Control

The control test bed pairing the AMD Ryzen 5 7600 (Zen 4, 6 cores, 12 threads, 3.80 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost) with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 (Ada Lovelace, 16 GB GDDR6X, 716.8 GB/s bandwidth) produces a combination that ranks 241st out of 3,720 tested in the game, putting it in the top 6.5% of all hardware confinities. The measured data provides 12 FPS rows spanning 1920×1080, 2560×1440, and 3840×2160 across four quality presets, revealing a consistent pattern of high refresh-rate capability at 1080p and 1440p, a drop to roughly half at 4K, and a preference for Medium settings if minimum frame consistency is the priority. The components' own synthetic bench scores and percentiles reinforce that this rig is built for high-refresh gameplay, with the CPU sitting at the 78th percentile and the GPU at the 86th.

FAQ

Q: What average FPS can this combo achieve at 4K Ultra?

A: The measured avg FPS at 3840×2160 with Ultra settings is 69, with no min/max recorded.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 7600 limiting the RTX 4080 at 1080p?

A: The data shows a 246 avg FPS at 1080p Low and 135 avg at 1080p Ultra. At 4K Low, the avg is 126, so the transition from 1080p to 4K cuts performance by about 49-50% across settings. This suggests that at 1080p the CPU has a larger relative impact, yet frame rates remain extremely high, meaning the CPU is largely adequate for high refresh.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-threaded performance compare to its near rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 7600 has a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12,735 and a single-core of 1,852. Its nearest rivals in the benchmark database—Ryzen 9 6900HX, Ryzen 7 7435HS, i9-11900KF, and Ryzen 5 8540U—are within a 0.5% band (deltaPct 0.2%, -0.3%, 0.4%, and 0.5% respectively), indicating near-tie in overall CPU performance.

Q: Does the RTX 4080's 16 GB VRAM ever become a bottleneck in Control?

A: The data does not show VRAM usage, but the card's 16 GB GDDR6X memory with 716.8 GB/s bandwidth is more than enough for the highest tested presets at 4K, as evidenced by the 69 FPS average at Ultra and 89 at Medium—the largest VRAM-demand setting in our data shows no frame minimums below 76 FPS.

Q: Which settings provide the most stable frame experience at 1440p?

A: At 2560×1440, Medium gives an avg FPS of 132 with a min of 113 and max of 152, which is the only resolution/setting with min/max data at this resolution. Ultra averages 102, while High and Low average 118 and 186, but they have no min/max values, so Medium provides the clearest evidence of deliverable stability.

Q: What is the memory capacity and bandwidth of the GPU?

A: The RTX 4080 has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256‑bit bus, providing 716.8 GB/s of effective bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 1400 MHz with 22.4 Gbps effective data rate.

Note: The launch MSRP for the CPU is $229, and for the GPU it is 1,199 USD.

GPU Role

The RTX 4080's role in Control is defined by its memory and compute resources. With 16 GB GDDR6X and a 256-bit bus delivering 716.8 GB/s, the GPU can handle 4K textures and ray-triangle workloads without stuttering from memory capacity. Its shader config includes 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 76 RT cores, and 304 tensor cores, yielding 48.74 TFLOPS FP32. The 48.74 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1) and a pixel rate of 280.6 GPixel/s correlate with the ability to sustain the 126 FPS average at 1440p Low (and 246 at 1080p Low) in the measured results.

The memory bandwidth is more than sufficient for 4K textures: the 16 GB allocation allows the game to use the main memory as a texture cache, as many titles do, without stuttering. The boost clock of 2505 MHz (base 2205 MHz) suggests a stable envelope when the card is cooled properly, though the pack contains no cooling data. The data shows the highest GPU load requirement at UHD: at 4K Ultra, the avg FPS is 69, a natural point for VRAM to be used fully. That 68 frames average with a min of 62 (initially not given) would likely dip into the low 60s, but the pack does not provide that min; at 4K Medium the min is 76 and max 103, showing headroom between settings.

Because the GTX 4080 in this combo has a 7% higher percentile (86th) than the CPU (78th), we can infer the GPU is the more dominant factor in pushing the ultra-high refresh rates seen at 1080p and 1440p. The FP32 and ROP resources explain why even at 4K High (79 avg) the card remains above a 60 FPS target, while at Ultra it slips to 69 avg.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3,720 separately tested hardware combinations in Control, the Ryzen 5 7600 + RTX 4080 combo sits at rank 241. That places it in the top 6.5% of tested systems (241 / 3,720 ≈ 6.48%). While the absolute number is not a percentile field, the rank indicates this setup is among the strongest configurations of the many thousands in the database.

For context, the GPU alone holds an 86th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU holds a 78th percentile among CPUs. This means the combo's overall rank 241 is higher than either component's percentile ranks suggest? Actually, the 241 / 3,720 = 6.48% means it does better than 93.5% of combos, which is far better than the 86th percentile GPU. This discrepancy exists because the game's workload favors a balanced platform, and the specific pairing of a 6-core Zen 4 CPU with a high-end Ada GPU yields particularly effective results in Control, according to the measured FPS.

The GPU itself is just 0.1% behind the RTX 4080 SUPER in average benchmark score (54,247 vs 54,209), while the nearest AMD rival (Radeon Pro W5700X) is 1.1% faster and the RX 6750 GRE is 2.6% slower. In Control, the game does not seem to punish the 4080's memory speed; the 4K result is stable, but we lack direct comparison to other GPUs in the combo list to say whether the 4080's position is exceptional.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full set of measured results spans three resolutions and four quality levels. The following table lists average FPS, along with minimum and maximum where provided:

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

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

| 1920×1080 | High | 156 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Low | 246 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 175 | 149 | 201 |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 135 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | High | 118 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 186 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 132 | 113 | 152 |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 102 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | High | 79 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 126 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 89 | 76 | 103 |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 69 | – | – |

At 1080p, the highest avg is 246 FPS on Low, while the lowest is 135 on Ultra. Medium produces a 175 avg with min 149 and max 201. At 1440p, Low hits 186 FPS, and Ultra drops to 102. At 4K, Low still supports 126 FPS, Medium 89, and Ultra 69. The min/max data are only provided for Medium setting at all resolutions; at 1080p Medium, the range is 149–201; at 1440p 113–152; and at 4K 76–103.

Comparing settings within each resolution: At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra reduces average FPS by (246 - 135) = 111 frames, roughly a 55% drop. At 1440p, the loss is 186 - 138 = 84 frames (45% fewer). At 4K, the loss is 126 - 69 = 57 frames (45% fewer). The percentage drop from Low to Ultra is remarkably consistent across resolutions, indicating that the quality presets are mostly turning on the same effects regardless of resolution, while the absolute performance penalty increases with resolution—from 111 to 46 and 59, respectively.

Resolution Scaling

Examining the avg FPS as we go from 1080p to 4K for the same settings:

• Low: 246 (1080p) → 186 (1440p) → 126 (4K)
• Medium: 175 → 132 → 89
• High: 156 → 118 → 79
• Ultra: 135 → 102 → 69

The 1080p-to-4 K reduction in average frames is consistent across all presets: for Low, it's 246-126 = 120, which is 48.8%; Medium 175-89 = 86 (49.1%); High 156-79 = 77 (49.4%); Ultra 135-67 (50.4%). So the avg FPS at 4K is always 49–51% of the 1080p value, i.e., roughly half. This suggests a near-linear scaling of load with pixel count, since 4K has about 3.7× the pixel area of 1080p. The reason the frame rate only halves, rather than quarters, is that the load is largely GPU-bound at the higher resolution, and the RTX 4080 has enough bandwidth to handle the increase without a proportional loss. Meanwhile, the CPU becomes less influential at 4K; on 1080p Low, the CPU is able to push 246 frames, but at 4K Low, the GPU is the limiting factor. The data therefore implies a shift from a CPU-limited scenario at 1080p (where the GPU is waiting on the processor) to a GPU-limited scenario at 4K (where every frame approximates the GPU's raw capacity). The difference between settings is small in percentage terms, which suggests that the base clock and core count of the Ryzen 5 7600 deliver enough thread throughput to keep up with the 4080 at all settings.

Essentially, the scaling curve is flat: because the avg FPS halves exactly, the bottleneck is consistent across the preset spectrum. If the CPU were the primary impediment, we would expect to see faster drops at 1080p and slower at 4K; instead, the uniform halving indicates that the GPU is the primary limiter at 4K, and at 1080p the CPU still delivers sufficiently high frame rates that the GPU is not the limiting factor.

Settings Recommendations

Determining the optimal preset depends on the refresh rate target and the resolution. The measured data allows us to propose a recommendation based on the stability of the frame curve, that is, the min and max values available only in the Medium preset.

At 1920×1080, the Ultra preset produces an avg of 135 FPS — this is above 120, which is typically a higher refresh target. If the goal is a high and consistently smooth experience, Medium yields an avg 175 with a min of 149, the lowest min of any 1080p camera, meaning no frame drops below 149 is a strong guarantee. Low is the only preset that reaches beyond 240 (avg 246), but it lacks a min/max data.

At 2560×1440, Medium ã€The avg 132 with min 113 and max 152 is the only one with min information; Ultra gives an avg of 102, which is close to 100 but without min we don't know if it dips lower. Low shows 186 avg, but the absence of min data means we cannot judge a frame spike.

At 3840×2160, Ultra yields 69 avg, which is playable for a single-player title. Medium provides an avg of 89, with a min of 76, making it a safer choice for a target of 60 FPS and -above. If the user prioritizes the best visual quality and can tolerate an average near 69, Ultra is viable; but the Medium preset gives a wider margin (min 76, max 103) against spikes in heavier scenes.

The overall data suggests that Medium is the recommended preset because it is the only setting that has min/max recorded at all resolutions, and it stays within a 149–201 range at 1440p (113–152) and 4K (76–103). It offers a balanced trade of visual detail and consistent flow. For a high-refresh 1080p display (e.g., 244 Hz), the Ultra preset still averages 135 and would be the choice for max detail, but the min frame overhead is unknown. For 4K users who desire Ultra quality, the 69 avg is acceptable for 60-class displays, yet Medium's 76–103 min-max provides a more robust experience.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 5 7600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Zen 4 Raphael series, seated on the AM5 socket. It operates at a base of 3.80 GHz and a boost of 6.10 GHz, with a 32 MB L3 cache (and 1 MB L2 per core). The boost speed is particularly relevant for single-threaded workloads like game logic and draw-call processing.

The benchmark numbers from the packing are: Cinebench R23 multi 12,735, single 1,852; Geekbench 5 multi 13,413, single 2,521; PassMark Single-Thread 3,910, Multi-thread 27,058. Its percentile among all CPUs is 78, and its average benchmark score is 26,324. Nearest rival scores are within ±0.5%: Ryzen 9 6900HX (26,274, delta +0.2%), Ryzen 7 7435HS (26,402, -0.3%), i9-11900KF (26,780, +0.4%), Ryzen 5 8540U (26,187, +0.5%). This shows the Ryzen 5 7000 is highly competitive at its generation.

In Control, the CPU’s thread and clock profile must result in the high absolute frame counts observed. The 1080p Low figure of 246 avg indicates that the processor can handle more than 240 frames per second without tutoring bottles, even though the GPU is likely not maxed. The fact that 4K Low matches the same setting halves the FPS to 126, pointing to the GPU absorbing the increased pixel work. The CPU’s L1/ L2/L3 cache sizes are not explicitly tied to (specific) performance, but a 6-core part with a boost to 5.10 GHz during a single-core game is likely the reason Control can hit the high averages seen at 1440p (118 for High, 180 for Low).

When crossing to 4K Ultra, the avg drops to 69, and the CPU’s role becomes less prominent. However, the CPU's 6 cores are still enough to feed the GPU, as Kyle the opposite direction on the graph—the 69 average is still well above 30. Additionally, the CPU supports DDR5 memory (dual-channel at 83.2 GB/s), which prevents a memory bandwidth bottleneck that could undercut the GPU’s 716.8 GB/s. Because the game is an Action-Adventure title, it likely draws on many CPU threads; the 12-thread count can manage the rendering overhead, physics, and AI, while the high single-core measured performance (1,852 Cinebench R23) ensures the game can easily individually manage the main loop.

In summary, the Ryzen 5 appears to be an excellent companion for the RTX 4080 in Control, with the measured frame stabilities confirming the CPU’s 78th percentile status in the databasemodern games without performance loss at high refresh rates.