Control

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 combination delivers a compelling Control experience, with the data showing that 1440p and 1080p are fully playable at maximum settings, while 4K requires a settings reduction to maintain smooth performance. This pairing ranks 1573rd out of 3720 tested combinations for this game, placing it in the upper half of all systems, and the benchmark results confirm that the RTX 3070 is the primary performance gate at higher resolutions, while the Ryzen 9 9900X provides ample headroom for high frame rates.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Ryzen 9 9900X sits in a performance tier where its nearest rivals are enterprise and high-end desktop parts, with the data showing minimal separation between them. The AMD EPYC 9015 scores 57555 in aggregate benchmarks, which is just 0.1% lower than the 9900X's 57498 average, making it a near-identical performer for CPU-bound tasks. Similarly, the AMD EPYC 7313 scores 57399, a 0.2% delta, while the Intel Core i9-14900 posts 58115, putting it 1.1% ahead, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M reaches 58323, which is 1.4% higher. These differences are all within a couple of percentage points, meaning that for Control, where the CPU is rarely the bottleneck, any of these processors would produce nearly identical frame rates when paired with the same GPU.

On the graphics side, the RTX 3070's nearest rivals show a tighter clustering of scores. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT achieves an average score of 17083, which is just 0.7% behind the RTX 3070's 17208, making it a direct substitute for rasterized performance in this game. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 scores 17037, a 1% delta, while the AMD Radeon HD 7970M posts 17019, a 1.1% difference. Interestingly, the NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17468, which is 1.5% higher than the RTX 3070, though that is a compute-focused card not intended for gaming. For practical purposes, the RX 7600 XT is the only realistic rival among these for a gaming system, and the measured FPS would likely be within a few frames of the RTX 3070 across all settings in Control. The GTX 690 and HD 7970M are much older architectures, so despite similar synthetic scores, their real-world gaming performance could differ due to driver support and feature limitations, though the benchmark data does not capture those differences.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals a clear shift in component importance as resolution changes. At 1080p, the system achieves 161.6 FPS on Low settings, dropping to 100.4 FPS on High and 88.4 FPS on Ultra. This relatively small spread between presets at the same resolution suggests that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU enough data to maintain high frame rates, but the GPU still limits the absolute ceiling. The Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 12 cores and 24 threads, shows no signs of bottlenecking even at 161.6 FPS, as that is well within the capabilities of its 32172 multi-core Cinebench R23 score.

Moving to 1440p, the scaling becomes more pronounced. Low settings yield 120.9 FPS, High drops to 78.9 FPS, and Ultra settles at 66.3 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is roughly 45%, which is larger than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is starting to bear more load. At 4K, the trend accelerates dramatically: Low produces 82.4 FPS, Medium drops to 56 FPS, High is 53.2 FPS, and Ultra falls to 46.2 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is nearly 44%, but more importantly, the absolute values show that the RTX 3070's 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are strained by 4K texture loads.

The resolution scaling data confirms that the RTX 3070 is the dominant factor at 1440p and above. The CPU's 3DMark single-thread score of 1286 and multi-thread score of 13929 (max threads) indicate it can handle the game's physics and AI calculations without issue, but the GPU's shading units (5888) and 46 ray tracing cores determine how quickly pixels are rendered. At 1080p, the CPU matters more because frame rates are high enough that any CPU hiccup could cause stutters, but the data shows consistent performance. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, as the frame rate drops by 56% from Low to Ultra, while the CPU workload remains relatively constant.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with playable frame rates?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, where the average FPS is 82.4. Medium drops to 56 FPS, High to 53.2 FPS, and Ultra to 46.2 FPS, all below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

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

A: Ultra settings are playable at 1440p with an average of 66.3 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. High (78.9 FPS) and Medium (84.6 FPS) also work, but Ultra provides the highest visual quality.

Q: How does the RTX 3070 compare to its nearest rival in this game?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT scores 0.7% lower in synthetic benchmarks, suggesting near-identical frame rates in Control. The GTX 690 and HD 7970M are within 1-1.1%, but their older architectures may not handle modern features as well.

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

A: At 1080p, the system reaches 161.6 FPS on Low and 88.4 FPS on Ultra, showing that the GPU limits high settings. The CPU's performance is sufficient, as evidenced by its 4672 single-thread PassMark score, but the GPU's 20.31 TFLOPS FP32 performance is the deciding factor.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 4K with High settings?

A: The average is 53.2 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. To hit 60 FPS at 4K, you must use Low settings, which deliver 82.4 FPS.

Q: Does Ultra settings at 1440p provide a smooth experience?

A: Yes, with an average of 66.3 FPS, it stays above the 60 FPS threshold, though there is less headroom compared to High (78.9 FPS) or Medium (84.6 FPS).

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, and the verdict is clear: 1080p and 1440p are fully playable at the highest preset, while 4K requires a significant settings compromise. At 1920x1080, Ultra settings deliver an average of 88.4 FPS, well above the 60 FPS threshold, and even the most demanding preset provides a comfortable margin. At 2560x1440, Ultra is still playable at 66.3 FPS, which clears the threshold but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes. The 4K resolution is the only problem area: Ultra dips to 46.2 FPS, High to 53.2 FPS, and Medium to 56 FPS, all below 60 FPS. Only Low settings at 4K achieve 82.4 FPS, making it the sole playable preset at that resolution.

The data indicates that the RTX 3070's 8 GB VRAM and bandwidth are the limiting factors at 4K, as the CPU has ample performance headroom. For the best experience, stick to 1440p Ultra, which balances visual fidelity with a playable frame rate, or drop to 1080p Ultra for maximum smoothness. The system is not capable of 4K Ultra at 60 FPS, so users must choose between resolution and settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates. Low settings produce 161.6 FPS average, Medium achieves 111.7 FPS, High reaches 100.4 FPS, and Ultra settles at 88.4 FPS. All presets are well above the 60 FPS threshold, with even Ultra providing nearly 50% more FPS than needed.

At 2560x1440, performance remains strong but shows more variation. Low settings yield 120.9 FPS, Medium drops to 84.6 FPS, High is 78.9 FPS, and Ultra is 66.3 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 54.6 FPS, indicating that the GPU is being taxed more heavily at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain 60 FPS except at the lowest preset. Low settings average 82.4 FPS, which is playable, but Medium falls to 56 FPS, High to 53.2 FPS, and Ultra to 46.2 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 26.4 FPS drop, the largest single-step decline in the entire dataset, highlighting the VRAM pressure at 4K. No min or max FPS data is available, so the average values represent the full picture.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 88.4 FPS. This provides the best visual quality while maintaining a comfortable margin above the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, Ultra is also the best playable setting, averaging 66.3 FPS. While this is above 60 FPS, the margin is smaller than at 1080p, so users may prefer High (78.9 FPS) for extra headroom in action-heavy sequences.

At 3840x2160, Low is the only playable preset, with an average of 82.4 FPS. Medium (56 FPS), High (53.2 FPS), and Ultra (46.2 FPS) all fall below 60 FPS. This means 4K gamers must sacrifice visual fidelity to achieve smooth performance, accepting lower texture quality and reduced effects to maintain playability.