Control

Control pairs AMD’s Ryzen 5 7400F with the Radeon RX 6750 XT, and the measured frames across three resolutions and four presets paint a clear picture of where this system’s strengths and limits lie. The data shows a combo that scales predictably with settings, but the relationship between resolution and frame rate reveals more than just raw performance numbers — it points to a GPU-bound setup at higher resolutions and a surprisingly balanced one at 1080p.

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

The most striking pattern in the measured data is the steep cost of moving up in resolution. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 148 FPS at 1920x1080 to 112 FPS at 2560x1440, then down to 76 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 24% drop when going from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 32% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total decline from 1080p Low to 4K Low is roughly 49%, which indicates that even at the lowest quality preset, the GPU is doing substantially more work as pixel count rises.

High settings tell a similar story but with a sharper cliff. At 1920x1080 High, the combo averages 94 FPS. Dropping to 2560x1440 High yields 71 FPS — a 24% reduction that mirrors the Low preset’s scaling. However, moving from 1440p High to 4K High brings the average down to 48 FPS, a 32% loss that pushes the experience below the 60 FPS threshold. This suggests that at High and above, the RX 6750 XT’s pixel throughput becomes the dominant constraint as resolution climbs.

Medium settings show the most consistent scaling curve across the entire range. At 1080p Medium, the average is 105 FPS. At 1440p Medium, it drops to 80 FPS (a 24% decline), and at 4K Medium, it lands at 54 FPS (a 33% drop from 1440p). The min FPS values at Medium also scale closely: 90 FPS at 1080p, 68 FPS at 1440p, and 46 FPS at 4K. This consistency implies that the game’s Medium preset balances CPU and GPU load evenly enough that neither component becomes a sudden bottleneck as resolution increases.

Ultra settings reveal the heaviest burden on the GPU. Starting at 81 FPS on 1080p Ultra, the average falls to 62 FPS at 1440p Ultra — a 23% reduction — and then to 42 FPS at 4K Ultra, a 32% drop. The gap between 4K Medium (54 FPS) and 4K Ultra (42 FPS) is 12 FPS, while the gap between 1080p Medium and 1080p Ultra is 24 FPS. This narrowing at 4K suggests that the GPU is nearing its limits regardless of preset, making resolution the primary factor in performance loss rather than quality settings alone.

What does this imply about the limiting component? The consistent 24% and 32% drops across all presets indicate that the RX 6750 XT is the primary bottleneck as resolution increases. If the Ryzen 5 7400F were the limiting factor, the frame rate would plateau more noticeably at lower resolutions, but the data shows continued gains from 1440p to 1080p across every preset. The CPU has headroom; the GPU runs out of steam first.

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

The Radeon RX 6750 XT brings 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, with memory clocked at 2250 MHz and an effective 18 Gbps data rate. That yields a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s, which is ample for a 2019-era action-adventure title like Control even at 4K. The measured FPS at 4K Medium (54 FPS) and 4K High (48 FPS) suggests that memory bandwidth is not the deciding factor — the GPU’s compute throughput is what limits performance at those settings.

The GPU’s boost clock is listed at 2600 MHz, with a game clock of 2495 MHz and a base of 2150 MHz. These clocks are high for the RDNA 2 architecture, and they help explain why the card performs as well as it does at 1080p. At 1920x1080 Low, the combo hits 148 FPS, which is more than double the 4K Low result of 76 FPS. The shading units (2560) and texture units (160) are working hard at lower resolutions, but the pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s become strained as pixel count grows.

The 12 GB frame buffer is worth noting in the context of Control’s settings. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 42, which is the lowest measured value in the entire dataset. While VRAM capacity is not directly measured in the FPS rows, the fact that Ultra settings at 4K produce such a low frame rate suggests that the GPU is hitting a compute ceiling rather than a memory ceiling — 12 GB is generous for this game, and the bandwidth figure supports that interpretation.

The GPU’s benchmark scores reinforce its mid-range positioning. Its PassMark G3D score of 20700 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2548 place it in the 71st percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (deltaPct 0.5), AMD FirePro W7100 (deltaPct 0.6), AMD FirePro D700 (deltaPct 0.7), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (deltaPct 1.1), all within a couple percent. This suggests the RX 6750 XT is a solid performer for its class, but it is not a high-end part — which matches the measured FPS dropping below 60 at 4K High and Ultra.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested combinations for Control, this pairing of the Ryzen 5 7400F and RX 6750 XT ranks 1267th out of 2888 combos. That places it in the 56th percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly 44% of tested combos perform better in this specific game. The rank is a composite measure that accounts for all measured resolutions and settings, so it reflects the system’s overall capability rather than any single configuration.

The rank of 1267 is notable because it sits slightly above the middle of the pack. Given that the GPU itself ranks in the 71st percentile among all GPUs and the CPU ranks in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, one might expect the combo to rank higher. The discrepancy suggests that Control’s specific workload does not fully leverage the strengths of either component — or that the game’s engine is more sensitive to certain bottlenecks than raw benchmark scores imply.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the Ryzen 5 7400F’s average benchmark score of 32750 is nearly identical to the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707, deltaPct 0.1), Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (32697, deltaPct 0.2), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32812, deltaPct -0.2), and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32662, deltaPct 0.3). All of these CPUs are within 0.3% of each other, which means the 7400F’s raw compute is competitive with a wide range of modern processors. Yet the combo rank in Control does not reflect a top-tier standing, hinting that the game may be more GPU-limited in this pairing.

The combo rank of 1267 also implies that many systems with weaker GPUs but stronger CPUs might rank higher in Control, if the game favors CPU performance at certain settings. However, the measured FPS data shows the GPU is the bottleneck at higher resolutions, so the rank likely reflects the GPU’s mid-range standing more than the CPU’s capability.

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

For 1920x1080, the data shows that High settings (94 FPS) offer a smooth experience with a 46% improvement over Ultra (81 FPS) and a 10% drop from Medium (105 FPS). The gap between Medium and High is only 11 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is 13 FPS. Given that High delivers nearly 100 FPS, it is the sweet spot for 1080p — it provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS without sacrificing the visual quality that Ultra would add. Low settings at 1080p hit 148 FPS, but that is excessive for most displays and comes with a significant visual penalty.

At 2560x1440, High settings (71 FPS) remain above 60 FPS, making it the recommended preset for this resolution. Medium (80 FPS) offers a 13% boost over High, while Ultra (62 FPS) just barely clears the 60 FPS threshold. The difference between Ultra and High at 1440p is only 9 FPS, so High is preferable for a more consistent experience — the data shows no min FPS values for High or Ultra at this resolution, but the averages suggest that Ultra could dip below 60 in demanding scenes. Low settings at 1440p (112 FPS) are viable for competitive play, but they waste the GPU’s potential.

At 3840x2160, the story changes dramatically. Only Low settings (76 FPS) clear 60 FPS comfortably. Medium (54 FPS) and High (48 FPS) fall short, and Ultra (42 FPS) is below playable thresholds for most users. The measured min FPS at 4K Medium is 46, which means even the average is close to the minimum — this is not a stable experience. For 4K, Low is the only preset that delivers a consistently smooth frame rate, and even then, the 76 FPS average is modest. Users prioritizing visual fidelity at 4K would need to accept frame rates in the 40s.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is 1080p High (94 FPS) or 1440p High (71 FPS). Both offer a balance of quality and performance, with the former being more forgiving and the latter being more immersive. For users with 60 Hz displays, 1440p High is the optimal choice; for 144 Hz displays, 1080p High or Medium is recommended.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured averages are as follows: Low 148 FPS, Medium 105 FPS (min 90, max 121), High 94 FPS, Ultra 81 FPS. The Medium preset has the only recorded min and max values at this resolution, showing a range of 31 FPS between the lowest and highest measured frames. The jump from Low to Medium is 43 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High is 11 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 13 FPS. This indicates that Low is in a different performance tier, while Medium through Ultra are more closely grouped.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 112 FPS, Medium 80 FPS (min 68, max 92), High 71 FPS, Ultra 62 FPS. The Medium range is 24 FPS, smaller than at 1080p. The scaling from Low to Medium is 32 FPS, from Medium to High is 9 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 9 FPS again. The consistency of the 9 FPS drops between Medium, High, and Ultra suggests that each quality tier adds a similar load at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 76 FPS, Medium 54 FPS (min 46, max 62), High 48 FPS, Ultra 42 FPS. The Medium range is 16 FPS, the smallest of any resolution. The scaling from Low to Medium is 22 FPS, from Medium to High is 6 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 6 FPS. The narrowing gaps at 4K indicate that the GPU is reaching its limit, and each additional quality setting has a diminishing impact on frame rate relative to the lower resolutions.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently shows the most complete data with min and max values, providing the best insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the min of 90 FPS ensures no drops below 90 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the min of 68 FPS stays above 60. At 4K Medium, the min of 46 FPS is below 60, confirming that 4K Medium is not a reliable experience.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain 60 FPS or higher?

A: At 2560x1440, High settings average 71 FPS and Ultra averages 62 FPS, both above 60. At 3840x2160, only Low settings (76 FPS) exceed 60 FPS, while Medium (54 FPS), High (48 FPS), and Ultra (42 FPS) all fall below.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings?

A: At Low settings, the average drops from 148 FPS at 1080p to 76 FPS at 4K, a 49% reduction. At High settings, it drops from 94 FPS to 48 FPS, a similar 49% reduction. At Ultra, the drop is from 81 FPS to 42 FPS, a 48% reduction.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game at 4K?

A: The data shows consistent 24% to 32% frame rate drops as resolution increases across all presets, which indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck at 4K. The CPU’s benchmark percentile (83rd) is higher than the GPU’s (71st), and the measured FPS scaling tracks with pixel count, not CPU load.

Q: What FPS can be expected at 1440p Medium with this combo?

A: The average is 80 FPS, with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 92 FPS. This is the most consistent result at 1440p, offering a 20 FPS margin above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Control?

A: It ranks 1267th out of 2888 total combos, placing it in the 56th percentile. This is lower than the individual component percentiles (CPU 83rd, GPU 71st), suggesting the game does not fully utilize both parts’ strengths.

Q: What is the FPS difference between High and Ultra at 1080p?

A: High averages 94 FPS, while Ultra averages 81 FPS. The difference is 13 FPS, or about 14% slower on Ultra. This is a modest penalty for the visual upgrade, making Ultra a reasonable choice at 1080p.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a 65W TDP. The CPU is built on a 5 nm process by TSMC, with 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. It supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes.

In benchmark terms, the 7400F scores 21765 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3072 in single-core. Its PassMark multithread score is 25645, and its single-thread score is 3689. These numbers place it in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32750. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.3%: the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707), Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (32697), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32812), and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32662).

How does this CPU relate to the measured FPS in Control? At 1080p Low, the combo hits 148 FPS, which is a high frame rate that requires solid single-thread performance. The 7400F’s boost clock of 4.70 GHz and single-core Cinebench R23 score of 3072 are sufficient to feed the GPU at this resolution. However, the fact that FPS scales down consistently with resolution — rather than plateauing — suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this game.

The 6 cores and 12 threads are adequate for Control, which is an action-adventure title that does not heavily utilize multi-threading. The CPU’s 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB L2 per core provide fast access to game data, and the 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth supports the GPU’s needs. But the measured data shows that even at 1080p Low, the system does not exceed 148 FPS, which is well below what the CPU could theoretically deliver if the GPU were not the constraint.

The CPU’s percentile rank (83rd) is notably higher than the GPU’s (71st), which reinforces the conclusion that the RX 6750 XT is the bottleneck in this pairing. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see similar FPS across different resolutions at the same settings, but the data shows a 49% drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. The 7400F has headroom to spare; the GPU runs out of steam first. For users considering an upgrade path, the data suggests that a stronger GPU would yield larger frame rate gains in Control than a faster CPU would.