Control

Control pairs the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, placing this combo at rank 771 out of 2,888 tested configurations in this game. That is a top-quartile finish, but not a top-tier one, meaning the pairing delivers a strong experience without dominating the leaderboard. The RTX 3080 is the headline component, yet the Ryzen 5 5600F holds its own, and benchmark results show a balanced system where the GPU carries most of the load at higher resolutions while the CPU remains relevant at 1080p.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 771 out of 2,888 tested combinations places it in the upper 27% of all pairings tested for Control. This is a solid result, indicating that the Ryzen 5 5600F and RTX 3080 together deliver frame rates that beat the majority of systems. The ranking reflects the RTX 3080’s strong absolute performance, but the CPU does not drag it down—the 5600F’s single-thread score is high enough to avoid bottlenecking in most scenarios. The data shows that this combo sits comfortably above the median, but it is not near the top 100, where more powerful GPUs or newer CPUs would dominate.

In terms of the GPU’s individual standing, the RTX 3080 holds the 68th percentile among all GPUs, which is above average but not elite. Its nearest rivals in the aggregate benchmark are the NVIDIA P106-100 (deltaPct -0.3), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (deltaPct -0.3), AMD Radeon RX 6600M (deltaPct -0.4), and AMD Radeon R9 M290X (deltaPct -0.4). These deltas are negligible, meaning the RTX 3080’s average benchmark score of 23,172 is statistically tied with those four cards. That is surprising given the architectural differences, but the data speaks for itself: the RTX 3080 does not outclass these older or lower-tier GPUs in the synthetic aggregate. However, in Control specifically, the measured FPS tells a different story, as the GPU’s 10 GB of GDDR6X memory and high bandwidth prove more relevant than the synthetic scores suggest.

The CPU’s percentile is 85, which is higher than the GPU’s 68. That indicates the Ryzen 5 5600F is a stronger relative performer in its category than the RTX 3080 is in its own. The CPU’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (deltaPct 0), AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (deltaPct -0.2), AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (deltaPct -0.4), and Intel Core i9-12900T (deltaPct -0.5). All of these scores are within 0.5% of each other, so the 5600F is effectively tied with those four CPUs in aggregate performance. This means the combo’s rank is more dependent on the GPU than the CPU, since the CPU is already performing at a level where minor differences would not shift the final FPS much.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 5000 series, built on the Zen 3 architecture with the Vermeer codename. It runs at a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boosts to 4.00 GHz, which are modest figures for a modern desktop CPU. The 7 nm process node from TSMC packs 4,150 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, and the cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. That L3 cache is crucial for gaming, as Control benefits from fast access to frequently used data, and the 32 MB shared pool is ample for this workload.

In Passmark benchmarks, the CPU scores 2,872 in single-thread tests and 19,236 in multithread tests. The single-thread score is particularly relevant for Control, which is an action-adventure game that relies on a few main threads for game logic and physics. A higher single-thread score means better responsiveness in scenes with many interactive objects or AI-driven enemies. The multithread score of 19,236 is strong for a 6-core chip, but Control does not scale perfectly across 12 threads, so the CPU’s performance in this game is more tied to its single-thread capability than its core count. The data shows that the 5600F’s single-thread score is 85th percentile, putting it ahead of most CPUs, which helps avoid frame drops in CPU-bound moments.

The CPU’s memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR4 interface, which is standard for the AM4 platform. The 5600F supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, but Control does not leverage PCIe bandwidth heavily, so this is not a limiting factor. The 65 W TDP indicates efficient power draw, but that does not directly affect frame rates. The CPU’s boost clock of 4.00 GHz is not exceptionally high, but the Zen 3 architecture’s instructions-per-clock efficiency compensates, and the benchmark results confirm that it performs on par with rivals like the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D, which have similar aggregate scores.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is built on the Ampere architecture with the GA102 chip, manufactured on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It has 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth. That memory bandwidth is a key asset in Control, which features high-resolution textures and complex particle effects that demand rapid data transfer. The GPU’s base clock is 1,440 MHz with a boost clock of 1,710 MHz, and the memory runs at 1,188 MHz effectively reaching 19 Gbps. These clocks are moderate for a high-end card, but the 8,704 shading units, 272 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units provide the raw compute power.

The RTX 3080’s FP32 performance is 29.77 TFLOPS, and it has 68 RT cores and 272 tensor cores, though Control does not heavily rely on ray tracing or DLSS in the measured settings. The GPU’s pixel rate of 164.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 465.1 GTexel/s are high, which helps at 4K where fill rate becomes a bottleneck. In Passmark, the GPU scores 25,086 in G3D, which places it in the 68th percentile, but the more relevant metrics for Control are the measured FPS numbers, which show the GPU handling 4K at playable rates.

The GPU’s 320 W TDP and dual-slot design require a 700 W power supply, but that is outside the scope of performance analysis. The 10 GB VRAM is sufficient for Control at all tested settings, as the game does not exceed this capacity even at 4K Ultra, based on the measured FPS staying above 50. The RTX 3080’s GDDR6X memory type provides higher bandwidth than GDDR6, which is beneficial for the game’s frequent texture streaming. The GPU’s nearest rivals in the aggregate benchmark are all within 0.4% of its score, but in Control, the RTX 3080’s specific feature set—particularly its memory bandwidth—gives it an edge that synthetic tests may not fully capture.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 185 FPS on Low settings, 131 FPS on Medium, 117 FPS on High, and 101 FPS on Ultra. The Medium setting has a recorded min FPS of 111 and max FPS of 151, showing a tight range that indicates stable performance. The gap between Low and Ultra is 84 FPS, which is a 45% drop from Low to Ultra, but even at 101 FPS, the experience is smooth for a 60 Hz or 144 Hz display. The 1080p results show that the CPU is not a bottleneck here, as the frame rates scale consistently with GPU load. The jump from Low to Medium is 54 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High is only 14 FPS, suggesting that Medium is the sweet spot for visual fidelity versus performance at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the FPS numbers are 140 on Low, 99 on Medium, 88 on High, and 77 on Ultra. The Medium setting shows min FPS of 84 and max FPS of 114, which is a wider range than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is starting to work harder and occasional dips occur. The drop from Low to Ultra is 63 FPS, a 45% reduction, mirroring the 1080p pattern. The delta between Medium and High is 11 FPS, and between High and Ultra is another 11 FPS, showing a consistent step-down. At 1440p, the GPU is more stressed, but the CPU still provides enough headroom to keep frame times stable. The 77 FPS at Ultra is still above 60, so the combo can handle 1440p at maximum settings without dropping below playable thresholds.

At 3840x2160, the results are 94 FPS on Low, 67 FPS on Medium, 60 FPS on High, and 52 FPS on Ultra. The Medium setting has min FPS of 57 and max FPS of 77, which is a significant spread, indicating that 4K is where the GPU’s limits become apparent. The drop from Low to Ultra is 42 FPS, which is a 45% reduction, consistent with the other resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the 52 FPS average is just below the 60 FPS target, so users may need to sacrifice settings to achieve a locked 60. The 60 FPS average at 4K High is exactly at the target, making it the highest setting that maintains that frame rate. The data shows that the RTX 3080 is the limiting component at 4K, as the CPU’s role diminishes at higher resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K follows a consistent pattern across settings. At Low, the drop is from 185 FPS at 1080p to 140 FPS at 1440p to 94 FPS at 4K, which is a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Medium, the numbers are 131, 99, and 67, a 49% drop. At High, the numbers are 117, 88, and 60, a 49% drop. At Ultra, the numbers are 101, 77, and 52, also a 49% drop. This uniformity indicates that the scaling is purely resolution-driven, with no sudden bottlenecks appearing at any specific resolution. The consistent percentage drop suggests that the GPU is the primary limiter, as CPU-bound scenarios would show a smaller drop at higher resolutions.

The fact that the drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 25% (e.g., 185 to 140, 117 to 88) and from 1440p to 4K is roughly 33% (140 to 94, 88 to 60) shows that the GPU’s fill rate and bandwidth are being taxed more heavily as pixel count increases. At 1080p, the CPU’s single-thread performance is sufficient to keep up with the GPU, but at 4K, the GPU is working at near-full utilization, and the CPU has spare capacity. This is evidenced by the fact that the FPS at 4K Ultra is 52, which is not far from the 60 FPS target, meaning the GPU is the limiting factor, not the CPU. The RTX 3080’s 760.3 GB/s memory bandwidth is likely what prevents a steeper drop at 4K, as texture-heavy scenes would otherwise cause frame rate collapses.

The scaling data indicates that the combo is well-balanced for 1080p and 1440p, where the CPU and GPU share the load, but at 4K, the GPU is the sole bottleneck. Users with a 4K display will see the most benefit from reducing settings, as the CPU cannot compensate for the GPU’s workload. At 1080p, the combo achieves over 100 FPS on Ultra, which is excellent for high-refresh monitors. At 1440p, it stays above 77 FPS on Ultra, which is still smooth. At 4K, it dips to 52 FPS on Ultra, which is playable but not ideal for competitive play.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows show that Medium settings provide the best balance of performance and visual quality across all resolutions. At 1080p, Medium delivers 131 FPS, which is 14 FPS faster than High and only 54 FPS slower than Low, but with significantly better visuals. The min FPS of 111 at Medium ensures that frame drops are rare, making it the most stable setting for a high-refresh experience. At 1440p, Medium gives 99 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS target and close to the 100 FPS mark, while High drops to 88 FPS and Ultra to 77 FPS. The 99 FPS at Medium is 22% faster than Ultra, with only a modest visual quality reduction.

At 4K, Medium delivers 67 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS target, while High drops to exactly 60 FPS and Ultra falls to 52 FPS. The min FPS of 57 at 4K Medium means that even in demanding scenes, the frame rate stays above 55, providing a smooth experience. High at 4K also hits 60 FPS on average, but without a recorded min FPS, it is riskier if the game has occasional spikes in complexity. Ultra at 4K is not recommended, as the 52 FPS average is below the 60 FPS target and could lead to noticeable stuttering in action sequences.

For users prioritizing frame rate over visuals, Low settings at 1080p provide 185 FPS, which is ideal for competitive play, but the visual downgrade is substantial. The data suggests that Medium is the default recommendation for most users, as it offers a significant improvement over Low without the performance penalty of High or Ultra. At 1080p, the difference between Medium and High is only 14 FPS, so users with a 144 Hz monitor might prefer High for better image quality, but those with a 240 Hz monitor would benefit more from Medium’s higher frame rate. At 1440p, Medium is the clear choice, as it is the only setting that breaks 90 FPS while maintaining a stable min FPS. At 4K, Medium is the only setting that consistently exceeds 60 FPS with a recorded min FPS above 55, making it the safest option for a locked experience. High at 4K is a viable alternative for users who accept a 60 FPS average with no min FPS guarantee, but the data favors Medium for reliability.