Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and AMD Radeon RX 580 combo represents a pairing from the late 2010s that remains common in older gaming rigs. For a demanding action-adventure title like Control, the data reveals a system that is firmly at its limits, requiring careful settings management to achieve playable frame rates. This analysis breaks down the measured performance across resolutions and presets, and explains where the bottleneck lies.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where this system can consistently hit a playable frame rate, with an average FPS of 63 at Low settings. At 2560x1440, the best average is 48 FPS on Low, and at 3840x2160, even Low settings only yield 32 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals, and does it matter for gaming?

A: The Ryzen 5 2600 has an average benchmark score of 21484, which is 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-11900H. It is 0.7% behind the Intel Xeon D-1746TER. This places it in the 75th percentile of all CPUs, indicating it is a solid mid-range processor, though its performance is not the primary constraint in this title.

Q: What is the GPU's standing relative to other graphics cards?

A: The RX 580's average benchmark score is 12928, which is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile and 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER. It sits in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, showing it is an average performer by modern standards. This makes it the component most likely to limit frame rates in Control.

Q: Is there a difference between the average FPS and the minimum FPS at Medium settings?

A: Yes, the data shows a notable drop from average to minimum FPS. For example, at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average is 45 FPS, but the minimum FPS is 38. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average is 34 FPS with a minimum of 29 FPS. This indicates occasional stutters or frame drops during intense scenes.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: The difference is substantial. At 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average of 63 FPS, while Ultra settings produce an average of 35 FPS. This is a 28 FPS drop, or about 44% fewer frames, which is a significant trade-off for higher visual fidelity.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested configurations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 3399 out of 3720 tested combinations. This places it in the lower 8.6% of all tested systems, indicating that it is a below-average performer for Control specifically, likely due to the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is the decisive component in this pairing for Control. With 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, it provides a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1257 MHz and a boost clock of 1340 MHz, with the memory running at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). These specifications define the raw capacity for rendering the game's effects.

The benchmark results show that the GPU's performance ceiling is the main limiting factor. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average FPS is a mere 20. This drops further to 18 FPS on Ultra, indicating that the GPU is overwhelmed by the pixel count and graphical load. Even dropping to Low settings at 4K only raises the average to 32 FPS, which is still far from smooth. The RX 580's 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is simply insufficient for 4K in a title like Control.

The GPU's VRAM capacity, while generous at 8 GB, does not appear to be the primary issue; rather, it is the raw shader throughput and texture rate that bottleneck performance. The GPU's texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 42.88 GPixel/s are not enough to sustain high frame rates at demanding resolutions. The data suggests that the CPU, while older, is not the main constraint. The Ryzen 5 2600's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient to feed the GPU at lower resolutions, but at 4K, the GPU runs out of processing power long before the CPU becomes a factor.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 63 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same settings drops the average to 48 FPS, a reduction of 15 FPS or about 23.8%. At 3840x2160, the average falls to 32 FPS, a further drop of 16 FPS from 1440p.

This scaling behavior is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario. The relative performance drop from 1080p to 4K is steep, with the frame rate falling by roughly half (from 63 to 32 FPS at Low settings). This indicates that the GPU is doing most of the heavy lifting, and its performance is inversely proportional to the number of pixels being rendered. The CPU's role becomes less significant as resolution increases, because the GPU takes longer to complete each frame, giving the CPU more time to prepare the next one.

The pattern holds across all settings. At High settings, the average FPS goes from 40 at 1080p to 30 at 1440p to 20 at 4K. The consistent drop of roughly 10 FPS for each resolution step-up suggests a linear relationship between pixel count and render time, further confirming that the RX 580 is the limiting component. For a user aiming for 60 FPS, the data indicates that 1080p is the only viable target, and even then, only with lower settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and AMD Radeon RX 580 ranks 3399 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. This places it in the 91st percentile from the bottom, or the lower 8.6% of all systems. This is a poor ranking, indicating that most other hardware pairings tested will deliver better performance in this specific game.

This low rank is primarily attributable to the GPU's age and performance tier. The RX 580 is in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, meaning roughly half of the graphics cards tested are faster. When combined with a CPU that is in the 75th percentile, the GPU becomes the clear weak link. The benchmark scores for the CPU suggest it is not a major hindrance, as it is competitive with newer processors like the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V. However, the GPU's score is only comparable to mobile parts like the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, which are less powerful than their desktop counterparts.

The rank of 3399 out of 3720 is a stark indicator that this system is not well-suited for Control at high settings or resolutions. It is a pairing that was likely built for 1080p gaming from a previous era, and the game's demands exceed what the GPU can deliver. Users with this combo should expect to make significant compromises in visual quality to achieve playable performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system's capabilities across all settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the system achieves its best results. Low settings produce an average of 63 FPS. Medium settings yield an average of 45 FPS, with a minimum of 38 FPS and a maximum of 51 FPS. High settings drop the average to 40 FPS, and Ultra settings bring it down further to 35 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates take a significant hit. Low settings deliver an average of 48 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 34 FPS, with a minimum of 29 FPS and a maximum of 39 FPS. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra settings average 26 FPS. None of these results are consistently smooth for a game like Control, which features fast-paced combat and physics-heavy environments.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to remain playable. Low settings yield an average of 32 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 23 FPS, with a minimum of 19 FPS and a maximum of 26 FPS. High settings drop the average to 20 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 18 FPS. These numbers are below the threshold for a responsive experience, making 4K gaming impractical with this hardware.

The data shows a clear gradient: 1080p is usable, 1440p is marginal, and 4K is not viable. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 28 FPS, which is significant. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 14 FPS, but both are so low that the difference is less meaningful.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which produces an average of 63 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches a solid 60 FPS target, providing a smooth and responsive experience for gameplay. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 18 FPS (from 63 to 45), which is a substantial loss for a modest visual improvement.

If a user prefers higher visual fidelity, 1920x1080 with Medium settings is the next best option, averaging 45 FPS. While not a locked 60 FPS, it is playable, and the minimum FPS of 38 suggests that dips are not catastrophic. However, High and Ultra settings at 1080p, which average 40 and 35 FPS respectively, are less desirable as they push the system into a range where frame pacing can become inconsistent.

At higher resolutions, the data suggests that Low settings are the only reasonable choice. At 2560x1440, Low yields 48 FPS, which is borderline playable but will have noticeable frame rate dips. Medium at 1440p averages 34 FPS, which is below the preferred threshold for smooth play. At 3840x2160, no settings are recommended, as even Low averages only 32 FPS, which is too low for a game requiring precision and quick reactions.

In summary, the best experience is achieved by prioritizing frame rate over visual details. The recommended preset is Low at 1080p. If the user can tolerate a lower frame rate, Medium at 1080p offers a balanced compromise, but the data clearly shows that this hardware is best suited for 1080p gaming with reduced settings.