Control

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT and Intel Arc B580 combination delivers a playable experience in Control, but the margin for error narrows significantly as resolution climbs. Benchmark data shows this pairing is fully capable at 1080p, acceptable at 1440p with settings adjustments, and unable to maintain a consistent 60 FPS at 4K. The measured frame rates reveal a system whose performance is heavily dictated by graphics load, with the CPU providing ample headroom.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which produces an average of 60.9 FPS. This is the highest quality option available and it clears the 60 FPS threshold, though with only 0.9 FPS of headroom. For players who prefer a safety margin, dropping to High yields 71.8 FPS, but Ultra remains technically playable.

At 2560x1440, the best playable preset is Medium, averaging 60.8 FPS. This is a notable step down from the 1080p result, as High falls to 55.3 FPS and Ultra drops to 48.7 FPS, both below the playability threshold. Low runs at 86.9 FPS, but Medium offers the best visual quality while still clearing 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The closest is Low at 58.4 FPS, which narrowly misses the target. Medium averages 43.3 FPS, High drops to 34.7 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 32.6 FPS. The verdict data confirms that 4K has no playable settings for this combo, meaning users must either reduce resolution or accept sub-60 FPS performance.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets clearly shows that the GPU is the dominant constraint in Control for this combination. At 1080p, the spread from Low to Ultra is 110.4 FPS down to 60.9 FPS — a 49.5 FPS difference. At 1440p, the same preset range spans 86.9 FPS to 48.7 FPS, a 38.2 FPS gap. At 4K, the range compresses further to 58.4 FPS down to 32.6 FPS, a 25.8 FPS difference.

This pattern indicates that as resolution increases, the GPU becomes progressively more saturated, reducing the relative impact of preset changes. The CPU, an 8-core/16-thread Zen 3 part with a 4.80 GHz boost clock, does not appear to be a limiting factor at any resolution. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect similar frame rates across resolutions at the same preset — but instead, 4K Ultra is roughly half the speed of 1080p Ultra (32.6 vs. 60.9 FPS), confirming that pixel throughput is the limiting resource.

The transition from 1080p to 1440p at Medium settings shows a drop from 79.1 to 60.8 FPS, a 23.1% reduction. Moving from 1440p to 4K at Medium yields 43.3 FPS, a 28.8% further reduction. These diminishing returns are characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the Arc B580's 13.67 TFLOPS and 456.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are being fully utilized. The CPU's 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth and 32 MB of shared L3 cache are sufficient to feed the GPU without introducing frame pacing issues.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 4K with any settings?

A: No. The verdict by resolution shows no playable settings at 3840x2160. The highest average FPS at 4K is 58.4 on Low, which falls short of the 60 FPS threshold. All other presets score lower, from 43.3 on Medium to 32.6 on Ultra.

Q: What is the best preset at 1440p that maintains 60 FPS?

A: Medium is the highest playable setting, averaging 60.8 FPS. High and Ultra both fall below the threshold at 55.3 and 48.7 FPS respectively, while Low runs at 86.9 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for this game at 1080p?

A: The GPU dominates. Frame rates scale strongly with resolution — 110.4 FPS at 1080p Low versus 58.4 FPS at 4K Low — while the CPU's 16 threads provide consistent headroom. The Ryzen 7 5800XT's passmark multithread score of 28053 indicates it is not the bottleneck.

Q: How much performance is lost going from 1080p to 1440p at High settings?

A: The average FPS drops from 71.8 to 55.3, a decline of 16.5 FPS or roughly 23%. This shows the Arc B580's rendering load increases substantially with pixel count.

Q: Does Ultra at 1080p leave any margin for error?

A: Very little. The average is 60.9 FPS, which is just 0.9 FPS above the playable threshold. Any scene with above-average complexity could push this below 60 FPS in practice.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems for Control?

A: It ranks 2844 out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the lower portion of the database. This reflects the GPU's mid-tier positioning rather than any CPU deficiency.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The GPU's nearest rivals, based on average benchmark scores, include the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (deltaPct -0.2), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (deltaPct 0.6), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (deltaPct -0.7). These scores are all within 1% of the Arc B580's average of 23021, meaning systems using these cards would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Control at the same settings. The RTX 2080 and RTX 3080, despite being older architectures, exhibit similar overall performance in synthetic benchmarks, suggesting comparable real-world behavior in this title.

On the CPU side, the Ryzen 7 5800XT's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H with a deltaPct of 0, the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS and Ryzen 7 7840HS both at -0.3, and the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X at 0.6. All four processors produce average scores within 0.6% of the 5800XT's 29879, so swapping to any of these would not meaningfully alter Control's frame rates. The 7840H is essentially a tie, while the 9600X is marginally faster in aggregate benchmarks.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo holds position 2844 out of 3720 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the 76th percentile from the top. This is a modest ranking that aligns with the measured frame rates: the system is clearly capable of running the game smoothly at 1080p and 1440p with tuned settings, but it does not compete with high-end configurations. The GPU's percentileVsAllGpus of 68 and the CPU's percentileVsAllCpus of 81 both contribute to this mid-tier standing. The rank suggests that roughly three-quarters of tested systems outperform this combination in Control, though many of those would require substantially more expensive hardware to achieve that margin.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, but the experience depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, all four presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — are playable, with Ultra averaging 60.9 FPS. This is the definitive "yes" scenario: maximum settings at a standard resolution with acceptable performance. At 2560x1440, the system remains playable on Low and Medium, with Medium at 60.8 FPS as the recommended balance of quality and speed. High and Ultra fall short at 55.3 and 48.7 FPS respectively. At 3840x2160, the answer is no — no preset reaches 60 FPS, and even Low at 58.4 FPS is technically below the threshold. Users with 4K displays should either lower the resolution or accept frame rates in the 30-58 range.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers the following averages:

• Low: 110.4 FPS
• Medium: 79.1 FPS
• High: 71.8 FPS
• Ultra: 60.9 FPS

The progression from Low to Ultra shows a consistent decline, with the largest single step between Low and Medium (31.3 FPS) and a smaller gap between High and Ultra (10.9 FPS). This suggests that Ultra's additional effects are relatively inexpensive compared to the jump from Low to Medium.

At 2560x1440:

• Low: 86.9 FPS
• Medium: 60.8 FPS
• High: 55.3 FPS
• Ultra: 48.7 FPS

Medium to High is the critical transition here, crossing the 60 FPS line. The 5.5 FPS difference between Medium and High is modest, but it pushes the average below playable. Low's 86.9 FPS shows the GPU still has headroom at this resolution when settings are minimized.

At 3840x2160:

• Low: 58.4 FPS
• Medium: 43.3 FPS
• High: 34.7 FPS
• Ultra: 32.6 FPS

Every preset is below 60 FPS, with the gap widening as quality increases. The difference between High and Ultra is only 2.1 FPS, indicating that Ultra's marginal cost is negligible at this resolution — the GPU is already saturated. Low comes closest to playability at 58.4 FPS, but still misses the mark by 1.6 FPS.

No minimum or maximum frame rate data is provided for any resolution, so all analysis relies on average FPS. The absence of min/max values means frame pacing and stutter behavior cannot be assessed from this dataset.