42.2 FPS, a 50.2% gain. At High, the jump from 26 FPS to 38 FPS is 46.2%. And at Ultra, the increase from 24.4 FPS to 32.1 FPS is 31.6%. The consistent double-digit percentage gains across every settings tier confirm that resolution is the primary lever, and the CPU is not the limiting factor.

The Ryzen 5 7600 ranks in the 78th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with a strong single-thread score of 999 in 3dmark and a multicore score of 6503 at max threads. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, which scores within 0.2% of the 7600, and the Intel Core i9-11900KF, which is 0.4% ahead. This is a high-end desktop processor paired with a GPU that sits in the 40th percentile among all GPUs. The mismatch is stark: the CPU has compute capacity to spare, while the GPU is working at its limits.

For Control specifically, the data shows that settings adjustments have a muted effect at higher resolutions. At 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra is only 10.5 FPS, whereas at 1080p that same settings span costs 24.7 FPS. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so overwhelmed that even reducing settings cannot unlock significant headroom, while at 1080p the GPU has enough partial capacity to respond more strongly to settings changes.

Best Settings per Resolution

The playable threshold in the database is 60 FPS, and no tested configuration reaches that level. The verdict data confirms this: for each resolution, the set of playable settings is empty, meaning no preset at any resolution achieves 60 FPS average with this hardware combination.

At 1920x1080, the closest approach to playability is Low settings with an average of 56.8 FPS. This is 3.2 FPS short of the threshold, so it falls outside the playable definition. Medium settings at 42.2 FPS, High at 38 FPS, and Ultra at 32.1 FPS are all further from the target. The data does not support calling any setting "best" in the sense of meeting the playable standard, but Low at 1080p is the configuration that comes nearest to the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the best recorded result is Low settings at 44.6 FPS, which is 15.4 FPS below the threshold. Medium at 28.1 FPS, High at 26 FPS, and Ultra at 24.4 FPS are all substantially lower. None of these configurations can be recommended as playable based on the 60 FPS standard.

At 3840x2160, the best result is Low settings at 28.3 FPS, which is 31.7 FPS below the threshold. Medium at 21.3 FPS, High at 20.5 FPS, and Ultra at 17.8 FPS round out the field. The 4K results are uniformly far from playable.

The database records no best settings for any resolution, reflecting the fact that the 60 FPS target is not met anywhere. For users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, the closest option is 1080p with Low settings, but even that configuration falls short of the standard.

FAQ

Q: Can this combination run Control at 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The database shows no playable settings at any resolution. The highest average FPS recorded is 56.8 at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best performance this hardware achieves in Control?

A: The best recorded average is 56.8 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next closest is 44.6 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to the GPU in terms of bottleneck?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The Ryzen 5 7600 ranks in the 78th percentile among CPUs, while the GTX 1650 ranks in the 40th percentile among GPUs. Frame rate scaling with resolution changes is large, indicating GPU limitation.

Q: What are the nearest CPU alternatives to the Ryzen 5 7600?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX scores 0.2% higher, the AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS scores 0.3% lower, the Intel Core i9-11900KF scores 0.4% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 5 8540U scores 0.5% higher in the database's average benchmark score.

Q: What are the nearest GPU alternatives to the GTX 1650?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 0.3% lower, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 0.4% lower, the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 0.6% lower, and the Intel Arc A310 scores 1% higher in the database's average benchmark score.

Q: Does lowering settings from Ultra to Low help at 4K?

A: Yes, but the gain is limited. At 3840x2160, Low settings average 28.3 FPS versus 17.8 FPS at Ultra, a 10.5 FPS improvement. The result is still far below the playable threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU each have closely matched rivals in the database, and pairing those alternatives with the existing components would yield similar behavior in Control.

On the CPU side, the Ryzen 5 7600's nearest rivals are tightly clustered. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX is 0.2% ahead in average benchmark score, the Intel Core i9-11900KF is 0.4% ahead, and the AMD Ryzen 5 8540U is 0.5% ahead. The AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS is 0.3% behind. These deltas are negligible for gaming purposes, so swapping the 7600 for any of these processors would not meaningfully change the frame rates in Control, since the GPU is the limiting factor. The 7600's strong single-thread and multicore scores, including a 999 on 3dmark single-thread and 6503 at max threads, are far beyond what the GTX 1650 needs to feed.

On the GPU side, the GTX 1650's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A310, which is 1% ahead in average benchmark score, and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, Intel UHD Graphics 750, and AMD Radeon R7 350, which are 0.3%, 0.4%, and 0.6% behind respectively. These are all low-end graphics solutions, and their performance in Control would be similar to the GTX 1650. The Arc A310 might deliver slightly higher frame rates, but the difference would be within the noise of the measurement. The Radeon HD 8850M and R7 350 would likely produce marginally lower averages, but again, the gap is small enough that the playability verdict would remain unchanged.

The practical implication is that this combination's performance profile is defined by the GPU tier, not the CPU. Any of the CPU rivals listed would produce essentially identical frame rates in Control because the GTX 1650 cannot be fully utilized even by a much weaker processor. Conversely, swapping the GPU for one of its nearest rivals would shift the results by a few percent at most, keeping the combination in the same non-playable category.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this combination at 3521 out of 3720 tested combos for Control. This places it in the bottom 5.4% of all configurations in the database, a position that reflects the GPU's limitations more than the CPU's capabilities.

The rank is consistent with the measured frame rates. A combo that fails to hit 60 FPS at any resolution with any settings is naturally going to sit near the bottom of a ranking that uses 60 FPS as the playable threshold. The Ryzen 5 7600 is a strong processor, but it is paired with a GPU that was already end-of-life in production status and ranks in the 40th percentile among all GPUs.

The data shows that the CPU is not the reason for this low rank. The 7600's nearest CPU rivals all score within 0.5% of it, and the GPU's nearest rivals also cluster within 1%. This means the rank is driven by the GPU's fundamental performance ceiling. Even with a faster CPU, the frame rates would not improve because the GTX 1650 is the bottleneck.

The gap between this combo and higher-ranked configurations would be substantial. Moving from the 40th percentile GPU to even a mid-range option would likely shift the rank significantly upward. However, the database does not provide specific comparison data for other GPUs in Control, so the analysis must rely on the measured FPS and the percentile rankings.

For users considering this hardware, the takeaway is clear: the combination is not suitable for Control at the 60 FPS standard. The best case scenario, 1080p Low at 56.8 FPS, falls short by a small margin, but every other configuration is further behind. The rank of 3521 out of 3720 reflects a system that is GPU-bound in the worst way, leaving the CPU's considerable power unused.