Control

Control launched in 2019 as an action adventure showcase for hardware, and it remains one of the more demanding ray-tracing-era titles in the database. Pairing AMD's Ryzen 5 7600 — a six-core, twelve-thread Zen 4 processor with a 5.10 GHz boost clock — with NVIDIA's RTX 4060, an Ada Lovelace card built on the AD107 chip with 8 GB of GDDR6 and 24 RT cores, produces a configuration that comfortably clears the 60 FPS threshold at 1080p and 1440p, but has to make visual concessions at 4K. The measured data below walks through exactly where those concessions land.

Best Settings per Resolution

The playable threshold used here is 60 FPS average, and the results split cleanly by resolution:

• 1920x1080 — Ultra, 78.2 FPS average. Every preset clears the bar at 1080p, so the most demanding option is also the correct one. Even Ultra holds a 78.2 FPS average, with Medium at 100.5 and Low at 139.3.
• 2560x1440 — High, 65.5 FPS average. Ultra falls fractionally short at 59.9 FPS — just 0.1 FPS below the threshold — so High is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60. Low (104.6) and Medium (72.8) both clear it as well.
• 3840x2160 — Low, 72.6 FPS average. Medium (49.3), High (43.9), and Ultra (38.1) all miss. Only Low delivers a 60+ experience at 4K.

The 1440p Ultra figure is the most interesting number in the set. A 59.9 average is effectively a coin-flip against the threshold — the data suggests it would feel playable much of the time, but the database's cutoff is strict, and the average says nothing about dips below it.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3720 tested CPU/GPU combinations in Control, the Ryzen 5 7600 + RTX 4060 pairing ranks 2052nd. That places it in the back half of the ranked field, which tracks with the component profiles: the CPU sits in the 78th percentile versus all CPUs, while the GPU sits lower at the 61st percentile versus all GPUs. In other words, neither component is the weak link in absolute terms — both are solidly mid-pack — but Control is a GPU-heavy title, and the 61st-percentile accelerator sets the ceiling for the whole build.

It is worth questioning what that rank really measures. Rank 2052 of 3720 aggregates configurations spanning resolutions and presets, so a pairing with a much stronger GPU but comparable CPU would outrank it at 4K even if the 1080p experience were similar. The frame-rate breakdown below is the better guide for a specific buyer.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All figures are measured averages; minimum and maximum frame rates were not captured for this configuration.

1920x1080

| Preset | Avg FPS |

|---|---|

| Low | 139.3 |

| Medium | 100.5 |

| High | 88.4 |

| Ultra | 78.2 |

The scaling here is unusually tight. Dropping from Ultra to Low buys a 1.78x improvement — a healthy gain, but modest compared with the 4K spread. 1080p is likely approaching a CPU limit at lower presets: with the Ryzen 5 7600 posting a 3DMark single-thread score of 999 and a max-thread score of 6503, plus a Cinebench R23 single-core result of 1852, the processor has plenty of headroom, but frame rates this high leave less room for the GPU to differentiate presets.

2560x1440

| Preset | Avg FPS |

|---|---|

| Low | 104.6 |

| Medium | 72.8 |

| High | 65.5 |

| Ultra | 59.9 |

This is the sweet spot for the pairing. Three of four presets clear 60 FPS, and the Low-to-Medium drop (31.8 FPS) is much steeper than the Medium-to-High drop (7.3 FPS). Diminishing returns set in quickly once past Medium — a pattern worth noting for anyone deciding whether the last visual tier is worth chasing.

3840x2160

| Preset | Avg FPS |

|---|---|

| Low | 72.6 |

| Medium | 49.3 |

| High | 43.9 |

| Ultra | 38.1 |

4K punishes the 8 GB GDDR6 buffer and the card's 272 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Every step up from Low costs heavily: Medium surrenders 23.3 FPS, and Ultra is nearly half the Low result. The 72.6 FPS Low average proves the GPU can push the pixels; it simply cannot sustain the effects stack on top of them.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the Ryzen 5 7600's nearest rivals by aggregate score are remarkably close: the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX sits 0.2% behind, the Intel Core i9-11900KF is 0.4% behind, the AMD Ryzen 5 8540U trails by 0.5%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS is actually 0.3% ahead. Any of these processors would deliver a near-identical Control experience in this pairing's regime, since differences under one percent rarely translate to visible frame-rate changes — and notably, a mobile chip like the 6900HX matching a desktop Zen 4 part reinforces that Control performance here is not CPU-bound.

On the GPU side, the listed rivals are intriguing: the AMD Radeon HD 7790 is within 0.2% of the RTX 4060's aggregate benchmark score, the Radeon 780M integrated GPU within 0.3%, and the Radeon Pro 560 and Pro 460 within 0.5% and 0.7% respectively. Those deltas are aggregate cross-benchmark scores, not game-specific Control results, so treat them cautiously — the RTX 4060's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and dedicated ray-tracing hardware matter in a title built around those features, and synthetic averages do not capture that gap. Still, the database's own numbers place these cards as statistically similar overall performers.

FAQ

Q: Can the RTX 4060 run Control at 4K?

A: Yes, but only on Low settings, where it averages 72.6 FPS. Medium (49.3 FPS), High (43.9 FPS), and Ultra (38.1 FPS) all fall short of the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Does this build run Control at max settings at 1440p?

A: Almost. Ultra averages 59.9 FPS — a hair under the 60 FPS bar — while High averages 65.5 FPS and is the highest preset that clears it.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 7600 fast enough for Control?

A: The data indicates yes. The CPU ranks in the 78th percentile versus all tested CPUs, and its nearest rivals differ by less than one percent in aggregate score. Nothing in the measured frame rates points to a processor bottleneck.

Q: What frame rate does this combo get at 1080p on Ultra?

A: 78.2 FPS average — a roughly 30% margin above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How does the combo rank against other tested pairings in Control?

A: Rank 2052 out of 3720 tested combinations.

Q: How much does lowering settings help at 4K?

A: Going from Ultra to Low nearly doubles the average frame rate, from 38.1 to 72.6 FPS.

The Verdict

Yes — this PC runs Control, with clear boundaries. At 1920x1080 it is playable on every preset including Ultra at 78.2 FPS. At 2560x1440 it is playable on Low, Medium, and High, with High delivering 65.5 FPS and Ultra missing by the narrowest of margins at 59.9 FPS. At 3840x2160 the verdict narrows to Low settings only, at 72.6 FPS. Buyers targeting a high-refresh 1080p experience or a comfortable 1440p one are well served; buyers demanding a preset-rich 4K experience are not, at least without leaning on upscaling features not covered by these measured figures.

CPU and GPU Roles

The resolution and preset scaling tells the story of which component governs each scenario. At 1080p, the gap between Ultra (78.2) and Low (139.3) is a 1.78x spread — substantial, but far smaller than the equivalent gap at 4K (38.1 to 72.6, a 1.9x spread on a lower baseline). Combined with the very high 1080p Low average, this pattern indicates the GPU is the limiting factor almost everywhere, with the CPU becoming co-limiting only at the least demanding 1080p configurations.

Between resolutions the GPU's dominance is unmistakable. Holding High settings fixed, frame rates fall from 88.4 at 1080p to 65.5 at 1440p to 43.9 at 4K — a 50% drop across the full climb, tracking pixel-count growth almost in lockstep. Holding Low settings fixed, the fall is from 139.3 to 72.6, again roughly halving. If the Ryzen 5 7600 were the constraint, those declines would flatten out at the top end; they do not. The 61st-percentile GPU sets the ceiling, and the 78th-percentile CPU gives it room to do so — which is the healthier of the two imbalance directions for a gaming build, since the CPU will outlast this GPU across future upgrades.