Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT pairing in Control presents a fascinating case study in system balance, where the data reveals a clear shift in bottleneck behavior as resolution scales. This analysis examines the measured frames, the role of each component, and what the numbers imply for the best play experience.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is built on the Zen 4 architecture with a 5 nm process, featuring 6 cores and 12 threads. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz, which can boost up to 4.70 GHz, and it carries 32 MB of shared L3 cache alongside 1 MB of L2 per core. This configuration is notable for a game like Control, which is known for its physics-heavy combat and destructible environments—workloads that can leverage multiple threads but also demand strong single-core performance for game logic.

In the measured results, the CPU's influence is most apparent at lower resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 179 FPS, a figure that drops to 136 FPS at 1440p and 92 FPS at 4K. This scaling pattern suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU enough data to reach very high frame rates. The 7400F's single-thread performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3072, is strong enough to avoid becoming a hard ceiling in this title, even with the game's complex physics simulations running.

The multi-core capabilities of the 7400F should not be discounted. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21765 and Passmark multithread score of 25645 indicate that it can handle the game's background tasks, AI routines, and physics calculations simultaneously. In Control, where the environment is constantly collapsing and objects react dynamically, this headroom prevents stutters that could arise from CPU thread saturation. The data shows that the CPU maintains a consistent frame delivery, as the minimum FPS recorded at 1080p Medium (108 FPS) is still exceptionally high, indicating no severe thread bottlenecks.

However, the CPU's role becomes less dominant as resolution increases. The percentileVsAllCpus score of 83 places it in the upper echelon of processors, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600T and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, which have similar average benchmark scores. This competitive positioning suggests that, while the 7400F is not the absolute fastest, it provides ample compute power for Control's engine, ensuring that the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions rather than the processor holding back performance.

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

Analyzing the measured FPS rows, the "High" preset emerges as the most balanced choice across all resolutions. At 1080p, High yields 113 FPS, which is a substantial 15 FPS drop from Low (179 FPS) but a significant 15 FPS gain over Ultra (98 FPS). The jump from Low to High costs performance, but the visual fidelity improvements in Control's lighting and particle effects are substantial, making this a worthwhile trade-off for most users.

At 1440p, the High preset delivers 86 FPS, which is smooth for an action-adventure title. The Medium preset offers 96 FPS, a 10 FPS improvement over High, but the visual downgrade in texture quality and shadow resolution may be noticeable. The Ultra preset at 74 FPS is still playable but begins to approach the threshold where frame pacing issues could become apparent during intense combat sequences.

The 4K results tell a similar story. High settings produce 58 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS target that many consider optimal for this genre. Medium settings at 65 FPS provide a more comfortable margin above 60 FPS, while Low settings jump to 92 FPS but compromise the game's atmospheric visuals. The Ultra preset at 50 FPS is the only measured configuration that dips below 60 FPS at 4K, suggesting it is best reserved for players who prioritize graphical fidelity over frame rate consistency.

Given these numbers, the High preset at 1440p or the Medium preset at 4K offer the best balance between visual quality and performance. The High preset at 1080p is also excellent for high-refresh-rate displays, as the 113 FPS average leaves headroom for dips without falling below 100 FPS. The data does not support using Low settings unless the user is targeting 4K at the highest possible frame rates, and Ultra is only recommended for 1080p where the 98 FPS average remains fluid.

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

*Q: What is the best resolution to play Control at with this combo?*

A: The data indicates 1440p with High settings offers the best balance, delivering 86 FPS while maintaining high visual fidelity. At 4K, High settings drop to 58 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold, making 1440p the sweet spot for this pairing.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this game?

A: At 1080p, the CPU appears to be the limiting factor, as evidenced by the 179 FPS on Low settings. However, the scaling from 1080p to 1440p (a 24% drop) and 1440p to 4K (a 33% drop) suggests the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, meaning the CPU is sufficient for 1440p and 4K gaming.

Q: How much performance does the Ultra preset cost compared to High?

A: At 1080p, Ultra averages 98 FPS versus 113 FPS on High, a 15 FPS difference. At 1440p, the gap widens to 12 FPS (74 vs 86), and at 4K it narrows to 8 FPS (50 vs 58). The relative cost of Ultra decreases at higher resolutions, but the absolute frame rates become less playable.

*Q: Is the 16 GB VRAM on the RX 6800 XT necessary for Control?*

A: While the FACT PACK does not specify VRAM usage in Control, the 16 GB frame buffer on the RX 6800 XT ensures that texture streaming and high-resolution assets do not exceed memory limits. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (50 FPS) suggests the GPU is compute-limited rather than VRAM-limited, as the frame rate does not collapse due to memory swapping.

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

A: The combo ranks 852 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the top 30% of all systems. This ranking reflects a balanced pairing where the CPU and GPU complement each other well for this title, despite the GPU being from an older generation.

Q: Should I enable ray tracing with this setup?

A: The FACT PACK does not include ray tracing performance data for Control. However, the RX 6800 XT has 72 dedicated ray accelerators, and the measured non-RT FPS at 4K High (58 FPS) suggests that enabling ray tracing would likely push frame rates below playable levels without significant resolution or settings adjustments.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo's rank of 852 out of 2888 tested combinations places it in the 70.5th percentile of all systems benchmarked in Control. This is a strong result, indicating that the pairing of the Ryzen 5 7400F and RX 6800 XT performs well above the median system. The rank is particularly impressive given that the GPU is from the Radeon RX 6000 series, which is now end-of-life, while the CPU is a newer 2025 release.

Interpreting this rank requires considering the distribution of systems in the database. The 852nd position out of 2888 means there are 2036 combos that perform worse and 851 that perform better. The systems ahead of this combo likely include those with newer GPUs like the RTX 5070 Ti, which the RX 6800 XT trails by 3% in average benchmark score according to nearestRivals data. The systems behind include those with weaker GPUs or CPUs that cannot keep up with the demands of Control's physics engine.

The rank demonstrates that this is a capable mid-to-high-end system for Control. It is not a top-tier configuration, but it delivers a consistently smooth experience at 1080p and 1440p, with acceptable performance at 4K with settings adjustments. The fact that it outranks 70% of tested combos suggests that the 7400F's recent release and the 6800 XT's raw compute power combine effectively for this specific title's engine characteristics.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture using a 7 nm process, featuring 4608 shading units and 72 ray accelerators. Its boost clock reaches 2250 MHz, with a game clock of 2015 MHz. The memory subsystem is substantial: 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is critical for Control, which features high-resolution textures and complex particle effects that can consume significant VRAM.

The GPU's FP32 performance of 20.74 TFLOPS is the raw compute muscle that drives the game's rendering. At 1080p Low, the GPU is not the limiting factor, as the CPU pushes 179 FPS. However, as resolution increases, the GPU's workload expands dramatically. The 4K Low result of 92 FPS versus the 4K Ultra result of 50 FPS illustrates how the GPU's compute units are taxed by the increased pixel count and shader complexity.

The 16 GB VRAM ensures that the GPU does not bottleneck on memory capacity, even at 4K Ultra. The measured min FPS of 55 at 4K Medium suggests that frame drops are due to compute limitations rather than memory thrashing. The GPU's nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA RTX 5070 Ti, are within 3% of its average benchmark score, indicating that the RX 6800 XT remains competitive despite being from an earlier generation.

The GPU's percentileVsAllGpus score of 85 places it in the top 15% of all GPUs, which aligns with the measured FPS results. The GPU's role is to provide the raw pixel-pushing power, and the data shows it does this effectively up to 1440p High settings. At 4K, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck, as the CPU is likely not the constraint given the 7400F's strong performance metrics.

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

The dataset provides a comprehensive grid of average FPS across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1080p, the results are: Low 179 FPS, Medium 127 FPS (with min 108 and max 146), High 113 FPS, and Ultra 98 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 81 FPS, indicating that settings have a massive impact on performance at this resolution. The Medium preset's min FPS of 108 is particularly telling, as it shows that even during intense scenes, the frame rate does not plummet, ensuring a consistent experience.

At 1440p, the averages are: Low 136 FPS, Medium 96 FPS (min 82, max 111), High 86 FPS, and Ultra 74 FPS. The spread narrows to 62 FPS, but the relative cost of Ultra versus High is still significant. The Medium min FPS of 82 is above the 60 FPS threshold, suggesting that 1440p Medium is a safe choice for maintaining smooth gameplay.

At 4K, the results are: Low 92 FPS, Medium 65 FPS (min 55, max 75), High 58 FPS, and Ultra 50 FPS. The spread is 42 FPS, and the Medium preset's min FPS of 55 falls below the 60 FPS target, while High and Ultra average below 60 FPS. This data clearly shows that 4K gaming with this combo requires either Low or Medium settings to ensure a consistently playable experience, with the understanding that even Medium can dip below 60 FPS during heavy action.

The progression across resolutions for a given setting is also informative. For High settings, the FPS drops from 113 at 1080p to 86 at 1440p (a 24% reduction) and then to 58 at 4K (a 33% reduction from 1440p). This non-linear scaling is typical of GPU-bound scenarios, where the pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K but the frame rate does not quarter, due to other bottlenecks and efficiencies.

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

The resolution scaling data reveals the system's bottleneck characteristics. Moving from 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS across all settings drops by approximately 23-25%. This is less than the pixel count increase of 78%, indicating that the system is not purely pixel-bound at this transition. The CPU still has headroom to feed the GPU, and the GPU has enough bandwidth to handle the increased load without a proportional FPS loss.

The transition from 1440p to 4K is more revealing. At High settings, the FPS drops from 86 to 58, a 33% reduction for a 125% increase in pixel count. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 74 to 50, also a 32% reduction. This scaling suggests that the GPU is becoming the primary limiting factor at 4K. The RX 6800 XT's compute throughput and memory bandwidth are being saturated, and the CPU's role diminishes as the GPU takes longer to render each frame.

The Low settings data provides a contrasting view. At Low, the FPS drops from 179 at 1080p to 136 at 1440p (24% drop) and then to 92 at 4K (32% drop from 1440p). Even at Low settings, the GPU cannot maintain the 1080p frame rates at higher resolutions, confirming that the GPU is the bottleneck from 1440p upwards. The CPU, with its strong single-thread performance, is not holding back the system at any resolution, as evidenced by the fact that even the weakest GPU workload (1080p Low) does not produce an anomalously low FPS.

This scaling analysis implies that for users wanting to maximize frame rates, 1080p is where the CPU matters most, and 4K is where the GPU's capabilities define the experience. The system is well-balanced for 1440p gaming, where both components contribute meaningfully to the final frame rate. The data does not suggest any CPU-side stuttering or frame pacing issues, as the minimum FPS values at each resolution and settings preset remain proportional to the averages.