Control

# Control on AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

This combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 lands at rank 3588 out of 3720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the bottom 4% of all pairings in this benchmark database. That is a sobering starting point, but the measured FPS data reveals a more nuanced picture—one where the GPU is clearly the dominant constraint, and where the CPU's six Zen 3 cores have enough headroom to keep up at lower settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The rank of 3588 out of 3720 means roughly 96.5% of tested combinations deliver higher average frame rates in Control. This is not a surprise given the hardware pairing: the GTX 1650 is a Turing-based entry-level card from 2019, while the Ryzen 5 5600GT is a 2024 release with integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics but no dedicated GPU advantage here. What matters for this game is that the combo's overall standing reflects a GPU that sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs (percentileVsAllGpus: 40), while the CPU sits at the 74th percentile among all CPUs (percentileVsAllCpus: 74). The CPU is far stronger relative to its peers than the GPU is, which immediately suggests the bottleneck lies downstream.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 5600GT has an average benchmark score of 20733, sitting just 0.3% below the Intel Core i5-12490F (20802), 0.4% below the Intel Xeon 6325P (20821), 0.4% below the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U (20826), and 0.5% below the AMD EPYC 7J13 (20845). Those deltas are tiny—sub-1% in every case—meaning the 5600GT is effectively tied with a broad set of CPUs from different segments. For Control, that CPU strength translates into a situation where the processor is rarely the limiting factor; the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and modest compute throughput dictate the experience.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals list is telling. The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 7472, which is 0.3% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447), 0.4% above the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441), 0.6% above the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425), and 1% below the Intel Arc A310 (7550). These are all older or integrated-class components, reinforcing that the 1650 is near the bottom of the discrete GPU hierarchy. In Control, a game that pushes visual effects and physics, that ranking translates into playable-but-modest frame rates at best.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650 is built on the TU117 chip, a Turing architecture part manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. Memory is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2001 MHz, or 8 Gbps effective. Pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s, texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 2.984 TFLOPS. FP16 is 5.967 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The card has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores—features that Control can use but that this GPU simply cannot accelerate.

The 4 GB VRAM is the most critical constraint for Control at higher resolutions. The game's high-texture environments and dynamic lighting can exceed 4 GB at 1440p or 4K, leading to stutter or reduced frame rates as the card spills over into system memory. The measured data supports this: at 3840x2160, even Low settings only reach 29 FPS average, and High drops to 18 FPS. The card's 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors (it draws solely from the PCIe slot) underscore its entry-level positioning, but that is not the issue—the issue is that Control's demands outstrip what a 4 GB, 128-bit memory subsystem can deliver.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce its position: PassMark G3D is 7880, DirectX 12 score is 35, and Geekbench Vulkan is 33042. These numbers place it near the bottom of modern GPUs, but the 1650's real-world performance in Control is still usable at 1080p with the right settings, as the measured FPS table shows.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 1080p smoothly?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 56, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for most players. Medium settings average 40 FPS, High averages 36 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. For a consistent experience, Low or Medium are the viable choices.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this pairing?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The CPU's average benchmark score (20733) places it at the 74th percentile, while the GPU's score (7472) is at the 40th percentile. In the measured FPS data, frame rates scale more with resolution and settings than with CPU load, indicating the GTX 1650 is the constraint.

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

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the combo approaches playable frame rates across multiple settings. At 2560x1440, only Low settings reach 43 FPS average; all other settings fall below 30 FPS. At 3840x2160, no setting exceeds 29 FPS average.

Q: Does the 4 GB VRAM affect performance at higher resolutions?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160, the jump from Low (29 FPS) to Medium (20 FPS) is a 31% drop, and High (18 FPS) to Ultra (16 FPS) shows further degradation. This pattern suggests VRAM capacity and bandwidth are stretched at 4K, as the card cannot maintain stable frame delivery.

Q: How does this combo compare to similar hardware in the database?

A: The combo ranks 3588 out of 3720. The GPU's nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310, scores 1% higher on average (7550 vs 7472), while the CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-12490F, is only 0.3% faster (20802 vs 20733). This means the pairing is near the bottom of the tested pool.

Q: Is the GTX 1650's performance in Control consistent with its overall benchmark standing?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 7472 and 40th percentile ranking align with the measured FPS results. At 1080p Low, 56 FPS is achievable, but at 4K Ultra, the average drops to 16 FPS, reflecting the card's limited compute and memory bandwidth.

Settings Recommendations

For this combo, the measured FPS data points to 1920x1080 with Low settings as the only configuration that delivers an average above 50 FPS (56 FPS). If a player prioritizes visual quality over frame rate, Medium at 1080p offers 40 FPS average with a minimum of 34 FPS, which is still playable for a slower-paced action-adventure title like Control. High at 1080p averages 36 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS—both are below the ideal 60 FPS target but may be acceptable for players who favor fidelity.

At 2560x1440, Low settings average 43 FPS, which is the only setting at that resolution that stays above 30 FPS. Medium averages 30 FPS with a min of 26 and max of 35, High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. Given the game's fast combat and telekinetic abilities, a steady 30 FPS is the practical floor, so 1440p Low is the best bet for higher resolutions.

At 3840x2160, no setting achieves a playable average. Low is 29 FPS, Medium is 20 FPS (min 17, max 24), High is 18 FPS, and Ultra is 16 FPS. These numbers are below the threshold for smooth gameplay, so 4K should be avoided entirely with this hardware.

The optimal experience for this combo is 1080p Low settings, which yields 56 FPS average and likely the most stable frame pacing. If visual fidelity matters more, 1080p Medium at 40 FPS is a reasonable compromise, but the frame rate dips to 34 FPS minimum, which could cause noticeable stutter during intense scenes.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range is available: Low averages 56 FPS, Medium averages 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 and maximum of 46, High averages 36 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 25 FPS, a 45% reduction, indicating that the GPU's compute and memory bandwidth are taxed heavily by the higher presets.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 43 FPS, Medium averages 30 FPS (min 26, max 35), High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 20 FPS, a 47% drop, similar to the 1080p pattern. Notably, the minimum FPS at Medium (26) is below the average at High (27), suggesting that frame pacing becomes less consistent as resolution increases.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 29 FPS, Medium averages 20 FPS (min 17, max 24), High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 16 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS, a 45% reduction. The minimum at Medium (17) is barely above single digits, confirming that 4K is not viable for this combo.

The data shows a consistent pattern: each step up in settings costs roughly 10–15% of average FPS, regardless of resolution. This uniformity suggests that the GPU's shading and memory throughput are being scaled linearly by the game's preset system, with no sudden cliffs until 4K, where VRAM pressure likely causes additional degradation.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Cezanne, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel mode, with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Its TDP is 65 W, and it has an integrated Radeon Vega 7 GPU, though that is not used in this pairing.

In benchmark terms, the 5600GT achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 17272 and a single-core score of 2438. Its Geekbench multicore is 7986 and single-core is 1843. The PassMark multithread score is 20325, with a single-thread score of 3348. These numbers place the CPU at the 74th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20733.

For Control, the CPU's role is to handle the game's physics simulation, AI, and streaming logic. The game is not particularly demanding on the CPU at 1080p, and the 5600GT's six cores are more than sufficient. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 56 FPS, which is likely close to the GPU's limit rather than the CPU's. At higher resolutions, the FPS drops even further, confirming that the CPU is not the bottleneck. The CPU's nearest rivals all score within 0.5% of each other, meaning that swapping to any of those processors would not meaningfully change Control's frame rates with the GTX 1650.

The 5600GT's integrated Radeon Vega 7 is irrelevant here, as the system uses the discrete GTX 1650. The CPU's 16 MB L3 cache and dual-channel memory bandwidth are adequate for Control's data streaming, and the processor's boost clock of 4.60 GHz ensures that single-threaded tasks, such as game logic updates, are handled quickly.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data allows a direct comparison of how the combo scales with resolution. From 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS drops by roughly 23–27% across settings: Low goes from 56 to 43 (a 23% drop), Medium from 40 to 30 (25%), High from 36 to 27 (25%), and Ultra from 31 to 23 (26%). This scaling is typical for a GPU-bound scenario, where the pixel count increase from 2.07 million to 3.69 million (a 78% increase) does not linearly translate to FPS because other factors, like texture sampling and overdraw, also scale.

From 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, the drops are steeper: Low goes from 56 to 29 (a 48% drop), Medium from 40 to 20 (50%), High from 36 to 18 (50%), and Ultra from 31 to 16 (48%). The pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, but the FPS only halves, indicating that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound—memory bandwidth and shading units are also at play. The fact that the percentage drop is consistent across settings suggests that the GTX 1650's compute resources are the limiting factor, not VRAM capacity alone.

The scaling pattern also reveals that the CPU is not a constraint at any resolution. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect FPS to stay flat or even improve at lower resolutions, but the data shows FPS dropping steadily as resolution increases, which is the signature of a GPU-limited system. The 5600GT's high single-thread score (2438 in Cinebench R23) ensures that even at 1080p, the CPU can feed the GPU with enough draw calls to keep it busy.

In practical terms, this resolution scaling means that players should stick to 1080p for any semblance of smooth gameplay. At 1440p, only Low settings approach 45 FPS, and at 4K, every setting falls below 30 FPS. The GTX 1650 is simply not designed for high-resolution gaming in a title as demanding as Control, and the data confirms that the sweet spot is 1080p with reduced settings.