Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination delivers a compelling 1080p and 1440p experience in Control, with 4K remaining a viable option at adjusted settings. The data reveals a system where the GPU is the clear performance driver, while the six-core CPU provides ample headroom to avoid bottlenecking at lower resolutions.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F is built on the Zen 3 architecture (Vermeer) and features 6 cores and 12 threads. Its base clock is 3.00 GHz with a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. This configuration is well-suited for a title like Control, which is an Action Adventure game that typically relies on a balanced mix of single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks. The CPU’s 32 MB of shared L3 cache is a notable asset, allowing for efficient data access that can benefit game logic and physics calculations.

Benchmark data positions this CPU in the 85th percentile of all processors, indicating strong overall performance. Its Passmark single-thread score of 2872 and multithread score of 19236 suggest that it can handle the demands of modern game engines without becoming the primary constraint. In the measured FPS data for Control, the CPU’s role becomes apparent when examining the scaling from 1080p to 4K. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 187 FPS, which is a very high frame rate that demonstrates the CPU’s ability to feed frames quickly.

As resolution increases, the performance ceiling drops, which is a classic sign of the GPU taking over as the limiting factor. However, the CPU’s capability is clearly sufficient to keep up with the RX 9070 XT at 1080p, as evidenced by the 187 FPS result. The processor’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (deltaPct 0) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (deltaPct -0.2), showing that it sits in a competitive performance tier. The data implies that for this specific game, the 5600F provides a solid foundation, but its exact core count and clock speed are less critical to the final frame rate than the graphics card’s output.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the dominant component in this pairing. It is based on the RDNA 4.0 architecture and features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a substantial memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s. This large VRAM pool is more than sufficient for Control’s textures and effects at any resolution, ensuring that memory capacity is not a limiting factor. The GPU’s boost clock is rated at 2970 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz, which contributes to its high compute throughput.

The GPU’s raw specifications include 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. Its FP32 performance is rated at 48.66 TFLOPS, which is a strong indicator of its rasterization power. The measured frame rates in Control reflect this power. At 1080p Ultra, the system averages 106 FPS, and at 1440p Ultra, it averages 80 FPS. These are excellent results for a visually demanding game with high-quality settings.

Interestingly, the GPU’s benchmark percentile is 55, and its nearest rivals include much older cards like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 and AMD Radeon HD 7770M. This is an artifact of the averaging method used for the general benchmark score, which includes compute workloads that may not represent gaming performance. The in-game data, however, tells a different story, showing the RX 9070 XT to be a high-performance part. The 16 GB of VRAM is particularly important for 4K gaming, where the 3840x2160 High preset still averages 62 FPS, indicating that memory bandwidth and capacity are not bottlenecks at this resolution.

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. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 187 FPS at 1080p to 146 FPS at 1440p and then to 98 FPS at 4K. This represents a 47.6% decrease from 1080p to 4K. For the High preset, the drop is from 122 FPS at 1080p to 92 FPS at 1440p and 62 FPS at 4K, a 49.2% decrease. At Ultra settings, the numbers go from 106 FPS at 1080p to 80 FPS at 1440p and 54 FPS at 4K, a 49.1% decrease.

The consistency of this ~49% drop across different presets is a strong indicator that the GPU is the primary limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller performance gap between 1080p and 1440p, as the CPU load would remain constant while the GPU load increases. Instead, the frame rate scales almost linearly with the number of pixels, which is a classic GPU-bound scenario. The fact that the frame rate at 1080p Low (187 FPS) is so high also suggests that the CPU is not holding the system back, as it is capable of processing the game logic fast enough to allow the GPU to render at very high speeds.

The data implies that for users with high-refresh-rate 1080p monitors, this combo will deliver a fluid experience, while for 4K, users will need to adjust settings to achieve their desired frame rate. The performance drop from Medium to Ultra at each resolution is also notable, with Ultra costing roughly 22-23% of the frame rate compared to Medium. This indicates that the Ultra preset includes demanding effects that have a significant performance cost.

FAQ

Q: What is the average frame rate at 1440p with High settings?

A: The system achieves an average of 92 FPS at 2560x1440 resolution with the High preset.

Q: How does the 1080p Ultra performance compare to the 4K Ultra performance?

A: At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 106, while at 4K Ultra, it drops to 54 FPS. This represents a 49.1% decrease in performance.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the bottleneck in this game?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the limiting component. The frame rate scales almost linearly with resolution, dropping by ~49% from 1080p to 4K, which is a classic sign of a GPU-bound workload.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 1440p Medium settings?

A: The minimum FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings is 88 FPS.

Q: Does the 16 GB VRAM of the RX 9070 XT cause any issues at 4K?

A: No. The system achieves 62 FPS at 4K High and 98 FPS at 4K Low, indicating that the 16 GB VRAM capacity and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for this game at 4K.

Q: How does the CPU's benchmark score compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Ryzen 5 5600F has an average benchmark score of 36945, which is nearly identical to the Intel Core Ultra 5 225, which scores 36938, representing a 0% deltaPct.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific configuration ranks 715 out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the top 24.8% of all systems tested for this game. This ranking reflects a high-performance pairing that is well-suited for the game’s demands. The rank suggests that while there are many faster combinations, this setup is significantly more capable than the majority of systems in the database.

The high ranking is likely driven by the RX 9070 XT’s strong raw performance, which is demonstrated by its ability to maintain high frame rates even at 4K. The Ryzen 5 5600F, while not the top-tier CPU, provides enough processing power to avoid being a significant drag on performance. The combination of a strong GPU and a competent CPU places this system in the upper quartile of all tested configurations for Control. This is a notable result, as it shows that a mid-range CPU paired with a high-end GPU can produce an excellent gaming experience without requiring a flagship processor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact average frame rates recorded for each resolution and settings preset.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

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

| 3840x2160 | High | 62 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 98 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 70 | 59 | 80 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 54 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 92 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 146 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 103 | 88 | 119 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 80 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 122 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 187 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 137 | 116 | 157 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 106 | - | - |

The data shows a consistent performance hierarchy. At each resolution, the Low preset offers the highest frame rate, followed by High, Medium, and then Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is substantial, often exceeding 40% of the frame rate. For instance, at 1080p, there is a 81 FPS difference between Low and Ultra. The Medium preset consistently provides a balanced option, with minimum FPS values that stay within a reasonable range of the average.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings depend on the user’s display resolution and refresh rate. For 1080p displays, the High preset at 122 FPS is an excellent choice for a smooth and visually rich experience. It offers a significant step up in visual quality over Medium (137 FPS) with only a moderate frame rate cost. For users with 144Hz or higher refresh rate monitors, the Low preset at 187 FPS will maximize smoothness, but the visual compromise may be too great for a game like Control, which has a strong atmospheric presentation.

At 1440p, the High preset at 92 FPS is the sweet spot. It provides a great balance of visual fidelity and performance, easily clearing the 60 FPS threshold for a fluid experience. The Ultra preset at 80 FPS is also viable for those who prioritize image quality over maximum frame rates. The Medium preset at 103 FPS is a good alternative for those who want a higher frame rate buffer or are using a 100Hz+ monitor.

For 4K, the High preset at 62 FPS is the recommended choice. It delivers a smooth, playable experience at the highest resolution. The Medium preset at 70 FPS offers a slightly higher frame rate, but the visual difference between Medium and High is often noticeable in texture detail and effects. The Ultra preset at 54 FPS is borderline, and while playable, it may not provide a consistently smooth experience. The Low preset at 98 FPS is an option for those who prioritize frame rate above all else, but it significantly reduces the visual quality that makes 4K worthwhile.