Control

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 580 lands at rank 3394 out of 3720 tested combinations in Control. That places this configuration in the bottom 9% of the database, a position that reflects a severe GPU bottleneck for a game that demands substantial graphics throughput. The ranking is not a statement about the CPU, which sits in the 78th percentile among all processors, but rather about the pairing's overall ability to drive this specific title at acceptable frame rates.

The CPU itself is a strong performer in general compute tasks, with an average benchmark score of 25517. Its nearest rivals in the processor database include the Intel Xeon D-2752TER at 25530 (0.1% faster), the AMD Ryzen 5 6600H at 25550 (0.1% faster), the AMD Ryzen 5 7640U at 25485 (0.1% slower), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5825U at 25446 (0.3% slower). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning the Ryzen 7 5700 is effectively interchangeable with those parts for CPU-bound workloads.

The GPU, however, is a different story. The RX 580 sits in the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 12928. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile at 12940 (0.1% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER at 12986 (0.4% faster), the AMD Radeon 740M at 12870 (0.5% slower), and the AMD FirePro W5100 at 12847 (0.6% slower). The RX 580's performance class is therefore well below what Control demands at higher settings, and the combination's low rank reflects that constraint.

The measured frame rates confirm this assessment. At no resolution does this combo deliver a playable experience at medium or higher settings, and only at 1920x1080 with Low settings does it cross the 60 FPS threshold. The data indicates a system that can run the game, but only under the least demanding configuration.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best recorded result is at Low settings with an average of 32.8 FPS, which falls far short of playable. High, Medium, and Ultra settings produce 19.3, 20.7, and 20.9 FPS respectively, all of which are below 35 FPS and effectively unplayable for a fast-paced action game.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves marginally but remains below the threshold. Low settings yield 51.1 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution, but it still misses the 60 FPS target by nearly 9 frames. Medium settings drop to 32.6 FPS, High to 28.8 FPS, and Ultra to 23.9 FPS. None of these configurations can be recommended for smooth gameplay.

At 1920x1080, the combo finally finds a playable configuration. Low settings achieve 60.3 FPS on average, just barely clearing the 60 FPS bar. This is the only preset at any resolution that reaches the playable threshold. Medium settings produce 47.4 FPS, High drops to 42.8 FPS, and Ultra falls to 35.8 FPS. The verdict is clear: this system runs Control at 1080p only when visual quality is set to its lowest level.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data shows a system where the GPU is the dominant limiting factor at every resolution. The CPU's 16 threads and 8 cores provide ample processing power for Control's physics and AI workloads, but the RX 580's 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth are simply insufficient for the game's rendering demands at higher presets.

The scaling between resolutions illustrates this imbalance. At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver 60.3 FPS, but moving to 2560x1440 at the same preset drops the average to 51.1 FPS, a 15.3% reduction. Pushing further to 3840x2160 at Low yields 32.8 FPS, a 45.6% drop from the 1080p result. This steep degradation as pixel count rises is characteristic of a GPU-bound system, where the renderer must process increasingly more fragments with the same shading resources.

Preset scaling within a resolution tells the same story. At 1920x1080, going from Low to Medium reduces performance by 21.4% (60.3 to 47.4 FPS), Low to High by 29.0% (60.3 to 42.8 FPS), and Low to Ultra by 40.6% (60.3 to 35.8 FPS). The consistent and substantial penalties for each quality increase indicate that the GPU's shading units and texture units are saturated, not the CPU's processing cores.

At higher resolutions, the preset scaling becomes even more pronounced relative to the already low baseline. At 2560x1440, Ultra settings produce 23.9 FPS versus 51.1 FPS at Low, a 53.2% penalty. At 3840x2160, the gap narrows in absolute terms because even Low settings are severely constrained, with Ultra at 20.9 FPS versus Low at 32.8 FPS, a 36.3% penalty. The pattern consistently points to the RX 580 as the bottleneck, with the Ryzen 7 5700 showing no signs of limiting performance in this title.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU side, the Ryzen 7 5700's nearest rivals all fall within 0.3% of its average benchmark score. The Intel Xeon D-2752TER and AMD Ryzen 5 6600H are marginally faster at 25530 and 25550 respectively, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7640U and AMD Ryzen 7 5825U are slightly slower at 25485 and 25446. In practical terms, swapping to any of these processors would produce no measurable difference in Control's frame rates, as the game is not CPU-limited with this GPU.

The GPU's nearest rivals are more relevant for understanding the combo's behavior. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is 0.4% faster than the RX 580, meaning it would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Control. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 0.1% faster, also effectively a match. On the slower side, the AMD Radeon 740M is 0.5% slower and the AMD FirePro W5100 is 0.6% slower. None of these alternatives would change the fundamental verdict: this performance class cannot push Control past 60 FPS at 1080p with medium or higher settings.

The practical takeaway is that any of these near-identical components would reproduce the same experience. A user upgrading from an RX 580 to a GTX 1660 SUPER would see no meaningful FPS improvement, and a user downgrading to a Radeon 740M would lose only a fraction of a percent. The entire performance neighborhood sits within a narrow band, and Control's requirements place that band squarely below the playable threshold except at the lowest settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded averages are 19.3 FPS at High, 32.8 FPS at Low, 20.7 FPS at Medium, and 20.9 FPS at Ultra. The spread between the best and worst presets is 13.5 FPS, with Low standing out as the only configuration above 30 FPS. The min and max values are not recorded in the database, so the analysis relies on averages alone.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 28.8 FPS at High, 51.1 FPS at Low, 32.6 FPS at Medium, and 23.9 FPS at Ultra. Low settings again lead the pack, but the gap to 60 FPS remains substantial at 8.9 FPS. Medium and High both fall in the high-20s to low-30s range, while Ultra drops below 24 FPS, which would be noticeable as stutter in action sequences.

At 1920x1080, the averages are 42.8 FPS at High, 60.3 FPS at Low, 47.4 FPS at Medium, and 35.8 FPS at Ultra. This is the only resolution where any preset clears the 60 FPS threshold, and it does so by a slim 0.3 FPS margin. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline, with each step up in quality costing roughly 5 to 12 FPS. The data suggests that even at 1080p, the system has no headroom for additional graphical features or future patches that might increase rendering load.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, but only under very specific conditions. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: at 3840x2160 and 2560x1440, there are no playable settings, meaning no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. At 1920x1080, the only playable configuration is Low settings, which delivers 60.3 FPS on average.

The practical assessment is that the AMD Radeon RX 580 is the limiting component. The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 provides more than enough CPU performance, as evidenced by its 78th percentile ranking and strong multi-threaded scores, but the GPU's 53rd percentile standing and 6.175 TFLOPS of compute throughput cannot keep pace with Control's rendering demands at higher quality levels. Users who want to play this game with this hardware must accept 1080p at Low settings, and even then the 60.3 FPS average leaves little margin for demanding scenes or prolonged play sessions. For 1440p or 4K output, this combination is not viable for Control, regardless of preset selection. The data recommends this combo only for users who prioritize resolution over visual fidelity at 1080p, or who are willing to accept sub-60 FPS performance at higher quality settings.