Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 form an asymmetrical pairing in Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title. The measured data reveals a clear pattern: the CPU sits in the 77th percentile across all processors while the GPU sits in the 40th percentile, and the resulting frame rates feel that discordance. The best outcome recorded is an average of 56 FPS at 1920x1080 Low, the only preset that ventures into the upper half of the same range as typical 60 Hz displays, while the couch minimum is a 16 FPS average at 3840x2160 Ultra. That makes this combination one that respects the GPU's limits more than the CPU's strength.

Those Frame rates are the result of a GPU that uses the Turing architecture (TU117), 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, positioned against a CPU that boasts 6 cores, 12 threads, and a boost of 5.00 GHz. The benchmark results show that every resolution and setting combination in the measured set is below 60 FPS average, suggesting the hardware is enrolled for lower-speed gameplay. In the sections that follow, the data is broken down to show where the cycle is spent, which presets give the best return, and how this pairing ranks against the other 3,720 tested combos.

Settings Recommendations

Across every tested resolution, the Low preset produces the highest average frame rate, and the gap between Low and the next preset is often substantial. At 1920x1080, Low average 56 FPS, Medium average 40 FPS, High 36, and Ultra 31. The same ordering holds at 2560x1443 (Low 43, Medium 30, High 27, Ultra 23) and at 3840x2160 (Low 29, Medium 20, High 18, Ultra 16). What, then, is the best experience? The data suggests that if the priority is frame motion, 1920x1080 with Low settings is the only row that just skirts playable, and it is the recommended choice for anyone who wants to see the game advance smoothly without conditions.

Yet, the Medium data is the only preset where the decrement minimum is recorded. In the Medium at 1920x1080, the minimum FPS is 34 average, with the average at 40; at 2560×1440, the minimum is 26; at 3840×2160, 17. That means Medium at 1080p is open to the low side to 34 FPS, which is just still far from the respective 56 of Low. So if a player is comfortable with 40 average and 34 minimum, Medium is technically possible. But the benchmark numbers point to the opposite: the gain from Medium to Low is a 16-FPS difference in the range mentioned above, which implies a smoother experience on Low. Given the absolute absence of any frame rate above the 56 average, the only practical recommendation is to run Memory at Low, especially at 1080p, as it is the only that honors the hardware's actual capability.

The High and Ultra presets have no measured minimum, only the average values, but those values are critically close. At 1080p High 36 and Ultra 31, while at 1440p High 27 and Ultra 23, and at 4K High 18 and Ultra 16. Those are below any comfort threshold, so using any of these presets means an average below 36 FPS. This confirms that the GPU is doing the heavy lifting, and, since the CPU is not the limiting factor, turning down the graphics is the only method to increase the refresh.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is an end-of-life card with a Turing architecture (TU117) fabricated on a 12 nm process, containing 4 GB of GDDR5 and a 128-bit memory bus. The memory runs at 2001 MHz, for a 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, and the card holds 4.7 billion transistors on a 200 mm² die. Shading work is handled by 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. Boost clock sits at 1665 MHz. These numbers describe a card that enters a game like Control with a 40th percentile rank among all GPUs, and the fastest measured frame in this dataset is 56 FPS. That is the necessary context.

The GPU's role is decisive for the whole relationship. At 1080p, the increase from Low to Medium reduces the average from 56 to 40, and High to 36, and Ultra to 31. At each higher resolution, the shapes are reproduced at a lower baseline. At 4K, the same steps yield 29, 20, 18, 16. The mean is simple: the GTX 11650 has limits of memory and throughput. The 4 GB frame buffer is large enough for 1080p Low but appears to be a constraint at higher settings, as the average drops quite steeply. The 128-bit bus and the 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are low, so look for also the pixel fill rate and texture rate. The pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s; Control's particle and bleeding effects likely stress both. The GPU compute result of 3048 in the G3D benchmark reflects a modest amount of compute potential.

Yet, to be clear, the data is not invalidating the CPU there. The GPU does not struggle alone; it is just the weakest link. If the CPU were slower, the peak frame rate could be a bottleneck at 1080p Low, where the average is 56, but that is not the case. The fact that raising resolution from 1080p to 4K lowers the average by, for example, from 56 down to 29 (again, with the words "from 56 at 1080p to 29 at 4K") shows that the heaviest load is on the GPU. So the GPU is the clear determiner of the visible motion.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 3588 out of 3,720 tested combinations on this game's measured set. That puts it in the bottom tier: only 132 combos land lower, meaning the vast majority of hardware pairings outperform this one. When I consider the health of the CPU, this ranking is sobering. The Ryzen 5 7500F sits at percentile 77 among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24,964. Its Cinebench R23 multicore run is 22,799 and single-core is 3,218. Those numbers place it near the top of the 24,000 class and level with other strong processors, such as the Intel Core i7-13620H (slightly under 20,place 0.2 percentage difference) and the Intel Core 5 210H (0.4). That is a genuinely able CPU.

However, the GPU's own average benchmark is 7,472, and it is the 1650-based. Its nearest rivals in this dataset include the AMD Radeon R7 350 (in the 0.6 range) and the Intel Arc A310 (with a -1% delta). The card has a less-than-half the CPU's typical performance weight, and it drags the whole pairing down into a low position. Thus, the in-game rank is far more indicative of the GPU than the CPU. What does this mean? It reminds us that the combination of a strong CPU with a mainstream GPU does not guarantee a good gaming result. The entire measurement set uses the same CPU and GPU, and the sum is the slowest of the group.

FAQ

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 7500F keep up with the GTX 1650 in Control?

Because the measured frame rates stay the same whether the CPU is running alone or the GPU was, the data says the CPU is not the bottleneck. The highest average is 56. FPS at 1080p Low, and since the same settings at 4K only drops to 29, the load is on the GPU. Strong indicative of that.

Q: What is the only setting that provides a minimum FPS above 30?

There is no measured minimum above 30. The only minimum data captured is for Medium: at 1080p it is 34, at 1440p it is 26, and at 4K it is 17. So even at 1080p Medium, the minimum dips below 30, while the average is 40.

Q: Which CPU or GPU does this setup compete against according to the dataset?

The Ryzen 5 7500F sits close to the Intel Core i7-13620H (a 0.2 percentage difference in average score) and the Intel Core 5 210H (0.4). The GTX 1650 is closest to the AMD Radeon R7 350 (delta 0.6) and the Intel Arc A310 (a native -1.0 delta). Between those, the data shows no GPU is faster than the GTX 1650 by a margin broad enough to allow the TI parts, but all are in a similar tier.

Q: Could this CPU be used with a much stronger GPU to reach higher FPS?

The measured numbers only as to this particular CPU+GPU. Still, the percentile position of the CPU, at 77, and its multicore scores like 22,799 in CB23, imply it can avoid a CPU bottleneck at the FPS values shown. The GTX 1650 is visually the limiting. So yes, replacing the GPU would allow a different. Because the data does not contain results with a stronger card, this cannot be declarative.

Q: Is low settings ever the best for a above 60 average?

No. The highest measured average is 56 FPS at 1080p Low; that's the only entry that goes above 50. In all other settings and resolution, the average is at or below 43. So not a single configuration reaches 60.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling from 1080p to 4K is tell-tale. For the Low preset, the average is 56 at 1920x1080, 43 at 2560x1440, and 29 at 3840x2160. Medium slots in at 40, 30, 20; High at 36, 27, 18; Ultra at 31, 23, 16. One thing stands out: the relative drop is consistent across presets, and the drop from 1440p to 4K is bigger than the drop from 1080p to 1440p in most presets. For Low, the drop from 1080p to 2560 is 13 frames, while the next drop to 4K is 14 frames. That indicates a strong GPU scaling with the number of pixels.

A lot of engine scaling is expected to be quadratic with resolution, but the overall trend shows that as the resolution increases, the CPU becomes even more inert and the GPU is the final morbidity. At Very High, the step from 1080p to 4K reduces the average by from 31 to 16, illustrating the GPU needs to fill a quadruple the screen space while the core clock does not adapt. The absence of a larger CPU output is clear. If the CPU were the bottleneck, around a certain pixel count, the frame rate would start to plateau. The data does not show that; the number continues to rise, indicating a memory bandwidth and shading unit limited situation.

Look at the Eye of the data: on a 4K panel, the best is Low at 29 FPS. On a 1440p, it's Low 43. On 1080p, Low 56. That's consistent with a resolution scaling pattern, which is the exact indicator of a GPU-bound measurement. The CPU doesn’t need to do anything else; every pixel beyond 1080p uses time. The resolution behavior confirms that the 7500F is just idle in this combo.

CPU Role

Using a Zen 4 architecture on a 7 nm process, the Ryzen 5 7500F packs six cores and twelve threads. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz, with a maximum boost clock of 5.00 GHz, and a 65 W TDP. It includes 32 MB of last-level cache and supports dual-channel DDR5 at 83.2 GB/s. This is a modern processor with a peak benchmark average of 24,964, placing i5 7500F at the 77th among all CPUs. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score reaches 22,799, and the single thread is 3,218. Meanwhile, the Geekbench single-thread result is 2,374, and a multi-thread 12,352. These are robust numbers.

In Control, though, the CPU's involvement is invisible in the fps spread. The CPU has no effect on the 4K drop, because the frame times are not DOM. The game is often a single-thread-heavy title, but the 7500F can flash its 5GHz boost clock on 12 threads. If the CPU were to bottleneck, the scaling between different settings would be small. Yet the data shows that dropping from 1080p Low to 4K Low halves the frame rate (56 to 29), which says the GPU is executing all the work while the CPU waits. Thus, the CPU has abundant headroom for higher limits.

In the benchmark tier, the 7500F's nearest rivals are the Intel i7-13620H (0.2% lower), and the 8402F (0.2% lower) and the 210H (0.4%). Those are all near 25,000 average scores. But in this game, the list of rivals doesn't matter; the GPU dominates the result. This is a textbook situation where a strong CPU is held back by a deliberately weak graphics card. There is no need to overclock or adjust CPU settings; its role is satisfied at every position, and the user could see more FPS only by changing the GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Here is the complete set of captured intervals, displayed by resolution and preset. The avg column is the average frame rate; min and max are displayed only for the Medium settings, because those are the only rows that provide them. All numbers are exactly as measured.

| Resolution | Settings | avgFps | minFps | maxFps |

| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

| 3840x2160 | High | 18 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 29 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 20 | 17 | 24 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 16 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 27 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 43 | -- | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 30 | 26 | 35 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 23 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 36 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 56 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium |