Control

# Control with AMD Ryzen 5 7600 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER delivers a playable, though not exceptional, experience in Control, ranking 1447 out of 1636 tested combos. This places the combination in the lower 12th percentile of all tested hardware pairings, indicating that while the system can run the game, it will not deliver high-refresh-rate experiences at demanding settings. The CPU, a 6-core/12-thread Zen 4 part with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, is capable of strong synthetic performance — its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22992 places it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. However, the GPU, a 6 GB GDDR6 card with 1408 shading units and a boost clock of 1785 MHz, sits in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, which becomes the limiting factor in this pairing. The data shows a system that is CPU-rich and GPU-constrained, a dynamic that becomes increasingly apparent as resolution and settings are raised.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1447 out of 1636 tested configurations places this pairing firmly in the lower tier of systems tested for Control. This is a substantial gap from the top, and the benchmark results confirm why: the GTX 1660 SUPER, while a competent 1080p card in its generation, struggles to maintain high frame rates at higher resolutions. The GPU's average benchmark score of 14286 is nearly identical to that of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14314, a 0.2% delta), the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14315, a 0.2% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14389, a 0.7% delta). This indicates that the GTX 1660 SUPER is performing exactly as expected for its class — it is not an outlier, but it is also not punching above its weight.

In contrast, the Ryzen 5 7600's average benchmark score of 26617 places it in close competition with the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (26574, a 0.2% delta), the Intel Core i9-12900HK (26672, a -0.2% delta), and the AMD EPYC 8024P (26555, a 0.2% delta). The CPU is clearly not the bottleneck in this system; its 3DMark single-thread score of 999 and multi-thread score of 6503 are strong indicators of a processor that can handle the game's physics and logic without breaking a sweat. The data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield far more significant gains in Control than any CPU change would, as the current combination is held back by the graphics card's 55th percentile standing.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data clearly indicates that the Ultra preset is not viable for this combination at any resolution tested. At 1920x1080, Ultra yields an average of 48.9 FPS, which is playable but not smooth, and at 2560x1440 it drops to 36.4 FPS. At 3840x2160, Ultra is effectively unplayable at 23.7 FPS. The High preset offers a marginal improvement, with 61 FPS at 1080p, 46 FPS at 1440p, and 31.9 FPS at 4K. The Medium preset is nearly identical to High, producing 62.8 FPS at 1080p, 47.5 FPS at 1440p, and 34.5 FPS at 4K.

The Low preset is the only option that provides consistently smooth gameplay across all resolutions, with 93 FPS at 1080p, 70.6 FPS at 1440p, and 44 FPS at 4K. For the best experience, the data strongly favors the Low preset at 1920x1080, which delivers a 93 FPS average — a 52% improvement over the High preset's 61 FPS at the same resolution. This is the only combination of resolution and settings that approaches high-refresh-rate territory. At 2560x1440, Low is still acceptable at 70.6 FPS, but the drop from 1080p Low is substantial. Given that the GPU is the limiting factor, users seeking the best visual fidelity should consider the Medium preset at 1080p, which offers a slight improvement over High while maintaining a 62.8 FPS average, though the difference is within the margin of error.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a system that is heavily GPU-bound. At the Low preset, the average frame rate drops from 93 FPS at 1920x1080 to 70.6 FPS at 2560x1440, a 24% reduction, and then to 44 FPS at 3840x2160, a 53% reduction from 1080p. This steep decline is characteristic of a GPU that is running out of pixel throughput as resolution increases. The GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s, is simply not sufficient to maintain high frame rates at 4K.

The pattern is consistent across all settings. At High, the drop from 1080p (61 FPS) to 1440p (46 FPS) is a 25% reduction, and to 4K (31.9 FPS) is a 48% reduction. At Medium, the drops are 24% (from 62.8 to 47.5 FPS) and 45% (to 34.5 FPS), respectively. This consistency indicates that the scaling is purely resolution-driven and not affected by settings complexity. The CPU's strong single-thread performance (3DMark single-thread score of 999) ensures that it is not introducing a bottleneck at any resolution; the frame rate drops are entirely attributable to the GPU's rendering limits. The data shows that this combination is only truly playable at 1080p, with 1440p being a stretch that requires Low settings, and 4K being largely impractical.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best results. The Low preset achieves an average of 93 FPS, which is the only measured configuration that clears the 90 FPS mark. Medium follows at 62.8 FPS, High at 61 FPS, and Ultra at 48.9 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is substantial (a 32% drop), while the difference between Medium and High is negligible (only 1.8 FPS), suggesting that the Medium preset includes some settings that are as demanding as High. Ultra represents a further 21% drop from High, making it the least desirable option at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset remains the only smooth option, with an average of 70.6 FPS. Medium and High are nearly identical at 47.5 FPS and 46 FPS, respectively, while Ultra falls to 36.4 FPS. The 1440p results show a clear pattern: the GPU is beginning to struggle, and the differences between Medium and High become statistically insignificant. The data indicates that users at this resolution should either accept Low for smoothness or High for visuals, with little benefit from the Medium setting.

At 3840x2160, all settings produce sub-60 FPS averages. Low is the only playable option at 44 FPS, followed by Medium at 34.5 FPS, High at 31.9 FPS, and Ultra at 23.7 FPS. The 4K results are consistently 25-30% lower than their 1440p counterparts, confirming that this GPU is not designed for 4K gaming in Control. The Ultra preset at 4K, at 23.7 FPS, is the worst measured result and is effectively a slideshow. The data across all resolutions shows a clear hierarchy: Low > Medium ≈ High > Ultra, with the differences between Medium and High being negligible in most cases.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for this combo at 1920x1080?

A: The Low preset delivers the highest average frame rate at 93 FPS, which is a 52% improvement over the High preset's 61 FPS. For a balance of visuals and performance, the Medium preset at 62.8 FPS is nearly identical to High and offers a marginal gain, but Low is the only option that approaches high-refresh-rate smoothness.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Control?

A: No. The best 4K result is the Low preset at 44 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS target. All other settings at 4K fall below 35 FPS, with Ultra at 23.7 FPS being unplayable. The GPU's 6 GB memory and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for 4K rendering demands.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 5 7600's average benchmark score of 26617 is 0.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (26574), 0.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 8024P (26555), and 0.3% higher than the Intel Core i9-11900K (26546). It is slightly behind the Intel Core i9-12900HK, which scores 26672, a 0.2% delta.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor in this combination?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The CPU's 83rd percentile ranking and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22992 indicate ample processing headroom, while the GPU's 55th percentile ranking and average score of 14286, which is within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT, show it is the constraint. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K confirms this, as frame rates drop consistently with resolution increases.

Q: What is the difference between Medium and High settings at 2560x1440?

A: The difference is negligible. Medium averages 47.5 FPS while High averages 46 FPS, a gap of only 1.5 FPS. This suggests that the Medium and High presets have similar rendering demands at this resolution, and users should choose High for better visuals without a meaningful performance penalty.

Q: How does the GPU compare to the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 in benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 14286, which is 0.2% lower than the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11's score of 14314. This places the two GPUs in the same performance tier, though the GTX 1660 SUPER has a dedicated 6 GB GDDR6 memory buffer versus the Vega 11's integrated design.