Control

Control is an unusual benchmark target: its physics-heavy combat, destructible environments, and dramatic particle effects push low-end graphics hardware to its limits. For the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 configuration, the measured data paints a clear picture. Across the entire resolution/preset matrix, this combo never delivers a locked 60 FPS at any setting, and even the most favorable combination (1080p Low) averages only 56 frames per second. The pair lands at position 3588 out of 3720 tested results, confirming that this is an entry-level setup for a demanding action-adventure game. The data tells a story of a CPU that is more than capable, paired with a GPU that struggles under 4K and high-quality presets. The GTX 1650 is used in CUDA 17035, but that's the CPU's average benchmark score—the real story lies in the measured frame rates.

FAQ

Q: Can this CPU+GPU combo reach 60 FPS in Control?

A: No. The highest average FPS recorded across all tested settings and resolutions is 56, at 1080p with the Low preset. Even with the graphics turned down, 60 FPS is not achieved. The next step down, Medium, drops to 40 average FPS.

Q: What preset gives the most playable experience at 1080p?

A: The Low preset at 1080p yields an average of 56 FPS. The Medium preset dips to 40 avg FPS, with min and max of 34 and 46. High averages 36 FPS, and Ultra just 31. If the target is a smooth near-60 FPS play, Low is the only viable option.

Q: How does the performance scale from 1080p to 1440p?

A: Using the Low preset, 1080p gives 56 FPS, while 1440p Low yields 43 FPS—a drop of 16 frames. The other presets see similar drops: Medium goes from 40 to 30, High from 36 to 27, and Ultra from 31 to 23. The difference of roughly 13–16 FPS is consistent for every preset, indicating a major GPU bottleneck as pixel count increases.

Q: What is the maximum resolution the GTX 1650 can handle in Control?

A: At 4K, even the lowest preset averages only 29 FPS, with Medium at 20, High at 18, and Ultra at 16. None of these are in the playable range. The GPU also has only 4 GB of VRAM, so high-resolution textures are a concern.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score across all tests is 7472. This is 0.2% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (which scores 7447), 0.3% above the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441), and 0.4% above the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425). It is 1% behind the Intel Arc A310 (7550). This puts the GTX 1650 near the bottom of the general-purpose GPU ranking, consistent with its 40th percentile standing.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the bottleneck in Control?

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU, a 6-core Ryzen 5 3600, has a 4.2 GHz boost and scores 2124 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is a solid processor. Yet in this game, frame rates drop sharply with each increase in resolution and quality preset, a klassische signature of graphics-card limits. The GPU's average benchmark score of 7472 places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU sits in the 71st percentile, so the 3600 has ample compute headroom for the 1650.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data restricts playable options. At 1080p, only the Low preset approaches a consistent 60 FPS, with an average of 56 (no minimum or maximum reported). The Medium preset gives 40 avg with a floor of 34 and a ceiling of 46; High averages 36; Ultra averages 31. Because a competitive shooter feels best around 60 FPS, the Low preset is the most balanced choice. A player willing to accept frame rates in the 40–50 range could consider Medium, but the -6 FPS w.h.p. (compared to Low) is a significant trade-off for better visuals in a story-driven action title. Yet if you insist on 40 FPS average, Medium is still above the 30-threshold, but the frame time distribution—min 34, max 46—will feel stable enough.

At 1440p, the situation worsens. Low yields 43 FPS, which is genuinely playable for this game, while Medium gives 30 and High 27. For a 1440p monitor, Low is the only setting that barely clears 40 FPS, so that becomes the target. At 4K, no setting reaches 30 FPS: Low is 29, Medium 20, High 18, Ultra 16. 4K is not realistically playable on this GPU.

Therefore, the recommended preset for this pairing is Low at 1080p, with a secondary choice of 1440p Low (for those with a higher-resolution monitor). The CPU is not the reason to lower settings; the frame rate collapses with resolution increases because of the GPU hanging only 2GB. For users who want a smoother overall experience, lowering render scale or unlocking the framerate to 60 on cebless will not change the underlying CPU/GPU balance.

Resolution Scaling

The table shows how frame rate changes with render resolution, holding a single preset constant. At the Low preset, ascending from 1080p (56 FPS) to 1440p (43) loses 13 FPS, and to 4K (29) loses an additional 14 FPS. Every other preset shows the same pattern: Medium – 40, 30, and 37 (a 10 FPS drop to 1440p, then a 10 FPS drop to 4K); High – 36, 27, 18 (9 and 9 FPS drops); Ultra – 31, 23, 16 (8 and 7 drops). The reduction in FPS per resolution step is nearly constant across all presets, which is typical of a GPU bound stage. The CPU does not magically become slower at 4K; the frame rate drop is directly proportional to the doubling of pixel count (1080p → 1440p is 1.7× pixels; the drop fraction is 13/56 ≈ 23%, and 1080p→4K is 4× pixels, dropping by 27/56 ≈ 48%). Those numbers are mental math; the raw data is what matters. Ultimately, the GTX 1650 is limited by its fillrate (53.28 GPixel/s) and texture (93.24 GTexel/s), which scale directly with load.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured results are comprehensive. For clarity, they are grouped by resolution and settings:

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 3840×2160 | High | 18 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 29 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 20 | 17 | 24 |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 16 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | High | 27 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 43 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 30 | 26 | 35 |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 23 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | High | 36 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Low | 56 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 40 | 34 | 46 |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 31 | – | – |

The only columns with min/max data come from the Medium in all three resolutions. At 1080p, Medium hit a minimum of 34 and maximum of 46, while at 1440p the min fell to 26 and the max to 35; at 4K it dropped further to 17/24. This pattern continues the narrative of heavy, frame time variance. For all other presets, the average alone is reported. Even without the min/max, the gap between presets grows as resolution increases: at 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 25 FPS (56 vs 31); at 1440p it is 20 FPS (43 vs 23); at 4K it is 13 FPS (29 vs 16). The absolute cost of raising settings shrinks as resolution rises, but the absolute performance stays too low to be comfortable.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture chip (TU117) built on a 12nm process and pushing a 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 rate. It carries 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The base clock is 1485 MHz and the boost 1665 MHz; memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The shading units count 896, with 56 texture units and 32 ROPs, giving a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. These are all conservative numbers for a 75W card.

These specifications directly explain the measured frame rates. At 1080p Low, the card can push 56 FPS, but the texture rate and pixel fill become a massive constraint at higher settings. The 4K results are bright: a 4K Ultra frames of 16 FPS is near impossible because the GPU can only output 53.28 pixels per second per frame. The tiny 4 GB capacity also means texture pop-in and stutter are likely at 4K, though such details are not in the dataset. The card's overall G3D benchmark score is 7880 (PassMark), but in Control the real-world performance aligns with that score: slightly above entry-level, far below mid-range. The GTX 1650's percentile against all GPUs is 40, close to the border of average/below-average, and the measured 29 FPS at 4K Low aligns with that. In fact, the nearest rival on average benchmark is the Intel Arc A310 (with -1 delta), which likely behaves similarly in this title. However, this game prioritizes pixel throughput, which is notably high on the card for 4K (needs 3840×2160×1.5×0.8 ≈ 8.3 million pixels per frame), but the GTX 1650 is too weak to keep up.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is a 6-core, 12-thread unit with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and boost to 4.20 GHz. It's built on TSMC's 7nm process, which explains its low 65 W TDP. The L3 cache is 32 MB shared across all cores, and it supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. At launch, this CPU set the bar for mainstream gaming, but in the Control scenario, its performance is more than enough to feed the GTX 1650. The CPU's average benchmark score (17035) is in the 71st percentile of all CPU models, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 15045, single-core 2124. In the nearest-rival table, it is essentially tied with the Intel Core i7-1260P and i5-11400, within 0.2% of each. These scores indicate sustained multi-thread compression at a level that a modern game could not push to the limit.

In Control, which is well-threaded for its RT-use, the 6-core / 12-thread configuration can handle all background tasks without dragging framerates. The data suggests that at 1080p Low, the 56 FPS is likely still GPU-starvation because lowering the resolution does not increase the FPS proportionally (1080p→1440p). If the CPU were a constraint, lowering the resolution would increase FPS significantly, but that is not the case; the FPS drop from 56 to 43 aligns with a GPU-side fillrate limit. The CPU’s boost clock of 4.2 GHz and single-core score of 2124 (Cinebench R23) ensure that it only needs to hit about 40 frames at 1440p – matching the observed 43. There is no marking that the CPU bottlenecks at any of the tested settings. That leaves the GPU as the absolute constraint. Therefore, in this combination, upgrade the GPU before even considering the CPU. The Ryzen 5 3600 is still a viable partner for cards up twice its size, but paired with a GTX 1650, it is "over" not abusing the CPU.