Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT pairs with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti to deliver a strong 1440p experience in Control, with the CPU providing ample headroom across all tested settings. This combination ranks 629th out of 1636 tested hardware combos for this title, placing it in the upper-middle tier of available systems. The benchmark data shows a system that is clearly GPU-limited at higher resolutions, but one that can push very high frame rates when the resolution drops.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture (Cezanne codename) built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It runs at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and boosts up to 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. This chip features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 16 MB of L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, providing 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 5600GT demonstrates solid multi-threaded capability. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 17272, while the single-core score is 2438. Geekbench results show 7986 multicore and 2035 single-core. These scores place the CPU at the 78th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 20740. Comparing to its nearest rivals, the 5600GT is effectively tied with the Intel Core i7-10700 (0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X (0.3% ahead). It trails the Intel Core i5-12490F by 0.3% and the AMD EPYC 7J13 by 0.5%.

For Control, a game that does not heavily stress multi-core processors, the 5600GT's strong single-thread performance (3dmark_single_thread score of 913) is what matters most. The data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 166.1 FPS, which is high enough to suggest the CPU is not a bottleneck even at lower resolutions. The 12 threads ensure that background tasks or any game logic that does utilize multiple cores will not cause stuttering, but the primary takeaway is that this processor is more than sufficient for this title's demands.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti is built on the Ampere architecture (GA104 chip) using Samsung's 8 nm process. It features 6144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. The GPU has 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. Its base clock is 1575 MHz with a boost clock of 1770 MHz. Memory consists of 8 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 608.3 GB/s. The memory clock runs at 1188 MHz, which translates to 19 Gbps effective.

The GPU's raw compute power is substantial, with an FP32 performance of 21.75 TFLOPS. This translates to a Passmark G3D score of 23356, placing it at the 74th percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 30849. The nearest rival data is interesting: the RTX 3070 Ti is only 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME, and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6700. It also trails the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 by 0.9% and the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q by 1.2% in these aggregate scores.

In Control, the GPU's role is dominant. The 8 GB of VRAM is adequate for the game's textures at 1080p and 1440p, and the high memory bandwidth (608.3 GB/s) helps maintain smooth frame rates when moving through the game's physics-heavy environments. The 3070 Ti's performance is the deciding factor in the measured results, especially at 4K where the GPU is clearly the limiting component.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data reveals a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern. At 1080p with High settings, the system averages 103.4 FPS. Moving to 1440p High drops this to 80.2 FPS, a 22.4% reduction. At 4K High, the average falls to 55.4 FPS, a further 30.9% drop from 1440p. Across all settings, the trend is consistent: the frame rate decreases significantly as resolution increases.

This scaling behavior confirms that the RTX 3070 Ti is the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates at lower resolutions would be more compressed, and the drop from 1080p to 1440p would be less pronounced. Instead, the data shows a steady decline that matches the increasing pixel count and shading load. The CPU's headroom is evident at 1080p Low, where the system hits 166.1 FPS, but the GPU's limits are reached long before the CPU's.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings also widens at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low (166.1 FPS) and Ultra (90.9 FPS) is 75.2 FPS. At 4K, the difference between Low (86.2 FPS) and Ultra (49.6 FPS) is 36.6 FPS. This suggests that at 4K, even Low settings are heavily taxing the GPU, and the additional load from Ultra settings cannot be fully compensated by the CPU.

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

The measured data provides a complete picture of performance across twelve combinations of resolution and settings.

At 1920x1080, the system performs admirably. Low settings yield an average of 166.1 FPS, providing a very smooth experience for competitive play or high-refresh-rate monitors. Medium settings drop to 120.9 FPS, which is still excellent. High settings deliver 103.4 FPS, a strong result for a visually rich game. Ultra settings produce 90.9 FPS, which remains perfectly playable and close to the 100 FPS mark.

At 2560x1440, the numbers become more demanding. Low settings still offer a high 123.6 FPS. Medium settings provide 90.8 FPS, which is very good. High settings average 80.2 FPS, a solid result for a 60 Hz or 144 Hz monitor. Ultra settings drop to 70.6 FPS, which is still above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly under stress. Low settings average 86.2 FPS, which is surprisingly playable. Medium settings fall to 59.8 FPS, which is right at the edge of the 60 FPS target. High settings produce 55.4 FPS, requiring a slight compromise for smoothness. Ultra settings bring the average down to 49.6 FPS, which is below the ideal 60 FPS mark and may be noticeable during fast action.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, but with compromises. The data shows that at 4K with Medium settings, the average FPS is 59.8, which is just below the 60 FPS target. High settings yield 55.4 FPS, and Ultra drops to 49.6 FPS. For a consistent 60 FPS experience, users should stick to Low settings (86.2 FPS) or accept a lower average.

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

A: The data shows that 1440p is the optimal balance. At 1440p High, the system achieves 80.2 FPS, which is smooth and visually detailed. At 1080p, the system can hit 103.4 FPS on High, but the visual fidelity is lower. At 4K, the frame rates drop below 60 FPS on High and Ultra.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its direct rivals in this test?

A: The Ryzen 5 5600GT is essentially tied with the Intel Core i7-10700 (0% delta) and is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X. It trails the Intel Core i5-12490F by 0.3% in average benchmark score. This indicates that in Control, any of these CPUs would perform nearly identically.

*Q: Is the 8 GB VRAM on the RTX 3070 Ti sufficient for Control?*

A: The measured results show that it is. The game achieves 55.4 FPS at 4K High and 70.6 FPS at 1440p Ultra, indicating that the VRAM capacity is not causing a major performance collapse. The game's memory footprint appears to fit within the 8 GB allocation at these settings.

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

A: The delta is 75.2 FPS. Low settings produce 166.1 FPS, while Ultra produces 90.9 FPS. This is a 45.3% reduction in frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

*Q: How does this system rank among all tested hardware combinations for Control?*

A: The combo ranks 629th out of 1636 tested combinations. This places it in the top 38.4% of all systems, indicating a capable setup for this game.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings depend on the user's display and performance priorities.

For 1080p displays, the High preset is the recommended choice. It delivers 103.4 FPS, which is above the refresh rate of most standard monitors and provides a rich visual experience. If the user prioritizes maximum frame rates, the Low preset at 166.1 FPS is available, but the visual quality loss is significant. The Ultra preset at 90.9 FPS offers marginal visual gains over High for a 12.5 FPS cost, making it less efficient.

For 1440p displays, the High preset is the sweet spot. At 80.2 FPS, it provides a smooth experience that is well above the 60 FPS threshold while maintaining high visual fidelity. The Ultra preset drops to 70.6 FPS, which is still playable, but the 9.6 FPS loss may not justify the incremental visual improvements. The Medium preset at 90.8 FPS is a good alternative for users who want a higher frame rate buffer.

For 4K displays, the data suggests a more conservative approach. The Low preset at 86.2 FPS is the only setting that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 59.8 FPS is borderline, and users may notice occasional dips during intense scenes. The High preset at 55.4 FPS and Ultra at 49.6 FPS are best avoided unless the user has a variable refresh rate monitor and can tolerate sub-60 FPS performance. In all cases, the GPU is the limiting factor, so reducing resolution or settings is the only way to gain performance.