Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti combination delivers a playable but constrained experience in Control, with performance heavily dependent on resolution and settings. The measured data shows a clear hierarchy where the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck as resolution increases, while the CPU’s strong single-threaded capabilities keep frame rates respectable at lower settings. This analysis walks through the benchmark results step by step, focusing on what the numbers reveal about the hardware’s behavior in this specific title.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, indicating that the GTX 1660 Ti is the limiting component at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 91 at 1920x1080 to 69 at 2560x1440, a reduction of 22 FPS, and then to 46 at 3840x2160, another 23 FPS drop. This linear decline suggests the GPU’s pixel throughput and memory bandwidth are being saturated, with the 6 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth struggling to feed the increasing pixel count.

At Medium settings, the pattern continues: 64 FPS at 1080p drops to 49 FPS at 1440p and then to 33 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1440p and 4K is 16 FPS, which is proportionally similar to the Low setting’s 23 FPS drop, showing that resolution scaling is consistent regardless of preset. High settings follow suit with 57 FPS at 1080p, 43 FPS at 1440p, and 29 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings are the most demanding, with 50 FPS at 1080p, 38 FPS at 1440p, and 25 FPS at 4K, the latter being barely above a slideshow.

The data reveals that the most significant single-step drop occurs between 1080p and 1440p for Low settings, where the loss is 22 FPS. This indicates that even at the lowest graphical load, the GTX 1660 Ti’s 1536 shading units and 48 ROPs cannot maintain the same efficiency as pixel count rises. The CPU’s role here is secondary; the Ryzen 5 5600X with its 6 cores and 12 threads, running at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost of 4.60 GHz, has ample headroom, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1541, which is not being taxed by resolution changes.

At 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra is 41 FPS (91 vs 50), which is smaller than the 46 FPS gap at 4K (46 vs 25). This widening spread at higher resolutions further confirms that the GPU is the bottleneck; as resolution increases, the cost of each additional graphical effect becomes more expensive in pixel-shading terms. For users targeting 4K, only Low settings approach playability at 46 FPS, but this comes with a significant visual compromise. The data suggests that 1440p is the sweet spot for this combo, where Medium settings deliver 49 FPS and High settings 43 FPS, both within the range of smooth gameplay.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the best experience balances frame rate and visual quality, and the data points to Medium settings at 1440p as the optimal choice. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average FPS is 49, with a minimum of 41 and maximum of 56, providing a consistent range that avoids major dips. This is a 6 FPS improvement over High settings at the same resolution, which averages 43 FPS. The trade-off between Medium and High is modest in visual terms but significant in frame rate stability, as the minimum FPS at Medium is 41, whereas High’s minimum is not recorded but the average is lower.

For 1080p, Medium settings at 64 FPS is the recommended preset, as it offers a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold. High settings at 57 FPS are also viable, but the 7 FPS difference could matter in fast-paced combat sequences. Low settings at 1080p produce 91 FPS, which is excellent for competitive play but sacrifices the game’s atmospheric lighting and effects. Ultra settings at 1080p yield 50 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a game that rewards smooth camera movement; the drop from Medium to Ultra is 14 FPS, a significant cost for marginal visual gains.

At 4K, the data is less forgiving. Low settings at 46 FPS is the only preset that breaks the 30 FPS barrier, making it the sole recommendation for 4K play. Medium at 33 FPS and High at 29 FPS are borderline, with the former barely playable and the latter likely to cause noticeable stutter. Ultra at 25 FPS is not recommended for any scenario. The measured minimum FPS for Medium at 4K is 28, which means frame times can spike, leading to a less fluid experience. For the majority of users, 1440p Medium offers the best balance, as it preserves the game’s visual identity while maintaining a frame rate that is responsive.

The data also shows that the difference between Low and Medium at 1440p is 20 FPS (69 vs 49), which is substantial. This suggests that Low settings are overly conservative for this resolution, and users can afford the step up to Medium without sacrificing playability. Conversely, the jump from Medium to High at 1440p is only 6 FPS, making High a reasonable alternative if visual fidelity is prioritized. Ultimately, the measured rows indicate that Medium is the sweet spot across all resolutions, as it provides the best frame rate per visual quality investment.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ranks 3176 out of 3720 tested combos in Control, placing it in the lower 15% of all configurations. This low rank is primarily driven by the GPU’s performance ceiling, as the GTX 1660 Ti sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, indicating that most graphics cards outperform it. In contrast, the CPU ranks at the 75th percentile among all CPUs, showing that the Ryzen 5 5600X is a stronger component relative to its peers.

The GPU’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the AMD Radeon 540, which scores 7673 with a deltaPct of 0.7%, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7580 with a deltaPct of 1.9%. These are all lower-tier cards, confirming that the GTX 1660 Ti is positioned near the entry-level segment. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 7723, which is modest compared to the CPU’s average of 21771, highlighting the disparity in their respective class standings.

The combo’s rank in Control is not surprising given the game’s demanding nature. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (25 FPS) is below the playable threshold, and even at 1080p Ultra (50 FPS), the experience is not ideal. The data suggests that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming at Medium to High settings, where it can achieve 57-64 FPS. The high rank of the CPU does not compensate for the GPU’s limitations, as Control’s rendering workload is heavily GPU-bound at higher resolutions.

Compared to other combos, the 3176th rank out of 3720 indicates that there are only 544 worse-performing configurations, meaning this setup is closer to the bottom than the middle. This is a reflection of the GTX 1660 Ti’s age and its end-of-life production status, as well as its 6 GB VRAM, which is below the 8 GB standard for modern games. The CPU’s performance, while strong, cannot overcome the GPU’s pixel-pushing limitations in a title like Control that features complex physics and particle effects.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings was measured, providing a complete picture of the combo’s capabilities. Low settings deliver an average of 91 FPS, which is the highest result across all tests, indicating that the CPU and GPU work well together when the GPU is not overburdened. Medium settings drop to 64 FPS, with a minimum of 55 and maximum of 74, showing a stable range that is suitable for most displays. High settings average 57 FPS, while Ultra settings average 50 FPS, both of which are playable but show diminishing returns as settings increase.

The 2560x1440 results show a clear step down from 1080p. Low settings average 69 FPS, which is still smooth, but Medium drops to 49 FPS with a minimum of 41 and maximum of 56. High settings average 43 FPS, and Ultra averages 38 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 31 FPS, which is larger than the 41 FPS gap at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor at this resolution. The minimum FPS at Medium (41) is close to the average at High (43), suggesting that High settings might experience more frequent dips.

At 3840x2160, the results are marginal for all settings. Low averages 46 FPS, which is the only playable option, while Medium averages 33 FPS with a minimum of 28 and maximum of 38. High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The data shows that even Low settings at 4K are only 46 FPS, which is below the ideal 60 FPS target. The minimum FPS at Medium (28) is below 30, indicating that frame pacing issues are likely. Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently provides the most balanced experience, with the measured minimum and maximum values showing a narrow spread that minimizes stutter.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 with Medium settings provides 49 FPS on average, which is the best balance of visual quality and performance. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers 64 FPS, but 1440p offers a more immersive experience without dropping below 41 FPS.

*Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Control?*

A: Only at Low settings, which average 46 FPS. Medium at 4K averages 33 FPS, High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS, all of which are below the ideal 60 FPS threshold. Low is the only playable option at 4K.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 5600X has an average benchmark score of 21771, which is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 4800H (21749) and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 6650U (21874). It is also 0.5% behind the Intel Core i7-11700 (21891).

Q: What is the GPU’s performance percentile?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti ranks at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7723. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 540, which scores 7673, a 0.7% difference.

Q: What are the minimum FPS values for Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080, the minimum is 55 FPS. At 2560x1440, it is 41 FPS. At 3840x2160, it is 28 FPS. These values show a consistent decline as resolution increases.

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

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck, especially at higher resolutions. The CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient, as evidenced by its strong single-core performance, but the GTX 1660 Ti’s 6 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth limit frame rates at 1440p and above.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its 32 MB L3 cache and 7 nm process node contribute to strong performance in games, as shown by its 75th percentile ranking among all CPUs. In Control, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations, and the data shows it does this effectively at all resolutions.

The CPU’s benchmark scores highlight its capabilities: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11838 and a single-core score of 1541. The single-core score is particularly relevant for gaming, as many game engines rely on a few threads for main loop logic. The CPU’s 3DMark scores also show strong scaling, from 1793 for 2 threads to 5588 for max threads, indicating that it can handle both lightly and heavily threaded workloads. In Control, which features destructible environments and telekinetic physics, the CPU’s 12 threads ensure that there is no bottleneck when the GPU is not saturated.

However, the CPU’s performance is not the limiting factor in this combo. At 1080p Low, the CPU can push 91 FPS, which is close to the monitor’s refresh rate limit for most users. The fact that frame rates drop uniformly across resolutions as settings increase indicates that the GPU is the constraint. The CPU’s 65 W TDP and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth are sufficient for the game’s requirements, and its 4.15 billion transistors on a 74 mm² die show efficiency that does not cause thermal throttling in typical scenarios.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are the AMD Ryzen 7 4800H (0.1% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 6650U (0.5% behind), but in Control, the CPU’s role is secondary to the GPU. The data shows that for this game, the CPU’s 6 cores are more than adequate, as the frame rates are primarily dictated by the GPU’s rasterization and shading capabilities. Users with this CPU can expect consistent performance across different settings, as long as the GPU is not overburdened.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing architecture GPU with 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, running at a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory operates at 12 Gbps effective, providing a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s across a 192-bit bus. These specifications place it at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7723, indicating that it is a mid-to-low range card by modern standards.

In Control, the GPU’s role is dominant, as the game’s rendering pipeline stresses pixel throughput and memory bandwidth. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (25 FPS) is a clear indication that the GPU’s 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is insufficient for such high resolutions. The GPU’s 6 GB VRAM is also a limiting factor, as high-resolution textures in Control can exceed this capacity, leading to texture swapping and frame drops. The memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s is a bottleneck at 1440p and above, where the pixel count increases by 78% from 1080p.

The GPU’s benchmark results show its strengths and weaknesses. Its DirectX 12 score of 51 in PassMark is low, but its OpenCL score of 51029 is more respectable, indicating that the card handles compute workloads better than pure rasterization in some APIs. The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1061 is a measure of its DX12 gaming performance, and it aligns with the measured FPS in Control. The GPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 540 (0.7% ahead) and the Intel Arc A310 (2.3% ahead), but these are all lower-tier cards, confirming the GTX 1660 Ti’s position.

The data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck in Control at all settings, as frame rates scale almost linearly with resolution. At 1080p, the GPU can deliver 91 FPS at Low settings, but this drops to 50 FPS at Ultra, a 45% reduction. At 4K, the GPU struggles to maintain 30 FPS even at Low, highlighting its limitations. The GPU’s 120 W TDP and 1x 8-pin power connector are modest, but its 12 nm process node from TSMC is less efficient than newer designs, leading to higher temperatures under load. For users seeking higher frame rates in Control, upgrading the GPU would yield the most significant improvement, as the CPU has ample headroom.