Control

Control with an AMD Ryzen 5 5600G and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is a study in GPU dominance paired with a capable but not elite CPU. The measured data shows this combination sits at rank 346 out of 1636 tested combos in this game, placing it in the top quarter of all configurations. The RX 7900 XT, with its 20 GB of GDDR6 memory and 800.0 GB/s bandwidth, clearly drives the experience, while the 6-core/12-thread Ryzen 5 5600G provides adequate support without becoming a consistent bottleneck at most settings.

Settings Recommendations

The benchmark results make a clear case for the High preset as the sweet spot for this pairing. At 1080p, High delivers 129.9 FPS, which is 15.8 FPS above the 114.7 FPS at Ultra and only a modest 15.8 FPS below Medium. The jump from Ultra to High recovers significant headroom while maintaining visual fidelity. At 1440p, High hits 102 FPS, a figure that remains comfortably above 60 FPS and only 12.7 FPS behind Medium. Even at 4K, High manages 64.8 FPS, which is playable and only 10.4 FPS below Medium’s 75.2 FPS.

For players prioritizing maximum frame rates, Low at 1080p produces 208.3 FPS, but this comes at a substantial visual cost. The data suggests that High offers the best balance across all resolutions. Ultra at 1080p yields 114.7 FPS, which is identical to Medium at 1440p, indicating that the preset scaling is consistent. At 4K, Ultra drops to 59 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold many consider acceptable. Therefore, High is recommended for 4K users, while 1080p and 1440p users can comfortably use High or even Ultra if they prefer maximum quality over the extra 15-17 FPS headroom.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with playable frame rates?

A: Yes. At 4K with High settings, the average FPS is 64.8, which is above the 60 FPS playability standard. With Medium settings, it rises to 75.2 FPS. Ultra at 4K dips to 59 FPS, so High is the recommended ceiling for 4K.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 1440p?

A: At High settings, the drop is from 129.9 FPS to 102 FPS, a reduction of 27.9 FPS (roughly 21.5%). At Low settings, the drop is from 208.3 FPS to 155.7 FPS, a reduction of 52.6 FPS. The relative loss is consistent, indicating the GPU is scaling predictably.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 5600G holding back the RX 7900 XT at 1080p?

A: The data suggests some CPU limitation at 1080p Low, where the frame rate reaches 208.3 FPS. This is a very high number, but the 5600G’s single-thread score of 872 in 3dmark indicates it can push frames, though the 7900 XT likely has more headroom that the CPU cannot feed at these extreme rates.

Q: What is the difference between Medium and High settings at 1440p?

A: Medium produces 114.7 FPS, while High produces 102 FPS. The difference is 12.7 FPS, which is noticeable but not drastic. High is preferable for better visuals with a minimal performance penalty.

Q: Does the 20 GB VRAM on the RX 7900 XT matter for Control?

A: The 20 GB of GDDR6 memory is far more than any current game requires, and Control is no exception. The data shows no VRAM-related stutters or anomalies, with performance scaling smoothly across resolutions. This capacity provides massive future-proofing headroom.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is the undisputed performance driver in this configuration. Its benchmark percentile of 82 places it well above average, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile with a delta of 0.0% and the RTX 4080 Mobile with a delta of 0.6%. The GPU’s boost clock of 2394 MHz and game clock of 2025 MHz are high for the architecture, and the 5376 shading units provide massive compute throughput with 51.48 TFLOPS of FP32 performance.

The memory subsystem is equally potent. The 20 GB GDDR6 frame buffer operates on a 320-bit bus, yielding 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This bandwidth is critical for high-resolution textures, and the measured results confirm that the GPU scales well from 1080p to 4K. At 1080p Low, the GPU produces 208.3 FPS, and at 4K High it produces 64.8 FPS. The consistent scaling indicates that the GPU is not memory-starved. The 84 RT cores support ray tracing, though the measured data for Control does not isolate RT performance, so the results reflect standard rasterization.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1080p, the frame rate hierarchy is clear. Low settings produce 208.3 FPS, which is the highest measured value in the entire dataset. Medium drops to 145.7 FPS, High to 129.9 FPS, and Ultra to 114.7 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 62.6 FPS drop, which is significant, while the step from Medium to High is only 15.8 FPS. Ultra is 15.2 FPS below High.

At 1440p, the pattern repeats with lower absolute numbers. Low yields 155.7 FPS, Medium 114.7 FPS, High 102 FPS, and Ultra 85.5 FPS. The gap from Low to Medium is 41 FPS, and from Medium to High is 12.7 FPS. Ultra is 16.5 FPS below High. Notably, 1440p Medium (114.7 FPS) matches 1080p Ultra (114.7 FPS) exactly, showing a direct trade-off between resolution and preset.

At 4K, the numbers compress further. Low produces 105.3 FPS, Medium 75.2 FPS, High 64.8 FPS, and Ultra 59 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 30.1 FPS, and Medium to High is 10.4 FPS. Ultra falls below 60 FPS, making it the only setting in the dataset to do so. The delta between 1080p and 4K at High is 65.1 FPS, and at Low it is 103 FPS.

Resolution Scaling

The data reveals a linear scaling pattern that points to the GPU as the primary limiter. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at High settings reduces frame rate from 129.9 FPS to 102 FPS, a 27.9 FPS loss. Moving from 1440p to 4K reduces it further to 64.8 FPS, a 37.2 FPS loss. The total loss from 1080p to 4K is 65.1 FPS, which is roughly half the original frame rate.

At Low settings, the scaling is more aggressive. 1080p Low runs at 208.3 FPS, 1440p Low at 155.7 FPS, and 4K Low at 105.3 FPS. The loss from 1080p to 4K is 103 FPS, which is nearly half. This steep drop at Low settings indicates that the GPU is still the bottleneck, as the CPU is less stressed at low settings and the pixel throughput demands increase quadratically with resolution.

The fact that 4K Low (105.3 FPS) is still above 60 FPS confirms the GPU’s raw power. However, the 5600G’s 3dmark single-thread score of 872 and multi-thread score of 5455 suggest that at 1080p Low, the CPU may be approaching its limit, as the frame rate is extremely high. The data does not show a cliff, but the scaling from 1440p to 1080p at Low (155.7 to 208.3) is a 52.6 FPS jump, which is large, indicating the CPU is still able to feed the GPU at these rates.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600G is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 (Cezanne) architecture. Its base clock is 3.90 GHz and boost clock is 4.40 GHz. It scores 16758 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2365 in single-core, which are solid numbers for a mainstream chip. Its percentile versus all CPUs is 78, and it is closely matched with rivals such as the Intel Core i7-11600H (delta 0.2%) and the Intel Core i7-11800H (delta -0.2%).

In Control, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics data. The measured frame rates show that at 1080p Low, the 5600G can push 208.3 FPS, which is a high bar. However, the GPU’s average benchmark score of 38358 versus the CPU’s 19983 indicates that the GPU is far more capable in absolute terms. The CPU’s 16 MB of L3 cache and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth are adequate, but they are not exceptional for the platform.

The data suggests that the CPU is not a significant bottleneck at 1440p and 4K, where frame rates are lower and the GPU is more stressed. At 1080p Ultra, the frame rate is 114.7 FPS, and at 1080p High it is 129.9 FPS. These are high numbers, but the CPU can handle them. The real test would be at 1080p Low, where the 208.3 FPS figure is close to the practical ceiling for a 6-core part. The 5600G’s 3dmark 2-thread score of 1705 and 4-thread score of 3258 indicate that its per-core performance is adequate, but not class-leading. For a game like Control, which is not heavily threaded, this is sufficient. The CPU does not appear to hold back the GPU in any of the measured settings, but it is likely the component that would limit performance if the GPU were even faster.