Control

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

The measured FPS data for Control shows a predictable downward trend as resolution climbs, but the shape of that curve reveals which component is dictating performance at each step. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT delivers 208 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440 Low drops that to 157 FPS, a 24.5% reduction. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls further to 106 FPS, another 32.5% cut from the 1440p figure.

This pattern—where each resolution step costs roughly a quarter to a third of the remaining performance—is classic GPU-bound behavior at lower settings. The RX 7900 XT, with its 20 GB of GDDR6 memory and 800.0 GB/s bandwidth, is being fed progressively larger frames, and the pixel throughput requirement grows faster than the bus width can compensate at 4K. The fact that Low settings at 1080p exceed 200 FPS suggests the CPU is still capable of pushing far more frames than the GPU can render at higher resolutions.

However, the scaling story changes when we look at Higher settings. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 114 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 86 FPS (a 24.6% decline). At 4K Ultra, it falls to 58 FPS (a 32.6% decline from 1440p). Notice how the percentage drops are nearly identical between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution step. This consistency implies that the RX 7900 XT is the primary limiter across the entire settings range—the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads at up to 4.70 GHz boost are not introducing a bottleneck that would flatten the curve at lower resolutions.

The data suggests a curious implication: if the CPU were struggling at 1080p, we would expect the gap between Low and Ultra at that resolution to be smaller than at 4K, because the GPU would be waiting on the CPU at low settings. Instead, the 1080p Low-to-Ultra spread is 94 FPS (208 vs 114), while the 4K Low-to-Ultra spread is only 48 FPS (106 vs 58). This wider spread at 1080p indicates the GPU has headroom to express its full capability when the CPU can feed it quickly—but the CPU is keeping pace. The limiting component at all tested resolutions is clearly the graphics card.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo in Control?

A: The highest measured average is 208 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only setting/resolution combination that breaks the 200 FPS barrier.

Q: Does the combo maintain 60+ FPS at 4K across all settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the combo achieves 106 FPS on Low, 75 FPS on Medium, and 67 FPS on High, but drops to 58 FPS on Ultra—just below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How much faster is 1080p Low compared to 4K Ultra?

A: The 1080p Low average of 208 FPS is 3.6 times higher than the 4K Ultra average of 58 FPS. This represents the maximum performance envelope between the most and least demanding tested configurations.

Q: What is the rank of this combo among all tested combos in Control?

A: The combo ranks 518th out of 2,888 total combos. This places it in the top 18% of all tested system configurations for this game.

Q: Is there a measurable FPS difference between High and Ultra at 1440p?

A: Yes. At 2560x1440, High averages 99 FPS while Ultra averages 86 FPS—a 13 FPS gap. The same settings difference at 1080p is 17 FPS (131 vs 114), and at 4K it is 9 FPS (67 vs 58).

Q: Which resolution shows the smallest FPS penalty from Low to Medium?

A: At 3840x2160, the drop from Low (106 FPS) to Medium (75 FPS) is 31 FPS. At 2560x1440, the drop is 45 FPS (157 to 112). At 1920x1080, the drop is 60 FPS (208 to 148). The 4K penalty is proportionally the smallest, suggesting diminishing returns from Low to Medium at higher resolutions.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 31 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Its 20 GB of GDDR6 memory across a 320-bit bus provides 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth—a figure that becomes increasingly relevant as Control's resolution scales. The GPU's boost clock reaches 2394 MHz, with a game clock of 2025 MHz and base clock of 1387 MHz. These clock speeds, combined with 5,376 shading units and 192 ROPs, produce a pixel rate of 459.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 804.4 GTexel/s.

The benchmark data for this GPU shows a Passmark G3D score of 29,009 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 16,828. Its percentile vs all GPUs is 55, meaning it sits just above the median in the database's overall GPU rankings. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5,623 provides additional context for its DirectX 12 performance. Interestingly, the nearest rivals by average benchmark score include the AMD Radeon 660M (deltaPct -0.5), NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (deltaPct -0.5), and AMD Radeon RX 570X (deltaPct -0.9)—all of which score within 1% of the RX 7900 XT's average benchmark score of 13,745, which seems anomalous given the massive VRAM and bandwidth differences, but the data stands as measured.

In Control specifically, the GPU's role is evident in the 4K results. The 4K High average of 67 FPS and 4K Ultra average of 58 FPS suggest that the 20 GB VRAM buffer is not being exhausted at these settings—if it were, we would expect more dramatic frame drops or stuttering. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium is 64 FPS, which is only 11 FPS below the average, indicating consistent frame pacing. The GPU's 84 RT cores are present in the hardware, though the measured FPS data does not separately track ray tracing performance in Control.

The end-of-life production status and the release date of 2022-11-02 mean this GPU predates the CPU in this combo by over two years. The RX 7900 XT's launch MSRP of 899 USD reflects its high-end positioning, and the data shows it still delivers playable frame rates at 4K in this 2019 title. The 51.48 TFLOPS FP32 compute capability provides ample raw processing power, but the resolution scaling analysis shows that memory bandwidth and pixel throughput are the practical constraints at 4K Ultra.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data offers a clear hierarchy for Control. At 1920x1080, every settings preset achieves at least 114 FPS average, with Low hitting 208 FPS and Medium at 148 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 60 FPS, while Medium to High costs 17 FPS, and High to Ultra costs another 17 FPS. For players prioritizing smoothness above all, Low at 1080p is the obvious choice. However, the 148 FPS average at Medium with a minimum of 125 FPS and maximum of 170 FPS provides a strong balance—the minimum stays well above 100 FPS, suggesting no significant frame drops.

At 2560x1440, the story shifts. Low averages 157 FPS, Medium 112 FPS, and High 99 FPS. Ultra drops to 86 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p, with a minimum of 95 FPS and maximum of 128 FPS, keeps the experience comfortable for high-refresh monitors. High at 99 FPS is still above 90, but the measured minimum is not recorded for High, making Medium the safer recommendation due to its documented floor. The 1440p Ultra at 86 FPS is perfectly playable but represents a 23 FPS penalty over High for what may be marginal visual gains in a game from 2019.

At 3840x2160, the choices become more constrained. Low averages 106 FPS, which is excellent for 4K. Medium drops to 75 FPS with a minimum of 64 FPS—this is the first preset where the minimum approaches the 60 FPS threshold. High averages 67 FPS, but no minimum is recorded, making it a riskier choice for those sensitive to stutter. Ultra at 58 FPS falls below 60, which many players would consider unacceptable for a smooth experience. The optimal 4K configuration is Medium: it maintains a 64 FPS minimum, keeps the average at 75 FPS, and offers better visual fidelity than Low while staying clear of the sub-60 territory that Ultra enters.

Across all resolutions, Medium emerges as the most balanced preset. It delivers 148 FPS at 1080p, 112 FPS at 1440p, and 75 FPS at 4K, with the only recorded minimum FPS values in the entire dataset (125, 95, and 64 respectively). These minimums indicate the combo handles frame spikes gracefully at Medium, which is not guaranteed at other presets where minimums are not recorded. For the best experience per the measured rows, Medium at 1440p offers the strongest combination of high average FPS and a documented minimum above 90.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 208 FPS average on Low, 148 FPS on Medium (min 125, max 170), 131 FPS on High, and 114 FPS on Ultra. The spread from Low to Ultra is 94 FPS. The Medium preset shows the tightest min-max range relative to its average—a 45 FPS spread—indicating stable frame delivery. Low and High have no recorded minimum or maximum, so the average alone must inform expectations.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 157 FPS, Medium 112 FPS (min 95, max 128), High 99 FPS, and Ultra 86 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread is 71 FPS. The Medium minimum of 95 FPS is notable because it remains above 90, suggesting that even the worst-case frames are smooth. The High preset's 99 FPS average is just under the 100 FPS psychological threshold, and the Ultra preset at 86 FPS still provides a comfortable margin over 60.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 106 FPS, Medium 75 FPS (min 64, max 87), High 67 FPS, and Ultra 58 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread is 48 FPS—the smallest of any resolution. The Medium preset at 4K has a minimum of 64 FPS, which is just 4 FPS above the 60 FPS baseline. The High preset at 67 FPS has no recorded minimum, making it a gamble for players who experience frame drops. Ultra at 58 FPS is below 60, and the absence of a minimum FPS figure means we cannot assess how low it might dip during intense scenes.

Comparing across resolutions, the 1080p Low result of 208 FPS is the only figure above 200. The 1440p Low at 157 FPS and 4K Low at 106 FPS show the GPU's scaling efficiency. The Medium preset at each resolution—148, 112, and 75—shows a consistent 30-37 FPS drop per resolution step. The Ultra preset—114, 86, and 58—shows a similar pattern with 28 FPS drops between each resolution. This consistency reinforces that the GPU is the scaling bottleneck, as the CPU's capabilities remain constant across all these tests.

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), manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The CPU supports PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes and has an unlocked multiplier.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 7400F scores 21,765 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3,072 in single-core. Its Passmark multi-thread score is 25,645, with a single-thread score of 3,689. The Passmark physics score of 1,660 is relevant for game physics calculations. The CPU's average benchmark score is 32,750, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600T (avgScore 32,707, deltaPct 0.1), Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (avgScore 32,697, deltaPct 0.2), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (avgScore 32,812, deltaPct -0.2)—all within 0.3% of the 7400F.

The CPU's release date of 2025-01-08 and launch MSRP of $229 position it as a modern mainstream part. Its 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient for Control, which is an action-adventure title from 2019 that does not typically stress multi-core processors. The 4.70 GHz boost clock provides strong single-thread performance, which is critical for game logic and draw call processing. The 32 MB L3 cache helps reduce memory latency, and the DDR5 support offers higher bandwidth than older platforms.

The measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU bottlenecking. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 208 FPS, which is a high frame rate that would expose a weak CPU's limitations. The fact that the GPU is still the limiting factor at this resolution—as shown by the settings scaling—indicates the 7400F is delivering frames faster than the RX 7900 XT can render them at Low settings. The Passmark data compression score of 289,999 and floating-point math score of 45,799 further indicate strong computational throughput.

The combo rank of 518 out of 2,888 suggests the CPU-GPU pairing is well-matched for Control, though not top-tier. The 83rd percentile CPU ranking combined with the 55th percentile GPU ranking indicates the processor is relatively stronger than the graphics card in the broader benchmark database, but in Control specifically, the GPU takes the lead role in determining performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT ranks 518th out of 2,888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the top 17.9% of all system configurations tested for this game. The rank reflects the combination's absolute performance, not just the CPU or GPU individually.

To contextualize this rank: the CPU alone sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, which is strong, while the GPU sits in the 55th percentile of all GPUs. The combo rank of 518/2888 is somewhat lower than the CPU's percentile would suggest, likely because the GPU's below-average percentile drags the combined performance down. However, the measured FPS data shows this combo is highly capable in Control specifically, with 4K High at 67 FPS and 1440p Ultra at 86 FPS.

The gap between the combo's rank and the individual component percentiles is worth investigating. The GPU's nearest rivals by average benchmark score include the AMD Radeon 660M (a much lower-tier part) and NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile, which suggests the benchmark database's GPU scores may not fully capture the RX 7900 XT's gaming strengths. The Passmark G3D score of 29,009 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 5,623 are the relevant gaming metrics, and they show the GPU performing well above its 55th percentile overall rank.

In Control, the combo demonstrates that high CPU performance can compensate for a mid-ranked GPU in certain workloads. The 6-core, 12-thread CPU at 4.70 GHz boost provides enough headroom to feed the GPU at 4K, and the GPU's 20 GB VRAM ensures no memory-related stutters at any tested setting. The 518th rank out of 2,888 means there are 2,370 combos that perform worse, and 517 that perform better—the latter likely featuring either stronger GPUs or more balanced pairings.

The rank also implies that for players with this specific CPU, upgrading the GPU would yield significant gains in Control, since the data shows the GPU is the limiting factor. Conversely, for players with this GPU, the CPU is not holding back performance, so a CPU upgrade would not improve Control FPS based on the measured results. The combo's position in the database reflects a system where the CPU has untapped potential, and the GPU is the current performance ceiling.