Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 pairing in Control produces a strictly entry-level experience, with the data showing a combo rank of 2789 out of 2888 tested combinations. The benchmark results consistently place this system near the bottom of the performance hierarchy, particularly at higher resolutions where the GPU's limitations become starkly apparent. While the CPU offers strong multi-threaded capabilities, the graphics card acts as a hard ceiling, preventing the system from reaching playable frame rates in most scenarios.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, running on the AMD Socket AM4 platform. It operates at a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boosts up to 4.00 GHz, with a substantial 96 MB of shared L3 cache. This cache configuration is typically beneficial for gaming workloads, but in the context of Control with this specific GPU, the CPU's headroom is largely untapped. The processor's PassMark multithread score of 20363 and single-thread score of 2941 indicate it is more than capable of feeding frames to a faster graphics card, yet the measured FPS data shows the system is rarely, if ever, CPU-limited.

The CPU's performance relative to other processors is solid, holding an 85th percentile ranking against all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 37018 puts it within a tight cluster of rivals: it is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and Intel Core Ultra 5 225, 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450, and 0.3% behind the Intel Core i9-12900T. These deltas are negligible, confirming that the 5500X3D offers competitive processing power. However, in this game, the bottleneck is not computational. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 56 FPS, but at 1080p with High settings, it drops to 36 FPS—a decline that points directly at the GPU rather than the CPU.

The game relies on the CPU for physics, AI, and game logic, and the 5500X3D's specifications—6 cores, 12 threads, and a 4.00 GHz boost—are sufficient for these tasks. The PassMark physics score of 2282 and floating-point math score of 34511 suggest robust processing power for such calculations. Yet, because the GTX 1650 is the limiting factor, the CPU's performance is effectively masked. The 105W TDP and 7 nm process node are relevant for system planning, but they do not influence the measured FPS outcomes. In short, the data shows a processor with ample capability that is being held back by an underpowered graphics solution, making the CPU role largely preparatory rather than decisive in this configuration.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the primary constraint in this pairing. It features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The card's base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and it is built on the Turing architecture with 896 shading units. These specifications are modest for Control, a game that demands significant graphical resources. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 7880 and its 40th percentile ranking against all GPUs highlight its entry-level status. It sits 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750, and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350, while trailing the Intel Arc A310 by 1%.

The GPU's 4 GB VRAM is a critical limitation. At 4K resolution, even with Low settings, the average FPS is 29, which is barely playable in a slow-paced scene but far from smooth. The memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s is insufficient for high-resolution textures, as evidenced by the steep FPS drops when raising settings. For instance, at 1440p, moving from Low (43 FPS) to High (27 FPS) results in a 37% performance loss, and from Low to Ultra (23 FPS) a 47% loss. This pattern indicates that the GPU's shading units and memory subsystem are overwhelmed by the game's visual demands.

The GTX 1650's DirectX 12 score of 35 and DirectX 11 score of 58 in PassMark tests further underscore its limitations with modern APIs. The card's FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is low by contemporary standards, and its lack of dedicated ray tracing cores means any such features would be offloaded to the traditional shaders, likely causing severe performance degradation. The data does not include ray tracing benchmarks, but the standard rasterization results are telling. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 31, and at 4K Ultra it falls to 16 FPS. These numbers confirm that the GTX 1650 is only suitable for lower resolutions and reduced settings in Control.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data across resolutions provides a clear picture of the system's scaling behavior, and the pattern is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS is 56. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 43 FPS, a 23% reduction, and further to 4K Low at 29 FPS, a 48% reduction from 1080p. This scaling is typical of a graphics card that is struggling to fill pixels at higher resolutions, as the CPU's frame generation capability remains constant while the GPU's workload increases exponentially with pixel count.

The drop from 1080p to 4K is more pronounced at higher settings. At High settings, 1080p yields 36 FPS, 1440p yields 27 FPS, and 4K yields 18 FPS—a 50% decrease from 1080p to 4K. At Ultra settings, the numbers are 31 FPS, 23 FPS, and 16 FPS respectively, representing a 48% decrease. The consistency of these percentage drops across settings suggests that the GPU's compute and memory resources are the limiting factor, not the CPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, which is not the case.

The 4K Medium setting provides the only complete data set with min and max FPS: an average of 20 FPS, with minimums of 17 FPS and maximums of 24 FPS. This narrow range indicates that the GPU is operating near its capacity limits, with little headroom for variance. Similarly, at 1440p Medium, the average is 30 FPS with a min of 26 and max of 35, while at 1080p Medium, the average is 40 FPS with a min of 34 and max of 46. The increasing FPS spread at lower resolutions hints at occasional CPU involvement, but the overall trend is dominated by GPU throughput. The data strongly suggests that upgrading the graphics card would yield significant performance gains, while the CPU would likely remain underutilized.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 2789 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 3.4% of all systems tested, indicating that it is one of the least performant configurations for this title. The rank reflects the overall average FPS across all tested settings and resolutions, and the data confirms that this system is not suited for a smooth gaming experience.

The combo's rank is heavily influenced by the GPU's weak standing. While the CPU is in the 85th percentile, the GPU is only in the 40th percentile, and the combination of a strong processor with a weak graphics card results in a poorly balanced system for gaming. The fact that the combo ranks so low despite the CPU's capabilities underscores the importance of the GPU in Control. In contrast, a system with a mid-range GPU and a similar CPU would likely rank significantly higher, as the game's performance is more dependent on graphics processing.

The measured FPS data supports this ranking. At the most common gaming resolution of 1080p, the system only achieves an average of 40 FPS on Medium settings and 36 FPS on High, which is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. At 1440p and 4K, the frame rates are largely unplayable, with averages ranging from 16 to 43 FPS depending on settings. The 2789th rank out of 2888 is a quantitative reflection of these poor results, categorizing this combo as an entry-level or secondary system for Control, not a primary gaming rig.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The FPS measurements are as follows, with exact figures from the data:

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the system achieves its highest frame rates. With Low settings, the average FPS is 56. Medium settings yield an average of 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 and maximum of 46. High settings drop the average to 36 FPS. Ultra settings produce an average of 31 FPS. This resolution is the only one where the system approaches playability, but only at Low and Medium settings.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the performance degrades noticeably. Low settings average 43 FPS. Medium settings average 30 FPS, with a min of 26 and max of 35. High settings average 27 FPS. Ultra settings average 23 FPS. The 1440p results are mostly below the threshold for smooth gameplay, with only the Low setting offering a marginally acceptable frame rate.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the system is not viable for serious play. Low settings average 29 FPS. Medium settings average 20 FPS, with a min of 17 and max of 24. High settings average 18 FPS. Ultra settings average 16 FPS. These numbers are all well below 30 FPS, making the game feel sluggish and unresponsive. The data clearly shows that 4K is out of reach for this hardware combination.

Across all resolutions, the trend is consistent: lowering settings improves FPS, but the gains are insufficient to reach high frame rates at higher resolutions. The maximum FPS recorded is 56 at 1080p Low, and the minimum is 16 at 4K Ultra. The lack of min/max data for most settings suggests that the telemetry was limited, but the average FPS figures are sufficient to characterize the system's performance.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo can achieve in Control?*

A: The highest average FPS is 56, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

*Q: Is this system capable of 4K gaming in Control?*

A: No. At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 29 with Low settings, and it drops to 16 FPS with Ultra settings, making the game unplayable.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D has an average benchmark score of 37018, which is 0.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and Intel Core Ultra 5 225, and 0.2% lower than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 750, and 0.6% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 350, but 1% lower than the Intel Arc A310.

*Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested systems in Control?*

A: The combo ranks 2789 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 3.4% of systems.

Q: At which settings and resolution does the system achieve a 40 FPS average?

A: The system achieves a 40 FPS average at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, which has a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS.