Control

# Control with AMD Ryzen 5 7400F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a study in imbalance for Control. The CPU sits in the 83rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU lands in the 40th percentile. That gap shows up immediately in the measured frames, where the GTX 1650 becomes the clear bottleneck at every resolution. The data gives a complete picture: 12 measured FPS rows across four settings presets at three resolutions, with average frames ranging from 16 FPS at 4K Ultra to 56 FPS at 1080p Low. This pairing ranks 2789th out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 4% of all systems tested for this title.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings presets. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 36 FPS at 1920x1080 to 27 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 18 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 50% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the drop is from 56 FPS at 1080p to 43 FPS at 1440p to 29 FPS at 4K, a 48% decline overall. Medium settings show 40 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 20 FPS at 4K, while Ultra goes from 31 to 23 to 16 FPS across the same resolution ladder.

These scaling patterns reveal a GPU-bound system. When resolution increases, the pixel count rises dramatically, and the GTX 1650's 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute simply cannot keep up. The 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 128-bit bus further constrain performance at high pixel counts. The fact that Low settings still only reach 29 FPS at 4K suggests that even with reduced shading work, the memory subsystem and ROP throughput are saturated. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 13 FPS (29 vs. 16), which is proportionally smaller than the gap at 1080p (25 FPS difference, 56 vs. 31). This compression at higher resolutions is a classic sign that the GPU's fixed-function units, particularly the 32 ROPs, are the limiting factor rather than shader complexity.

For a practical perspective, 1080p is the only resolution where any preset approaches playable frame rates. At 1440p, even Low settings barely exceed 40 FPS, and at 4K, every preset falls below 30 FPS. The data suggests that resolution scaling is roughly linear with pixel count, meaning there is no hidden headroom in the GPU that could be unlocked by lowering settings at higher resolutions. The 1650's 4 GB GDDR5 memory also likely contributes to the severe drops, as Control's texture and geometry demands at 4K may exceed the available VRAM, causing additional stalls.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture part built on TSMC's 12 nm process, with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz are modest by modern standards, and the 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's performance percentile of 40 places it below the median, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% faster), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% faster), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% faster). The Intel Arc A310 is 1% slower, making this a tightly clustered group of low-end parts.

In Control specifically, the GPU's weaknesses are exposed by the game's particle effects, physics-based destruction, and dynamic lighting. The 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate sounds adequate on paper, but the demands of rendering at 3840x2160 with 8.3 million pixels per frame mean that even 16 FPS at Ultra is nearly double the pixel throughput required at 1080p. The texture fill rate of 93.24 GTexel/s is similarly stretched thin when the game's environments load high-resolution assets.

The measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the primary constraint at all settings. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra costs 25 FPS (56 to 31), which is a 45% performance penalty. This indicates that the shader load and memory pressure from higher presets directly reduce throughput. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a concern for Ultra settings, as the game may be swapping textures, though the data does not explicitly confirm this. The GPU's 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors suggest a conservative design, but the benchmark results show it performing at the expected level for its class.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a Zen 4 (Raphael) part on the AM5 socket, manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm process. It packs 6 cores and 12 threads with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The 65 W TDP and unlocked multiplier make it a flexible desktop chip, and its 32 MB of shared L3 cache plus 1 MB L2 per core provide solid memory hierarchy for gaming. The CPU's benchmark scores are strong: 21765 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 3072 in single-core, and a Passmark multithread score of 25645. It sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i5-14600T (0.1% faster), Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (0.2% faster), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (0.2% slower).

In Control, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU, but the data still reflects its capabilities. The game is known for its physics simulations and AI-driven enemy behaviors, which benefit from multi-threaded performance. With 12 threads and a high boost clock, the 7400F has ample headroom to feed the GTX 1650 at 1080p, where the GPU is the bottleneck. The fact that FPS scales almost entirely with resolution and settings, rather than showing CPU-related stutters, indicates that the processor is not limiting the experience in this configuration.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5 support is relevant for a game like Control, which streams assets from storage and memory. However, the measured FPS at 1080p Low (56 FPS) suggests that the CPU can push beyond what the GPU can render, as the GPU's 40th percentile performance would cap frame rates well below the CPU's potential. The single-thread score of 3072 in Cinebench R23 and 3689 in Passmark single-thread confirm that the 7400F has strong per-core performance for game logic and draw call submission. The data indicates a classic bottleneck scenario where the CPU is waiting for the GPU at every turn.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the GTX 1650 delivers its best results. Low settings average 56 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 and maximum of 46 FPS, providing a playable experience with some consistency. High settings drop to 36 FPS, while Ultra falls to 31 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 25 FPS, showing that each preset tier takes a noticeable toll on performance.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates drop significantly. Low settings average 43 FPS, which is still marginally playable for a slow-paced action game. Medium averages 30 FPS with a range of 26 to 35 FPS, while High falls to 27 FPS. Ultra bottoms out at 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 20 FPS, slightly smaller than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming more constrained by raw pixel throughput.

At 3840x2160, the experience degrades to the point of being unplayable for most users. Low settings average 29 FPS, Medium averages 20 FPS with a range of 17 to 24 FPS, High drops to 18 FPS, and Ultra hits 16 FPS. Even the lowest preset cannot maintain 30 FPS at 4K, confirming that this resolution is beyond the GTX 1650's capabilities in Control. The data shows no minimum or maximum FPS values for Low, High, and Ultra at 4K, which may indicate less stable frame pacing, but the averages alone tell a clear story.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1080p with playable frame rates?

A: Yes, at 1080p Low settings the average FPS is 56, and Medium settings average 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS. High and Ultra settings average 36 and 31 FPS respectively, which are playable but may not provide a smooth experience during intense action sequences.

Q: Is 4K resolution viable with this CPU and GPU combination?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only average 29 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 16 FPS. The GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for Control's demands at this resolution, making 4K unplayable regardless of settings.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 7880 in Passmark G3D, which places it in the 40th percentile. Its closest competitors are within 1%: the AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 0.3% faster, Intel UHD Graphics 750 is 0.4% faster, AMD Radeon R7 350 is 0.6% faster, and Intel Arc A310 is 1% slower.

Q: What is the best setting preset at 1440p for this system?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings average 43 FPS, which is the only preset that exceeds 40 FPS. Medium averages 30 FPS, High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. For a stable experience, Low settings are recommended, though Medium may be acceptable if you can tolerate occasional dips to 26 FPS.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7400F's CPU performance compare to its rivals?

A: The 7400F has an average benchmark score of 32750, placing it in the 83rd percentile. It is essentially tied with the Intel Core i5-14600T (0.1% faster), Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (0.2% faster), and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (0.3% faster), while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H is 0.2% slower.

Q: Does the system show signs of CPU bottlenecking in Control?

A: No. The FPS scales consistently with resolution and settings, which indicates the GPU is the limiting component. At 1080p Low, the 56 FPS average is likely near the GPU's ceiling, while the CPU's 21765 Cinebench R23 multi-core score suggests it has plenty of headroom to handle the game's physics and AI workloads.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this system is at 1920x1080 with Medium settings. This preset averages 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS and maximum of 46 FPS, providing a stable enough frame rate for Control's combat and exploration. The 34 FPS minimum is the highest floor among all 1080p presets, making it the most consistent choice. Low settings at 1080p offer 56 FPS average, which is smoother but requires sacrificing visual quality. Given that Control is a visually atmospheric game with heavy use of lighting and particle effects, Medium strikes the best balance between fidelity and performance.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation is Low settings, which average 43 FPS. This is the only 1440p preset that maintains an average above 40 FPS, and the visual hit from Low settings is less noticeable at this resolution due to the higher pixel density. Medium at 1440p averages 30 FPS, which may cause noticeable judder during fast-paced scenes, and the 26 FPS minimum could lead to frustrating dips. For 3840x2160, no preset is recommended, as even Low averages only 29 FPS, which falls below the threshold for smooth gameplay. Users with 4K displays should consider lowering the resolution in-game or upgrading the GPU.

Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution for this configuration. At 1080p Ultra, the 31 FPS average is playable but leaves no headroom for demanding scenes, and at 1440p and 4K, Ultra averages 23 FPS and 16 FPS respectively, which are too low for a responsive experience. The data clearly shows that Medium at 1080p is the sweet spot, offering a 40 FPS average with a 34 FPS floor, which should provide a reasonably smooth experience for most of the game's encounters. If you prioritize frame rate over visual detail, Low at 1080p gives you 56 FPS, which is ideal for fast reflexes, but you will miss out on Control's atmospheric effects that make the game visually distinctive.