Control

The pairing of AMD’s Ryzen 5 7600 with NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 1650 in Control produces a heavily GPU-limited experience, with the measured frame rates indicating that the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are the primary bottlenecks. Across all resolutions and settings, the combo ranks 1548th out of 1636 tested configurations, placing it in the bottom 6% of all pairings for this title. The data shows a clear ceiling: at 1080p Low, the system achieves 56.8 FPS, but every step up in visual fidelity or resolution pushes it into sub-30 FPS territory, making the experience playable only at the lowest settings.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control?*

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system delivers consistently playable frame rates. At Low settings, it hits 56.8 FPS, while 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 drop to 44.6 FPS and 28.3 FPS respectively on the same preset.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7600 perform relative to its closest rivals?

A: The CPU’s average benchmark score of 26617 is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (26574, +0.2%), the Intel Core i9-12900HK (26672, -0.2%), and the AMD EPYC 8024P (26555, +0.2%). It sits 0.3% above the Intel Core i9-11900K (26546). This indicates the processor is not the limiting factor in this combo.

*Q: Does the GTX 1650 have enough VRAM for Control?*

A: The data suggests 4 GB is insufficient for higher settings. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium drops the average FPS from 56.8 to 42.2, and at Ultra it falls to 32.1. The performance cliff at higher resolutions indicates VRAM capacity is a critical constraint.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p?

A: The gap is significant. At 2560x1440, Low settings yield 44.6 FPS, while Ultra drops to 24.4 FPS — a difference of 20.2 FPS. The same pattern holds at 4K, where Low produces 28.3 FPS and Ultra produces 17.8 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score of 8713 puts it within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746), AMD Radeon 550X (8749), and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8761). It sits 0.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8671). This shows it is a mid-pack performer in its class.

Q: Is the CPU’s performance relevant to this game’s results?

A: Not really. The Ryzen 5 7600 scores 22992 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3246 in single-core, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. But the measured FPS in Control never exceeds 56.8, which is typical of a GPU-bound scenario where the graphics card is the ceiling.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 1548 out of 1636 tested configurations places it in the bottom 5.4% of all CPU-GPU pairings for Control. This is a poor result, driven almost entirely by the GPU’s limitations. The Ryzen 5 7600 is a high-end desktop processor with a strong benchmark profile — its 83rd percentile ranking among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 26617 — but the GTX 1650 holds the entire system back. The GPU’s 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs and average score of 8713 are far below the CPU’s capabilities.

The delta between the CPU and GPU performance tiers is stark. The 7600’s nearest rivals, such as the Ryzen 7 5800X3D and Core i9-12900HK, all score within 0.3% of it, confirming the CPU is competitive with much newer parts. In contrast, the GTX 1650’s nearest rivals include the RTX 3050 A Mobile and Radeon 550X, which are entry-level or mobile parts. In Control, this combination means the CPU sits idle while the GPU struggles. Even at 1080p Low, where the system achieves its best result, the frame rate is only 56.8 — a figure that suggests the GPU is maxed out rather than the CPU being insufficient.

For context, the combo’s position in the bottom 6% of all tested pairings indicates that most other configurations, even those with weaker CPUs, outperform it because they pair them with stronger graphics cards. The data reveals a fundamental mismatch: the 7600 has the headroom to push far higher frame rates, but the GTX 1650 cannot exploit it.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data makes a single recommendation obvious: 1920x1080 with Low settings is the only configuration that provides a consistently smooth experience. At that setting, the average FPS is 56.8, which is close to the 60 FPS target for most displays. Every other option sacrifices too much performance.

At 1080p, Medium drops to 42.2 FPS, which is playable but noticeably less fluid. High yields 38 FPS, and Ultra falls to 32.1. For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, 1080p Medium is the maximum acceptable setting, as it stays above 40 FPS. However, the drop from Low to Medium is steep — 14.6 FPS — indicating that the 4 GB VRAM is being saturated even at this modest step up.

At 2560x1440, the situation worsens. Low yields 44.6 FPS, which is borderline, but Medium drops to 28.1, High to 26, and Ultra to 24.4. These numbers are all below the threshold for comfortable play. At 3840x2160, no setting is viable: Low produces 28.3 FPS, and every other preset falls below 21.3 FPS. The recommendation is to stay at 1080p Low for the best balance of performance and stability, or accept a significant frame rate penalty for higher fidelity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The FPS data across all resolutions shows a consistent pattern of degradation as settings increase. At 1920x1080, the system starts at 56.8 FPS on Low, drops to 42.2 on Medium, 38 on High, and 32.1 on Ultra. The largest single drop is between Low and Medium (14.6 FPS), while the step from Medium to High costs 4.2 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 5.9 FPS. This suggests the game’s medium preset triggers a significant increase in GPU workload, likely due to texture and shadow quality demands.

At 2560x1440, the same trend appears but with lower absolute values. Low yields 44.6 FPS, Medium 28.1, High 26, and Ultra 24.4. The gap between Low and Medium is 16.5 FPS — even larger than at 1080p — indicating that the GPU’s memory bandwidth is a harder constraint at higher resolutions. The differences between Medium, High, and Ultra are small (2.1 and 1.6 FPS respectively), suggesting the GPU is already saturated.

At 3840x2160, all settings produce unplayable results. Low reaches 28.3 FPS, Medium 21.3, High 20.5, and Ultra 17.8. The resolution scaling is harsh: moving from 1080p Low (56.8 FPS) to 1440p Low (44.6 FPS) costs 12.2 FPS, and from 1440p to 4K Low costs another 16.3 FPS. These numbers confirm that the GTX 1650 is not designed for high-resolution gaming in Control.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the dominant factor in this combo’s performance. Its specifications show why: 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is insufficient for Control’s demands at higher settings. The GPU’s base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz, combined with 896 shading units, deliver 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. These numbers place it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8713.

The VRAM limitation is evident in the FPS data. At 1080p, the drop from Low to Medium costs 14.6 FPS, which correlates with increased texture memory usage. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU cannot maintain playable frame rates even on Low, indicating that the memory bus is a hard bottleneck. The 4 GB capacity is likely exceeded at Medium settings and above, causing the GPU to swap data and tank performance.

The GPU’s 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors suggest it is a low-power part, but that does not help in this scenario. Its nearest rivals include the RTX 3050 A Mobile and Radeon 550X, which are similarly constrained. The data indicates the GTX 1650 is the sole reason this combo ranks so low — the CPU has ample headroom, but the GPU cannot push frame rates past 56.8 FPS even at the lowest settings and resolution.