Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB combination delivers playable frame rates in Control at 1080p, but the data shows a steep performance cliff as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 80.7 FPS, which drops to 46.1 FPS at Ultra — a 42.9% reduction. Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset yields 65.3 FPS, while Ultra falls to 36.7 FPS. At 3840x2160, the picture degrades sharply: Low produces 43.3 FPS, Medium 28.4 FPS, High 24.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 21 FPS. This scaling pattern indicates the GPU becomes the limiting component beyond 1080p, as the frame rate penalty from raising settings grows disproportionately at higher resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario in Control. From 1080p Low (80.7 FPS) to 1440p Low (65.3 FPS), the drop is 19.1%, which is consistent with a 77% increase in pixel count — the GPU is already struggling to maintain throughput. The 4K Low result of 43.3 FPS represents a 46.4% decline from 1440p Low, far steeper than the pixel-count increase alone would suggest. This indicates that memory bandwidth and raw shading throughput are saturated early. The RTX 3050’s 192.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 7.127 TFLOPS FP32 performance are simply inadequate for 4K rendering in this title. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 22.3 FPS (from 43.3 to 21), while at 1080p the same settings gap is 34.6 FPS (from 80.7 to 46.1). The narrowing delta at 4K confirms that the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling — lowering settings cannot compensate for the resolution’s demand on the render pipeline.

How This Combo Ranks

In the global benchmark database for Control, this CPU-GPU pairing ranks 1480 out of 1636 tested combinations. That places it in the bottom 9.5% of all tested systems, a poor showing that reflects the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM limitation and modest compute resources. The combo’s percentile position is not surprising given that the RTX 3050 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the Ryzen 5 3600 ranks at the 76th percentile among CPUs. The disparity between the two components’ relative standings highlights the imbalance: the processor is a solid mid-range part, but the graphics card drags the overall result down. For context, the Ryzen 5 3600’s nearest CPU rivals — the Intel Core i5-11400 at 18150 average score (0.1% lower), AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 18101 (0.2% higher), and AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 18158 (0.2% lower) — all sit within a 0.3% performance band, meaning the CPU is not the bottleneck in this pairing. The rank of 1480 out of 1636 is driven almost entirely by the GPU’s inability to feed frames quickly enough at higher settings.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 2 architecture (Matisse), built on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It operates at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and boosts to 4.20 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. In Control, which is primarily a GPU-bound title, the CPU’s role is to maintain a stable frame delivery pipeline. The benchmark results show that even at 1080p Low, where the GPU has the least work, the combo only reaches 80.7 FPS — well below what this processor alone could sustain. The Ryzen 5 3600’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15045 and single-core score of 2124 indicate ample headroom for this game’s physics and logic threads. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 4605 and 4-thread score of 2579 further confirm that the CPU can handle the thread scheduling demands of Control’s action-adventure gameplay. However, the 32 MB shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support (51.2 GB/s bandwidth) are not the limiting factors here; the measured FPS scaling with resolution proves the GPU is the primary constraint. The CPU’s percentile rank of 76 versus the GPU’s 50 percentile makes it clear that upgrading the graphics card would yield far greater gains than swapping the processor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers playable frame rates across all settings: Low averages 80.7 FPS, Medium 61.5 FPS, High 51.3 FPS, and Ultra 46.1 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 19.2 FPS, while Medium to High costs 10.2 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 5.2 FPS — diminishing returns as settings increase. At 2560x1440, the results are: Low 65.3 FPS, Medium 47.2 FPS, High 42.6 FPS, and Ultra 36.7 FPS. The 1440p numbers show a tighter spread between Medium and Ultra (10.5 FPS) compared to 1080p (15.4 FPS), suggesting that the GPU’s memory bandwidth is becoming the binding constraint. At 3840x2160, the frame rates fall below playable thresholds for most settings: Low 43.3 FPS, Medium 28.4 FPS, High 24.5 FPS, and Ultra 21 FPS. The 4K results are consistently below 45 FPS even at Low, making this resolution impractical for smooth gameplay. The data shows that 1080p is the only resolution where the combo can maintain above 60 FPS at Low, and even that requires sacrificing visual quality. The 1440p Low result of 65.3 FPS is the only other configuration exceeding 60 FPS, but it falls to 42.6 FPS at High, which is a marginal experience.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is built on the Ampere architecture (GA107 chip) using Samsung’s 8 nm process. It features 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines, with 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The base clock runs at 1545 MHz with a boost clock of 1740 MHz. Memory is 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 192.0 GB/s bandwidth — a figure that becomes the critical bottleneck in Control at higher resolutions. The GPU’s pixel rate of 55.68 GPixel/s and texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s are modest for modern titles, and the 7.127 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is roughly half of what a mid-range card would offer. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is particularly problematic for Control, which features detailed textures and effects that can exceed this limit at 1440p and 4K, forcing the driver to swap data to slower memory. This explains why the 4K Ultra result drops to 21 FPS — the card is both compute-limited and memory-constrained. The RTX 3050’s 90 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU indicate it is a low-power part, but that efficiency does not translate to high frame rates in this game. The data confirms that the GPU is the limiting component in this combo: the CPU’s benchmark scores are competitive with rivals, yet the measured FPS never exceeds 80.7 FPS even at 1080p Low, which is a GPU-bound ceiling rather than a CPU limitation.