Control

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture (codenamed Vermeer), built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. In synthetic benchmarks, the chip demonstrates strong single-threaded performance — scoring 917 in 3dmark_single_thread, 264 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 1101 in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 2622 in Cinebench R23 single-core. Its multi-threaded results are equally respectable: 5582 in 3dmark_16_threads, 5588 in 3dmark_max_threads, 7802 in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 18578 in Cinebench R23 multicore.

The CPU's average benchmark score of 20680 places it in the 78th percentile among all processors. Compared to its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 5600X trails the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT by 0.3% (20740 vs. 20680), sits 0.3% behind the Intel Core i7-10700 (20746), and is 0.5% behind the Intel Core i5-12490F (20794). However, it leads the Intel Xeon 6325P by 0.7% (20538). These margins are tight, indicating that in CPU-bound scenarios, the 5600X performs essentially on par with its immediate competitors.

For Control, a game that benefits from solid per-core performance, the 5600X's single-thread strength is the key attribute. The game's engine relies on a handful of primary threads for physics and gameplay logic, and the 5600X's boost clock of 4.60 GHz ensures those threads receive adequate attention. The 32 MB L3 cache also helps reduce memory latency, which matters in scenes with complex object interactions. The measured data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 118.5 FPS average — a figure that suggests the CPU is not the primary limiter at lower graphical loads, where the GPU has headroom to push frames.

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

The measured FPS rows for Control with this CPU-GPU combination reveal a clear scaling pattern across presets. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 118.5 FPS average, Medium drops to 83.4 FPS, High lands at 76.6 FPS, and Ultra falls to 66.8 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium represents a 35.1 FPS reduction (about 30%), while the gap between Medium and High is a smaller 6.8 FPS. The step from High to Ultra costs another 9.8 FPS.

At 1440p, the same ordering holds: Low produces 89.8 FPS, Medium 63.8 FPS, High 56.0 FPS, and Ultra 49.0 FPS. The relative drop from Low to Medium is 26.0 FPS (29%), similar to the 1080p pattern. At 4K, the numbers compress further: Low achieves 60.3 FPS, Medium 44.2 FPS, High 36.4 FPS, and Ultra 30.9 FPS.

The data indicates that the High preset offers the most balanced experience across resolutions. At 1080p, High's 76.6 FPS is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth play, and at 1440p it maintains 56.0 FPS — close to that target. Even at 4K, High's 36.4 FPS, while not ideal, remains playable for slower-paced action. The Ultra preset, by contrast, yields only 66.8 FPS at 1080p and drops to 30.9 FPS at 4K, which is below the standard playability floor. The Medium preset is a viable alternative for users prioritizing frame rate over visual fidelity, but High provides the best compromise between image quality and performance, especially given that the gap from High to Ultra is consistent (roughly 10 FPS at 1080p and 5-6 FPS at higher resolutions) while the visual gains from Ultra are typically marginal in this title.

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

Analyzing the measured FPS across resolutions reveals a consistent scaling pattern that points to the GPU as the dominant bottleneck in this configuration. At the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 118.5 at 1080p to 89.8 at 1440p (a 24.2% reduction), and then to 60.3 at 4K (a further 32.9% reduction from 1440p). At the High preset, the progression is 76.6 → 56.0 → 36.4, representing drops of 26.9% and 35.0% respectively.

The fact that FPS declines by roughly 25-35% at each resolution step, rather than remaining flat, indicates that the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT's rendering capacity is being taxed progressively as pixel count increases. The GPU's 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K the memory subsystem and the compute units (2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs) struggle to maintain frame rates. The FP32 throughput of 10.60 TFLOPS is modest for 4K workloads, and the pixel rate of 165.7 GPixel/s becomes a limiting factor at 3840x2160.

Notably, the CPU's performance does not scale with resolution — its workload remains constant regardless of pixel count. Since the FPS drops are proportional to the increase in resolution, the data strongly suggests that the Ryzen 5 5600X is not the primary constraint here. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect similar FPS numbers across resolutions at the same preset, as observed in CPU-bound scenarios. Instead, the measured values confirm that the RX 6600 XT is the limiting component, particularly at 4K where even Low settings only reach 60.3 FPS.

FAQ

Q: What average FPS does this combo achieve at 1080p with High settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with the High preset is 76.6 FPS. This is comfortably above the 60 FPS standard for smooth gameplay, making High a solid choice at this resolution.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 5600X a bottleneck for the RX 6600 XT in Control?

A: No. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 1440p to 4K shows drops proportional to pixel count increases (e.g., 118.5 → 89.8 → 60.3 FPS at Low settings), which indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's strong single-thread score of 917 in 3dmark_single_thread and 2622 in Cinebench R23 single-core suggests it has ample headroom.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT compare to its nearest rival, the RTX 3070?

A: The RX 6600 XT has an average benchmark score of 27985, which is 0.9% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070's 28238. In practice, this means the two cards perform nearly identically in synthetic tests, though game-specific results may vary.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming with this hardware?

A: The High preset at 2560x1440 delivers 56.0 FPS average, which is close to the 60 FPS target. The Ultra preset drops to 49.0 FPS, while Medium offers 63.8 FPS. For most players, High provides the best balance of visual quality and performance at 1440p.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Control?

A: At 4K with Low settings, the combo achieves 60.3 FPS average, which is playable. However, at High settings it drops to 36.4 FPS, and at Ultra it falls to 30.9 FPS. Users seeking 4K should stick to Low or Medium presets, as higher settings will not maintain smooth frame rates.

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

A: The measured FPS drops from 76.6 at 1080p to 56.0 at 1440p, a reduction of 20.6 FPS (about 27%). This is a significant but expected loss, reflecting the increased pixel workload on the GPU.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's base clock is 1968 MHz, with a game clock of 2359 MHz and a boost clock of 2589 MHz. Memory operates at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The card contains 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines, along with 32 ray tracing cores. Its compute capabilities include 10.60 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.21 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), with a texture rate of 331.4 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 165.7 GPixel/s.

In the context of Control, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM is adequate for 1080p and 1440p at all presets, as evidenced by the measured FPS values. However, at 4K, the memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s becomes a constraint — the game's high-resolution textures and effects require more data throughput than the 128-bit bus can comfortably provide. This explains why 4K performance drops significantly across presets: 60.3 FPS at Low, 44.2 at Medium, 36.4 at High, and 30.9 at Ultra.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it in the 71st percentile among all graphics cards, with an average score of 27985. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, scores 27956 — a delta of 0.1% in favor of the RX 6600 XT. The AMD Radeon R9 M395X trails by 0.4% (27883), while the RTX 3070 leads by 0.9% (28238). These close margins suggest that the RX 6600 XT delivers consistent performance within its class.

The boost clock of 2589 MHz is particularly relevant for Control, as the game's dynamic environments benefit from sustained GPU frequency. The card's 160 W TDP and dual-slot design allow for reasonable thermal headroom, though the 450 W suggested PSU indicates that the system's power delivery is not a limiting factor. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provides ample bandwidth for the GPU's data transfer needs, though the card's end-of-life production status suggests it is a mature product with well-established drivers. Overall, the data indicates that the RX 6600 XT is the primary determinant of frame rates in this combination, with its 8 GB VRAM and memory bandwidth defining the upper bounds of performance at higher resolutions.