Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination delivers a solid performance profile in Control, with measured frame rates that place it well within the upper tier of tested hardware configurations. The data shows a system capable of handling the game’s action-adventure demands across a wide range of resolutions and settings, though the exact experience varies meaningfully depending on where the user sets the graphical sliders. This analysis breaks down the measured results, contextualizes them against the combo’s rank and rival components, and provides actionable settings guidance based solely on the provided figures.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo holds rank 670 out of 2,888 tested combinations in Control. That places it in the top 23.2 percent of all systems evaluated for this game, a strong showing that reflects the hardware’s ability to maintain high frame rates at demanding settings. The rank is a composite measure, and the measured FPS data confirms why this pairing sits where it does: it clears 60 FPS at 4K with High settings and exceeds 100 FPS at 1080p with Medium settings, which are thresholds many configurations struggle to meet simultaneously.

When comparing the CPU to its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 7400F’s average benchmark score of 32,750 is nearly identical to the Intel Core i5-14600T (32,707, deltaPct 0.1) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (32,697, deltaPct 0.2). It sits marginally ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32,662, deltaPct 0.3) and slightly behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32,812, deltaPct -0.2). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning the 7400F’s processing power is effectively on par with these alternatives. In Control, where the GPU typically bears the heavier load, this CPU-level parity suggests that swapping among these processors would yield negligible FPS differences.

The GPU’s rival comparison is less flattering in raw benchmark terms but requires careful interpretation. The RX 9070 XT’s average benchmark score is 13,543, which is within 1 percent of the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (13,536, deltaPct 0.1), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (13,515, deltaPct 0.2), the NVIDIA P106-090 (13,470, deltaPct 0.5), and the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13,407, deltaPct 1). These rivals are older or lower-tier cards, yet the average scores are close. However, the RX 9070 XT’s percentile versus all GPUs is 55, and its measured performance in Control is far beyond what those rival cards could achieve in this title. The benchmark average is dominated by synthetic workloads that may not reflect gaming performance, whereas the measured FPS data is the definitive evidence for this game. The combo’s rank, therefore, is the more reliable indicator of in-game capability.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the dominant component in this pairing for Control, as evidenced by the FPS scaling across settings. The GPU packs 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s. That memory capacity is ample for Control’s textures and effects, even at 4K resolution, where the game can consume several gigabytes of VRAM for high-resolution assets. The 16 GB pool ensures that memory capacity is unlikely to be a bottleneck at any of the tested settings.

Clock speeds further reinforce the GPU’s role. The base clock is 1660 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz and a boost clock of 2970 MHz. The boost clock is the maximum attainable under load, and the gap between base and boost—over 1,300 MHz—indicates significant headroom for the card to ramp up performance during intense scenes. The memory clock runs at 2518 MHz, which translates to 20.1 Gbps effective, and this high-speed memory is critical for feeding the 4096 shading units and 128 ROPs. The GPU’s pixel rate of 380.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 760.3 GTexel/s provide the raw throughput needed to sustain high frame rates.

In Control, the GPU’s workload scales directly with resolution and settings. The measured data shows that lowering settings from Ultra to Low at a fixed resolution produces a substantial FPS increase—for instance, a jump from 54 FPS to 98 FPS at 4K. This sensitivity to settings is a hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU, with its six Zen 4 cores and 12 threads, is capable of feeding the GPU without becoming the primary constraint, as evidenced by the consistent FPS gains when the GPU has less work to do. The RX 9070 XT’s 64 RT cores are also relevant, as Control supports ray tracing, though the measured FPS data does not specify whether ray tracing was enabled.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals the GPU as the limiting component. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 122 at 1920x1080 to 92 at 2560x1440, then to 62 at 3840x2160. That represents a 24.6 percent reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a 49.2 percent reduction from 1080p to 4K. The scaling is nearly linear with the pixel count increase: 1440p has 1.78 times the pixels of 1080p, and 4K has 4 times the pixels, yet the FPS drops are less than proportional to pixel count, indicating that the GPU has some headroom in memory bandwidth and compute to mitigate the load increase.

At Low settings, the same pattern holds but with higher absolute numbers. The average FPS is 193 at 1080p, 146 at 1440p, and 98 at 4K. The percentage drops are 24.4 percent from 1080p to 1440p and 49.2 percent from 1080p to 4K, nearly identical to the High setting scaling. This consistency suggests that the resolution impact is independent of the quality preset—the GPU’s rendering pipeline is being taxed proportionally by pixel count regardless of the complexity of the scene effects.

The Medium settings data includes minimum and maximum FPS figures, which provide additional insight. At 4K Medium, the average is 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 and a maximum of 80. At 1440p Medium, the average is 103 with a minimum of 88 and a maximum of 119. At 1080p Medium, the average is 137 with a minimum of 116 and a maximum of 157. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium (59) is close to the 60 FPS threshold, meaning there will be occasional dips below that mark, but the overall experience remains smooth. The fact that the minimum FPS scales down with resolution—from 116 at 1080p to 59 at 4K—further confirms the GPU is the bottleneck; a CPU-bound scenario would show more consistent minimums across resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers high frame rates across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 193 FPS, which is well above any standard display refresh rate and indicates the GPU is not being fully utilized at this resolution and preset. Medium settings average 137 FPS, with a minimum of 116 and a maximum of 157, providing a very smooth experience for high-refresh monitors. High settings average 122 FPS, still excellent for competitive or fast-paced play. Ultra settings drop to 106 FPS, but that remains a strong result, and the gap between Low and Ultra (193 vs. 106 FPS) shows the GPU’s headroom is being consumed by higher-quality effects.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains robust. Low settings average 146 FPS, which is a 24.4 percent drop from 1080p Low, but still very fast. Medium settings average 103 FPS, with a minimum of 88 and a maximum of 119, meaning the frame rate stays comfortably above 60 FPS even in demanding scenes. High settings average 92 FPS, which is suitable for 1440p gaming on high-refresh displays, though some users may prefer to cap at 90 FPS for consistency. Ultra settings average 80 FPS, which is playable but shows the first signs of the GPU being pushed harder—the gap between High and Ultra at 1440p (92 vs. 80 FPS, a 13 percent drop) is smaller than at 1080p (122 vs. 106 FPS, a 13.1 percent drop), indicating that the settings impact is consistent.

At 3840x2160, the combo still delivers playable frame rates but with more variation. Low settings average 98 FPS, which is excellent for 4K and suggests the GPU can handle the resolution when effects are reduced. Medium settings average 70 FPS, with a minimum of 59 and a maximum of 80—the minimum is just below 60 FPS, so there will be brief stutters in the most intensive moments. High settings average 62 FPS, which is right at the edge of smooth playability, with occasional dips below 60 likely. Ultra settings average 54 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target and will be noticeably less smooth, particularly in action-heavy sequences. The data indicates that 4K Ultra is the only configuration that falls short of a stable 60 FPS experience.

Settings Recommendations

For a smooth 60 FPS experience at 3840x2160, the data points to High settings as the maximum viable option, with an average of 62 FPS. However, the lack of minimum FPS data for High settings means there is uncertainty about the worst-case frame rate. Medium settings at 4K provide a safer choice, with a 70 FPS average and a documented minimum of 59 FPS, which means the frame rate will occasionally dip below 60 but will rarely go far below that threshold. For users who prioritize consistent performance over visual fidelity, Medium at 4K offers the best balance, as the minimum FPS is only marginally below 60 and the average is 10 FPS higher than High.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts to High settings, which average 92 FPS and remain above 60 FPS throughout (though no minimum is provided, the average is high enough to imply consistent performance). Ultra at 1440p averages 80 FPS, which is also playable and provides the best visual quality, but the 13 percent drop from High may not justify the increased GPU load for some users. Medium at 1440p (103 FPS average, 88 minimum) is the best choice for high-refresh monitors, as the minimum FPS stays well above 60.

At 1920x1080, all settings are viable, but the choice depends on the display’s refresh rate. For 144 Hz or higher monitors, Medium settings (137 FPS average) or High settings (122 FPS average) are ideal, as they keep the frame rate near or above the refresh ceiling. Ultra at 1080p (106 FPS average) is also excellent and provides the maximum visual quality. Low settings at any resolution are only recommended for users seeking extreme frame rates, as the visual trade-offs are substantial and the performance gains are not necessary for a smooth experience.

The overall recommendation is to use Medium settings at 4K, High at 1440p, and High or Ultra at 1080p, depending on whether the user prioritizes frame rate or visual fidelity. The data shows that the combo’s sweet spot is 1440p High, where the average FPS (92) is high enough for smooth gameplay and the visual quality is strong.

FAQ

*Q: What is the combo’s overall rank for Control?*

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F + AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination ranks 670 out of 2,888 tested combos for this game.

Q: Can this system achieve 60 FPS at 4K with Ultra settings?

A: No. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 54, which is below the 60 FPS target. High settings at 4K average 62 FPS, so that is the highest quality preset that can reach 60 FPS on average.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 122 at 1920x1080 to 92 at 2560x1440, and then to 62 at 3840x2160. This represents a 49.2 percent reduction from 1080p to 4K.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7400F compare to its nearest rival CPU?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F has an average benchmark score of 32,750, which is 0.1 percent higher than the Intel Core i5-14600T (32,707) and 0.2 percent higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (32,697). It is 0.2 percent lower than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32,812).

Q: What is the minimum FPS at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The minimum FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings is 88, with an average of 103 and a maximum of 119.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT has a memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s, provided by 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a six-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, built on a 5 nm process node. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The 65 W TDP is modest for a desktop CPU, and it supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, offering a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The L2 cache is 1 MB per core, and the L3 cache is 32 MB shared across all cores. These specifications are more than sufficient for Control, which is not a CPU-intensive title by modern standards.

The CPU’s benchmark scores reflect its mid-range positioning. In Cinebench R23, it scores 21,765 in multi-core and 3,072 in single-core. The PassMark multi-thread score is 25,645, and the single-thread score is 3,689. These numbers place the 7400F in the 83rd percentile versus all CPUs, meaning it outperforms the majority of processors on the market. However, its nearest rivals are all within 0.3 percent in average score, indicating that the 7400F is not uniquely strong—it is simply a competent, well-rounded processor.

In Control, the CPU’s role is secondary to the GPU. The measured FPS data shows that the frame rate scales significantly with resolution and settings, which is the signature of a GPU-bound workload. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU’s work (game logic, physics, draw calls) is largely independent of pixel count. Instead, the FPS drops by roughly half from 1080p to 4K at every settings level, confirming that the GPU is the bottleneck. The 7400F’s six cores and 12 threads are enough to keep up with the RX 9070 XT’s output, ensuring that the GPU is not starved for data.

The CPU’s high single-thread performance (3,072 in Cinebench R23 single-core) is particularly relevant for Control, which relies on a single main thread for many game systems. The boost clock of 4.70 GHz provides the necessary speed for these tasks, and the Zen 4 architecture’s efficiency ensures that the CPU can sustain high clocks without excessive power draw. The 32 MB L3 cache also helps by keeping frequently accessed game data close to the cores, reducing memory latency.

The combination of the 7400F and RX 9070 XT is well balanced for Control. The CPU provides enough processing power to avoid becoming a bottleneck, while the GPU handles the heavy lifting of rendering. The combo’s rank of 670 out of 2,888 reflects this balance, as it outperforms most systems while not being the absolute top tier. For users with this pairing, the data suggests that their experience in Control will be limited by the GPU’s capabilities, not the CPU’s, which is the expected outcome for a game released in 2019 with modern hardware.