Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title that stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily, and the data for the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 combination shows a system that scales predictably with resolution and settings. This pairing produces high frame rates across the board, but the relationship between the 6-core processor and the flagship-tier graphics card reveals where the bottlenecks lie. The following analysis breaks down the measured performance data for this specific hardware configuration.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial but not uniform across all settings presets, revealing how the workload shifts from the processor to the graphics card as pixel count increases. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 246 FPS at 1920x1080 to 193 FPS at 2560x1440, a 21.5% reduction, and then to 130 FPS at 3840x2160, a further 32.6% drop from 1440p. This steep decline indicates that even at Low settings, the RTX 5080 is beginning to feel the pressure of the higher pixel counts, though the 7400F still has headroom to feed it frames at 1080p.

The scaling pattern changes when moving to Medium settings, where the average FPS drops from 181 at 1080p to 137 at 1440p (a 24.3% decrease) and then to 93 at 4K (a 32.1% decrease from 1440p). The min FPS figures at Medium settings tell a similar story: 154 FPS at 1080p, 117 FPS at 1440p, and 79 FPS at 4K. These minimums consistently sit about 15% below the averages, suggesting that frame time spikes are present across all resolutions but do not become catastrophic at any point.

High settings show the smallest relative drop from 1080p to 1440p, with averages falling from 161 FPS to 122 FPS, a 24.2% reduction. The subsequent drop to 4K is more severe, falling to 82 FPS, a 32.8% decrease from 1440p. This pattern suggests that at High settings, the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor at 4K, while the CPU still manages to keep up at lower resolutions. Ultra settings follow a similar trajectory: 140 FPS at 1080p, 106 FPS at 1440p (a 24.3% drop), and 72 FPS at 4K (a 32.1% drop from 1440p).

The consistent 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and the 32% drop from 1440p to 4K across Medium, High, and Ultra indicate that the RTX 5080's rendering workload scales almost linearly with pixel count in this game. The Low settings preset shows a slightly steeper decline, which is likely because the CPU is doing relatively more work at 1080p Low, and as resolution increases, the GPU bottleneck becomes more pronounced. The data suggests that 4K Ultra is the most demanding scenario, with the 72 FPS average still being playable but leaving little overhead for demanding scenes.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 is the dominant component in this configuration, and its 16 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus with 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth provides ample resources for Control's textures and effects. The GPU's boost clock of 2617 MHz and base clock of 2295 MHz are the primary drivers of the raw performance numbers seen in the measured FPS data. With 10752 shading units and 112 ROPs, the card is well-equipped for the game's particle effects and post-processing.

The RTX 5080's 84 RT cores are relevant here, as Control features ray-traced reflections and shadows that can be enabled separately from the main preset. The measured data, however, does not specify whether ray tracing was enabled, so the FPS figures likely represent the standard rasterization performance. The GPU's 56.28 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power and 879.3 GTexel/s texture rate allow for high texture filtering rates, which is evident in the relatively small performance gap between Medium and High settings at each resolution.

The average FPS at 4K High is 82, which is 41% lower than the 1080p High result of 161 FPS. This large delta underscores how much work the GPU is doing at higher resolutions. The 4K Ultra result of 72 FPS is the lowest measured average, and the 4K Medium result of 93 FPS shows that dropping one settings tier recovers about 29% of the frame rate lost when going from High to Ultra. The GPU's 87th percentile ranking among all GPUs and its average benchmark score of 56083 position it well above the nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon 8060S which scores 55757 (0.6% lower) and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB which scores 55698 (0.7% lower).

The memory subsystem is a key factor in the 4K results. The 960.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures that texture streaming does not become a bottleneck, and the 16 GB capacity means the game can load high-resolution assets without swapping to system memory. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 8637 and Passmark G3D score of 36565 confirm its strong DirectX 12 performance, which aligns well with Control's engine requirements. The card's 304 mm length and dual-slot width indicate a large cooler that can handle the 360 W TDP, though the thermal performance is not directly measured in this data.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. In Control, which is known to scale reasonably well with multiple cores but still benefits from strong single-thread performance, this CPU provides enough processing power to keep up with the RTX 5080 at most resolutions. The processor's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB per-core L2 cache help reduce memory latency, which is critical for maintaining high minimum frame rates.

At 1080p Low, the 7400F can push the RTX 5080 to 246 FPS average, which suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor at this resolution and settings combination. However, the fact that 1080p Low produces only 246 FPS versus the GPU's theoretical capabilities indicates that the CPU is starting to cap performance. The 12 threads are likely fully utilized during gameplay, and the 4.70 GHz boost clock helps with the game's physics and AI calculations. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21765 and single-core score of 3072 place it in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, which is respectable but not top-tier.

The nearest rival comparisons show the 7400F's position in the CPU landscape. The Intel Core i5-14600T has an average benchmark score of 32707, which is 0.1% higher than the 7400F's 32750 average. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scores 32812, which is 0.2% higher, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 score 0.2% and 0.3% lower respectively. These tiny deltas indicate that the 7400F is in a tightly contested performance tier, and in a game like Control, the differences would be imperceptible in real-world FPS.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent when comparing the 1080p and 1440p results at the same settings. At High settings, the 1080p average is 161 FPS and the 1440p average is 122 FPS, a 24.2% drop. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, the 1080p result would be much closer to the 1440p result, as the GPU would have more headroom at the lower resolution. The fact that the FPS scales down significantly with resolution indicates that the GPU is doing most of the heavy lifting. However, at 1080p Low, the 246 FPS result versus the 193 FPS at 1440p Low shows that the CPU can deliver high frame rates when the GPU load is low, confirming that the 7400F has sufficient single-thread muscle for this game.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Control with this CPU and GPU combination?

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 at High settings provides an average of 122 FPS, which balances visual quality and smoothness. At 1080p, the same settings yield 161 FPS, but the visual upgrade to 1440p is significant, and the 122 FPS average still exceeds the refresh rate of most high-refresh monitors.

Q: Does the RTX 5080 bottleneck the Ryzen 5 7400F in this game?

A: At 1080p Low, the 246 FPS average suggests the CPU is the limiting factor, as the GPU could potentially render more frames. At 4K Ultra, the 72 FPS average indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The crossover point appears to be around 1440p Medium, where both components are balanced.

Q: How much performance is gained by dropping from Ultra to High settings at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the average FPS increases from 72 at Ultra to 82 at High, a 13.9% improvement. Dropping further to Medium yields 93 FPS, which is a 29.2% improvement over Ultra. The visual differences between High and Ultra are often subtle, making High a better choice for 4K.

Q: Is the 16 GB VRAM sufficient for Control at 4K?

A: The measured data shows playable frame rates at 4K Ultra with 72 FPS, which indicates that the 16 GB of GDDR7 memory is adequate for the game's highest settings at this resolution. The 960.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures that memory throughput does not bottleneck performance.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 1440p at Medium settings?

A: The average FPS drops from 181 at 1920x1080 to 137 at 2560x1440, a 24.3% reduction. The minimum FPS drops from 154 to 117, which is a 24.0% reduction. This consistent scaling suggests that the GPU is the primary factor in the performance change.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7400F compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The 7400F has an average benchmark score of 32750, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and 0.3% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360. The Intel Core i5-14600T is 0.1% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H is 0.2% higher. These differences are within the margin of error for real-world gaming.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a comprehensive view of the system's performance. At 1920x1080, the Low preset produces an average of 246 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire dataset. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 181 FPS with a minimum of 154 FPS and a maximum of 209 FPS. High settings at 1080p reduce the average to 161 FPS, while Ultra drops it further to 140 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 106 FPS, indicating that the settings preset has a significant impact on performance.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 193 FPS, which is still very high. Medium settings produce an average of 137 FPS with a minimum of 117 FPS and maximum of 158 FPS. High settings at 1440p average 122 FPS, and Ultra drops to 106 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 87 FPS, which is slightly smaller than at 1080p, but still substantial. The minimum FPS at 1440p Medium is 117, which is 14.6% below the average, similar to the 1080p result.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 130 FPS, which is the only 4K result above 100 FPS. Medium settings average 93 FPS with a minimum of 79 FPS and maximum of 107 FPS. High settings drop to 82 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 72 FPS. The range from Low to Ultra at 4K is 58 FPS, showing that the settings preset has a smaller absolute impact at higher resolutions. The 4K Medium minimum of 79 FPS is the lowest measured in the dataset, but it still maintains playable performance.

The 1440p Medium result of 137 FPS is the highest average above 1080p Low among the non-Low presets, and the 1080p Ultra result of 140 FPS is slightly higher. This suggests that the system can achieve high refresh rates at both 1080p and 1440p with the right settings. The 4K results are more moderate, with the best case being Low at 130 FPS and the worst case being Ultra at 72 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1920x1080, the High preset at 161 FPS is the best balance of visual quality and performance, as it provides a high refresh rate experience without the significant frame rate penalty of Ultra. The Ultra preset at 140 FPS is still playable, but the 13% drop from High is not justified by the marginal visual improvements in most cases. The Medium preset at 181 FPS is an excellent choice for competitive play, as it maximizes frame rate while retaining decent visuals.

At 2560x1440, the High preset at 122 FPS is the recommended choice for most users. It delivers a smooth experience on 120 Hz monitors and provides good visual fidelity. The Medium preset at 137 FPS is a better option for those who prioritize frame rate over visual detail, and the 15 FPS difference between Medium and High is noticeable but not dramatic. The Ultra preset at 106 FPS is borderline for high refresh displays, and the drop to 72 FPS at 4K Ultra suggests that Ultra is best reserved for 1080p or 1440p where the frame rate remains above 100 FPS.

For 3840x2160, the Medium preset at 93 FPS is the sweet spot. It provides a playable frame rate that is 13% higher than High and 29% higher than Ultra. The Low preset at 130 FPS is an option for those who want to approach 144 Hz at 4K, but the visual compromise is significant. The High preset at 82 FPS is acceptable for slower-paced gameplay, but the Medium preset offers a better overall experience. The Ultra preset at 72 FPS is the most demanding scenario and should only be used if visual fidelity is the absolute priority and the user can tolerate lower frame rates.

The 4K Medium result of 93 FPS with a minimum of 79 FPS is the most consistent high-resolution option, as the minimum frame rate stays above 75 FPS. The 1440p High result of 122 FPS is the best overall recommendation for a balance of resolution, visual quality, and smoothness. For users with 144 Hz monitors, the 1080p High or 1440p Medium presets are the safest choices, as both maintain averages above 137 FPS. The data clearly shows that the system is capable of excellent performance at 1080p and 1440p, while 4K requires careful settings selection to maintain high frame rates.