Control

Control with the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti delivers a playable experience across all tested settings, but the data reveals a clear performance ceiling defined by the graphics card. The combination ranks in the 700th position out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the top quarter of all systems benchmarked for this title. While the CPU provides ample headroom, the GPU’s workload scaling dictates the frame rate trajectory from 1080p through 4K, making this a system where visual fidelity directly trades against smoothness.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, confirming that the RTX 3080 Ti is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 121 FPS at 1920x1080 to 92 FPS at 2560x1440, then further to 62 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 24% reduction moving from 1080p to 1440p, and a 33% reduction moving from 1440p to 4K. The cumulative drop from 1080p to 4K is 49%, meaning the system loses nearly half its performance when pixel count quadruples.

The scaling pattern is nearly identical at other presets. With Low settings, the average FPS drops from 192 at 1080p to 145 at 1440p (a 24% loss) and then to 98 at 4K (a 32% loss from 1440p). Medium settings show a similar trend: 136 FPS at 1080p, 103 FPS at 1440p, and 70 FPS at 4K. The consistency of these percentage drops across all presets indicates that resolution scaling is purely GPU-bound; the CPU does not meaningfully limit performance at any resolution tested. If the processor were a constraint, the gap between 1080p and 4K would narrow at lower settings where the GPU has less work.

Ultra settings amplify the resolution penalty. The 4K Ultra average of 54 FPS is just 51% of the 1080p Ultra score of 105 FPS. This suggests that the highest preset pushes the GPU into a less efficient operating range at 4K, where memory bandwidth and shader throughput become critical. The data shows that the RTX 3080 Ti’s 12 GB of GDDR6X memory and 912.4 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for 1080p and 1440p at any preset, but 4K Ultra stresses the GPU to its limits, producing a frame rate that is borderline for smooth action gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks

With a combo rank of 700 out of 2888 tested combinations, this pairing sits comfortably in the upper echelon of systems for Control. This rank places it ahead of roughly 76% of all tested combos, indicating that the Ryzen 5 7400F and RTX 3080 Ti form a strong foundation for this game. The rank reflects the combined capabilities of both components, and the data suggests that the GPU is the dominant contributor to this position, given the resolution scaling analysis above.

The CPU’s individual benchmark performance supports this interpretation. The Ryzen 5 7400F scores an average benchmark score of 32750 across all tests, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600T (average score 32707, delta 0.1%), the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (average score 32697, delta 0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (average score 32812, delta -0.2%). These deltas are negligible, meaning the 7400F performs on par with these alternatives in synthetic benchmarks, but its real-world impact on Control is likely minimal since the game is GPU-bound at the tested resolutions.

The GPU’s synthetic position is similar. The RTX 3080 Ti has an average benchmark score of 41187, also in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (average score 40870, delta 0.8%), the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB (average score 41707, delta -1.2%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (average score 40377, delta 2%). The RTX 3080 Ti outperforms the RTX 5070 by 2% in aggregate benchmarks, which is notable given the generational difference, but in Control specifically, the measured frame rates show the 3080 Ti handling the game’s demands effectively at 1080p and 1440p.

The combination rank of 700 suggests that while this system is strong, it is not at the absolute top. Systems with newer or higher-tier GPUs likely occupy the ranks above, particularly for 4K Ultra performance where the 3080 Ti’s 54 FPS average leaves room for improvement. However, for the vast majority of players targeting 1080p or 1440p, this rank indicates a well-balanced setup that avoids CPU bottlenecks while delivering high frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

The optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate, but the data provides clear guidance. At 1920x1080, all presets deliver playable frame rates, with High averaging 121 FPS and Ultra averaging 105 FPS. The jump from High to Ultra costs only 16 FPS (13%), making Ultra the recommended choice for 1080p users who want maximum visual quality without sacrificing smoothness. The 105 FPS average is well above the 60 FPS threshold for most displays, and the lack of min FPS data for Ultra suggests consistent performance.

At 2560x1440, High is the sweet spot. The High preset averages 92 FPS, which is 15% higher than Ultra’s 80 FPS. The difference between Medium (103 FPS) and High (92 FPS) is 11 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra is 12 FPS. Given that 1440p High delivers a 92 FPS average, this preset balances visual quality and performance effectively. Ultra at 1440p drops to 80 FPS, which is still playable but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes. Medium at 103 FPS is an option for competitive play, but the visual trade-off is substantial.

At 3840x2160, the choices narrow. The Low preset averages 98 FPS, which is impressive for 4K, but Low settings significantly degrade the game’s atmosphere. Medium averages 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS and maximum of 80 FPS, providing a playable experience with better visuals than Low. High averages 62 FPS, which is borderline for 60 FPS displays, and Ultra averages 54 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS target. For 4K, Medium is the recommended preset because it maintains an average above 60 FPS while the minimum of 59 FPS indicates only occasional dips below the threshold. High is viable for those who prioritize visuals, but the 62 FPS average suggests stutter risk in intense action sequences.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system demonstrates significant headroom. Low settings produce an average of 192 FPS, Medium averages 136 FPS with a minimum of 116 FPS and maximum of 157 FPS, High averages 121 FPS, and Ultra averages 105 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 87 FPS, indicating that the GPU scales well with settings at this resolution. The Medium preset’s min-max range of 116 to 157 FPS shows frame pacing variability, but the average remains high.

At 2560x1440, performance remains strong but begins to tighten. Low averages 145 FPS, Medium averages 103 FPS with a minimum of 88 FPS and maximum of 118 FPS, High averages 92 FPS, and Ultra averages 80 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 65 FPS, reflecting the increased GPU load at higher pixel counts. The Medium min-max range of 88 to 118 FPS demonstrates a broader variance than at 1080p, suggesting the GPU is working harder to maintain frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates compress further. Low averages 98 FPS, Medium averages 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS and maximum of 80 FPS, High averages 62 FPS, and Ultra averages 54 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread is just 44 FPS, indicating that the GPU is the limiting factor across all presets. The Medium min-max range of 59 to 80 FPS shows that even at 70 FPS average, the system can dip to 59 FPS, which is the only recorded minimum below 60 FPS in the entire dataset. This highlights the need for adaptive sync or a 60 FPS cap at 4K Medium to smooth out frame delivery.

The data reveals that the system is capable of high refresh rate gaming at 1080p and 1440p, with all presets exceeding 80 FPS at 1440p. At 4K, the system manages to stay above 60 FPS only on Low and Medium presets, with High and Ultra falling short. The min FPS data is only provided for Medium settings, which limits the ability to assess frame pacing at other presets, but the averages suggest consistent behavior.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti is the dominant component in this system for Control. Its 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus provides 912.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than sufficient for the game’s textures and effects at 1080p and 1440p. At 4K, the memory capacity and bandwidth are adequate for the Medium preset, but Ultra settings likely exceed the GPU’s ability to maintain 60 FPS, as evidenced by the 54 FPS average.

The GPU’s clock speeds of 1365 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost are modest by modern standards, but its 10240 shading units and 320 texture mapping units deliver substantial compute throughput. The 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is the key metric for Control’s rendering workload, and the data shows that this compute power scales predictably with resolution. The GPU’s 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores support ray tracing and DLSS, though the measured FPS data does not include ray tracing or DLSS scenarios, meaning the benchmark reflects traditional rasterization performance.

The RTX 3080 Ti’s 83rd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41187, confirms its high-end status. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB, scores 41707 (delta -1.2%), while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 scores 40870 (delta 0.8%). The RTX 3080 Ti also outperforms the newer RTX 5070 by 2% in aggregate benchmarks, suggesting that raw compute power matters more than architectural efficiency for this game. The GPU’s 350 W TDP and 750 W suggested PSU are not directly reflected in the FPS data, but they indicate that the card operates at high power draw to sustain its performance.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F plays a supporting role in Control, providing sufficient processing power to avoid bottlenecking the GPU. With 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 4 architecture, the CPU has more than enough threading capacity for a game that primarily relies on single-core performance. The base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.70 GHz are competitive, and the 32 MB of shared L3 cache helps reduce memory latency for game code.

The CPU’s benchmark scores indicate strong single-threaded performance, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3072 and a PassMark single-thread score of 3689. These figures place the 7400F in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32750. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707, delta 0.1%) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (32697, delta 0.2%), showing that the 7400F is competitive with mid-range and upper-mid-range processors.

In Control specifically, the CPU’s role is secondary. The resolution scaling data shows that frame rates drop consistently with resolution, regardless of settings, which is the signature of a GPU-bound workload. If the CPU were limiting, the 1080p Low preset would show higher frame rates than the 192 FPS average, and the gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p would be smaller. The fact that 1080p Low achieves 192 FPS while 1080p Ultra achieves 105 FPS indicates that the GPU is the constraining factor at all settings.

The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5 is adequate for feeding the GPU, and the PCIe Gen 5 interface with 24 lanes provides ample bandwidth for data transfer. The 65 W TDP indicates that the CPU runs cool and efficiently, which is beneficial for sustained gaming sessions. Overall, the Ryzen 5 7400F provides a solid foundation that does not hinder the RTX 3080 Ti, and the combination rank of 700 out of 2888 reflects a well-matched pairing where the GPU leads and the CPU follows.