Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination is a study in contrasts. The CPU is a modern, capable six-core processor that sits in the 85th percentile of all tested CPUs, while the GPU is an older, entry-level part that falls in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. In Control, a game known for its physics-heavy combat and demanding visual effects, this pairing produces a very specific set of outcomes. The benchmark data shows that the GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s, is the primary constraint on performance. The GPU's base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz, paired with 896 shading units, are simply not enough to drive high resolutions. The data makes it clear that this system is strictly for 1080p gaming, and even then, only with specific settings adjustments.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture using the TU117 chip. Its specifications are decidedly entry-level: 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. The GPU's FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS. The 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, running at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective), is a significant limiting factor in Control. The game’s environments are dense with destructible objects and particle effects, which consume VRAM quickly. The data shows that at 4K resolution, the GPU runs out of headroom. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average FPS is 18; with Medium settings, it's 20; and with Low settings, it only reaches 29 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium at 4K costs 9 FPS, indicating that the memory bandwidth and capacity are being saturated.

The relationship between clocks and results is also clear. The boost clock of 1665 MHz is the maximum speed, but under sustained load in Control, the card is likely to drop from this boost, especially at lower resolutions where the CPU can feed it more frames. At 1920x1080, the average FPS scales predictably with settings: 56 FPS on Low, 40 FPS on Medium, 36 FPS on High, and 31 FPS on Ultra. The step from Low to Medium is a 16 FPS drop, which is substantial. This suggests that even at 1080p, the GPU's compute throughput is the bottleneck. The GTX 1650's nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310, has an average score that is 1% higher, confirming that the 1650 is at the very bottom of the dedicated GPU performance ladder. The data implies that Control at 1080p Low is the only truly playable configuration, and even then, it's not a high-refresh-rate experience.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K resolution?

A: The data indicates it cannot run 4K at a playable frame rate. At 3840x2160, the average FPS is 18 on High, 20 on Medium, and 16 on Ultra. Even on Low settings, the average FPS is only 29, which is below the typical 30 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for this resolution in Control.

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

A: The only resolution where the system approaches playable frame rates is 1920x1080. At 1080p, the average FPS is 56 on Low settings and 40 on Medium. At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops to 43 on Low and 30 on Medium, which is borderline for playability. The 1080p resolution is the clear choice for this hardware.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 7472. Its closest rival, the Intel Arc A310, has an average score of 7550, which is 1% higher. Other rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, which is 0.3% slower, and the Intel UHD Graphics 750, which is 0.4% slower. The GTX 1650 sits at the edge of this performance tier.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS on Low settings is 56, while on Ultra settings it is 31. This represents a 25 FPS drop, or about a 45% reduction in average frame rate. The minimum FPS data is not available for these two settings, but the average values show that Ultra is nearly half the speed of Low.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 5600F a bottleneck for the GTX 1650 in this game?

A: The benchmark data does not show CPU utilization, but the CPU's performance is far superior to the GPU. The Ryzen 5 5600F scores 19236 in PassMark multithread and 2872 in single-thread, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. Given that the GTX 1650 is in the 40th percentile, it is highly likely that the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU, but the GPU cannot translate that into higher frame rates.

Q: What are the minimum FPS figures for Medium settings?

A: The measured data includes minimum FPS for Medium settings at three resolutions. At 3840x2160, the minimum is 17 FPS. At 2560x1440, the minimum is 26 FPS. At 1920x1080, the minimum is 34 FPS. These minimums indicate that even at Medium settings, the frame rate will occasionally dip to uncomfortable levels.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination ranks 2789 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 3.4% of all tested systems. This is a very low ranking, driven almost entirely by the GPU's limitations. The Ryzen 5 5600F is not the issue; it is a strong processor. The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 225, which has a nearly identical average score (36938 vs 36945), and the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D, which is 0.2% faster. The CPU is performing at a high level, but the GTX 1650 holds the entire system back. The GPU's percentile rank of 40 means it is better than only 40% of all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 7472 is near the bottom of the discrete GPU market. When paired with a CPU that is in the 85th percentile, the mismatch is stark. The data shows that this combo is a legacy 1080p setup, and its rank of 2789 reflects that it is only suited for the least demanding scenarios in modern gaming. The fact that the GPU's nearest rival is the Intel UHD Graphics 750, an integrated solution, underscores how far behind the curve the GTX 1650 is. This combo is not competitive for Control at higher resolutions or settings.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system's performance in Control. We will break down the results by resolution.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the system is severely overmatched. With High settings, the average FPS is 18. Lowering to Medium yields an average of 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 24. Low settings bring the average to 29 FPS, while Ultra settings drop it to 16 FPS. The data shows a non-linear scaling, where the difference between Low and Medium is 9 FPS, but the difference between Medium and High is only 2 FPS. This indicates that the VRAM capacity is the primary limit, as the card cannot store the necessary textures for even Medium settings without significant swapping.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the situation improves slightly but remains unplayable for smooth action. High settings yield an average of 27 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 30 FPS, with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 35. Low settings push the average to 43 FPS, while Ultra settings bring it down to 23 FPS. The minimum FPS of 26 on Medium is a concern, as it suggests stutter during intense combat. The 43 FPS on Low is the only remotely playable figure at this resolution, but it is still below the 60 FPS target most players prefer.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the system finally shows its intended performance envelope. Low settings deliver an average of 56 FPS, which is playable. Medium settings drop the average to 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 and a maximum of 46. High settings yield an average of 36 FPS, and Ultra settings produce an average of 31 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra is a 25 FPS drop. The minimum of 34 FPS on Medium suggests that even at 1080p, the system will have frame drops below 30 FPS in heavy scenes. The data shows that 1080p Low is the only setting that offers a consistently smooth experience, while 1080p Medium is a compromise that is mostly playable but not stable.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured rows, the best experience is achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This configuration produces an average FPS of 56, which is the highest average across all tested resolutions and settings. While 60 FPS is the gold standard, 56 FPS is a solid and consistent frame rate for a game like Control, which features fast-paced combat and physics-based interactions. The alternative is 1920x1080 with Medium settings, which yields an average of 40 FPS and a minimum of 34 FPS. This is a 16 FPS drop from Low, but it will improve visual fidelity. However, the minimum FPS of 34 is close to the 30 FPS threshold, and any demanding scene could push it below that level, causing noticeable stutter.

If a player prioritizes visual quality over frame rate, 1080p Medium is the highest setting that maintains an average above 30 FPS. The data does not show a minimum for High or Ultra at 1080p, but the averages of 36 and 31 FPS, respectively, are too close to the 30 FPS line for comfort. The 4K and 1440p resolutions are not viable for a good experience, as even the best average FPS at those resolutions (43 FPS at 1440p Low) comes with the risk of significant drops. The recommendation is clear: use 1080p Low for a stable, responsive experience, or 1080p Medium if you are willing to tolerate occasional frame dips for better visuals. The 56 FPS at Low is the only data point that offers a clear margin above the 30 FPS playability floor, making it the safest and most practical choice.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F is a six-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture (codenamed Vermeer). It has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The CPU features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 32 MB L3 cache. It supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU scores 19236 in PassMark multithread and 2872 in PassMark single-thread. Its average benchmark score is 36945, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. The game is known for its use of the Northlight engine, which can be CPU-intensive in scenes with many destructible objects. However, the benchmark data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor here. The CPU's performance is comparable to the Intel Core Ultra 5 225, which has an average score of 36938 (a 0% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D, which is 0.2% faster. This is a high-performance part that should not bottleneck a GTX 1650 in most scenarios.

The data supports this interpretation. At 1080p Low, the GPU produces 56 FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar FPS numbers across different resolutions, as the CPU would be limiting the frame rate regardless of GPU load. Instead, we see a clear drop from 56 FPS at 1080p to 43 FPS at 1440p and 29 FPS at 4K on Low settings. This proportional decrease with resolution is the classic signature of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU has enough power to handle the game's logic, but the GTX 1650 cannot keep up with the increasing pixel count. The CPU's high percentile rank and strong benchmark scores confirm that it is a modern, capable part that is being held back by the GPU. In this pairing, the Ryzen 5 5600F has significant headroom, ensuring that the GTX 1650 is always the limiting component in Control.