Control

Control pairs the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X with the AMD Radeon RX 580, a combination that places it at rank 1502 out of 1636 tested combos in this game. The benchmark data shows a system heavily constrained by its graphics card, with the CPU’s substantial processing headroom unable to compensate for the GPU’s age. The measured frames per second (FPS) across resolutions and settings tell a consistent story of a component mismatch, where the Ryzen 5 7600X delivers the necessary thread count and clock speed, but the RX 580’s Polaris architecture limits the overall experience. This analysis breaks down the specific roles of each component, how resolution scaling exposes the bottleneck, and which settings offer the most playable results.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This modern desktop chip, built on a 5 nm process, provides a substantial amount of computational power for a game like Control, which benefits from multiple threads for physics and AI calculations. Its benchmark scores reinforce this capability: the Cinebench R23 multicore result of 24128 points and a single-core score of 3406 points indicate strong performance across both lightly and heavily threaded workloads. The processor’s 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 per core further aid in reducing memory latency, which is beneficial for maintaining consistent frame pacing.

In the context of this specific game benchmark, the CPU’s role appears to be largely preparatory rather than limiting. The data shows that even at the lowest tested resolution and settings, the frame rates are capped by the GPU, not the processor. For instance, at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 60.5, which is the highest recorded value in the entire dataset. This suggests that the Ryzen 5 7600X can easily feed frames to the graphics card without becoming a bottleneck. Its 3DMark scores, such as 6879 in the 16-thread test and 1060 in the single-thread test, place it in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, indicating it is more than capable of handling the game’s logic. The processor’s performance relative to its nearest rivals is a near tie, with a 0.2% delta compared to the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X, showing that the 7600X is competitively positioned within its class.

The CPU’s high boost clock of 5.30 GHz is particularly relevant for a game like Control, which has moments of intense action where single-thread performance can influence scene complexity. However, the measured FPS data does not show any scenario where the CPU’s clock speed becomes a limiting factor. Even at the highest CPU stress point, which would be at lower resolutions with faster GPUs, the RX 580 is still the primary constraint. The processor’s 12 threads also ensure that background tasks or game engine threads do not starve the main render thread. Ultimately, the data indicates that the Ryzen 5 7600X is a future-proof element of this configuration, providing far more headroom than the GPU can utilize in Control.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is the clear performance limiter in this configuration. This GPU, based on the Polaris 20 chip and GCN 4.0 architecture, features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. Its clocks are modest by modern standards, with a base of 1257 MHz and a boost of 1340 MHz, along with a memory clock of 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GPU’s compute capabilities are reflected in its 2304 shading units and a texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s, but its overall benchmark standing is weak; it sits in the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13559. This score places it nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570, with a 0% delta, and only 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 455.

In Control, the RX 580’s limitations are immediately visible in the measured FPS. At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 35.9, which is a significant reduction from the 60.5 FPS seen at Low settings. This indicates that the GPU’s shading units and texture units are overwhelmed by the game’s higher fidelity effects. The 8 GB of VRAM is likely sufficient for most of the tested settings, but the GPU’s raw compute power is not enough to maintain high frame rates. The benchmark results for the GPU show a PassMark G3D score of 8813 and a DirectX 12 score of 43, which are low figures that correlate with the in-game performance. The GPU’s FP32 performance of 6.175 TFLOPS is the theoretical peak, but achieving that in a real-world scenario like Control is impossible due to thermal and architectural constraints.

The data shows that the RX 580 struggles to provide a smooth experience above 1080p. At 2560x1440 with High settings, the average FPS is 32.5, which is barely playable for a fast-paced action game. At 3840x2160, the GPU is completely out of its depth, with the highest average FPS being 33.2 at Low settings, which still feels stuttery. The GPU’s pixel rate of 42.88 GPixel/s and texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s are simply insufficient for the resolution and settings demanded by the game’s benchmark. This is a classic case where a GPU from the Polaris generation is being asked to run a title that has since become more demanding, and the results show a clear need for lower settings or a resolution reduction to achieve acceptable performance.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling data clearly illustrates that the GPU is the sole limiting component in this system. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, and then to 3840x2160, produces a steep and predictable decline in average FPS across all settings. For example, at High settings, the average FPS drops from 42.4 at 1080p to 32.5 at 1440p, and then further down to 23.2 at 4K. This represents a 45% reduction in FPS when moving from 1080p to 4K at High settings, which is a direct consequence of the GPU having to render four times as many pixels. The data shows that the scaling is not linear, with the drop from 1440p to 4K being particularly steep at higher settings.

The pattern is consistent across the settings presets. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 60.5 at 1080p to 50.6 at 1440p, and then to 33.2 at 4K. This indicates that even when the graphical load is minimized, the GPU’s memory bandwidth and compute units are still saturated at higher resolutions. The fact that the FPS drops significantly even at Low settings suggests that the bottleneck is primarily the GPU’s fill rate and shading capability, not the VRAM capacity, since the 8 GB buffer is likely not exceeded at these settings. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar FPS numbers across resolutions, but the data shows a clear divergence.

This behavior is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. The Ryzen 5 7600X’s performance does not change with resolution; it processes the game’s logic at the same speed regardless of pixel count. Therefore, the only variable that changes is the GPU’s workload, and the FPS drops accordingly. The data suggests that for this combination, 1080p is the only viable resolution for a playable experience, and even then, only at lower settings. The 4K results, with averages ranging from 19.2 to 33.2 FPS, are effectively unplayable for a game that requires quick reflexes. This scaling analysis confirms that any attempt to improve frame rates must focus on reducing the GPU’s load, either through lower settings or a lower resolution, rather than expecting any help from the CPU.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combination can achieve in Control?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 60.5, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only tested configuration that crosses the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7600X compare to its closest rival in terms of CPU benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 7600X has an average benchmark score of 26272. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U, scores 26262, resulting in a delta of 0%. The Ryzen 7 7735U is 0.1% behind, and the Ryzen 7 5700X is 0.2% ahead.

Q: Is the RX 580’s 8 GB of VRAM sufficient for Control at 4K?

A: The data shows that at 3840x2160, the average FPS is below 34 across all settings, even at Low (33.2 FPS). While VRAM capacity might be adequate, the GPU’s compute performance is too low to provide a playable frame rate at this resolution.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS drops from 60.5 at Low settings to 35.9 at Ultra settings. This is a 40.7% reduction in performance, indicating that the Ultra preset places a significant load on the GPU.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit the performance in this benchmark?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary limiter. The FPS drops significantly as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU’s high benchmark scores and consistent performance across resolutions confirm it is not the constraint.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of this GPU compared to all others?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 580 is in the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13559. This places it in the lower half of the performance distribution.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only settings preset that provides a consistently smooth experience is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which achieves an average of 60.5 FPS. This is the ideal configuration for players who prioritize frame rate and responsiveness, as it is the only tested row that meets the standard for high-refresh-rate monitors. Moving to Medium settings at the same resolution drops the average to 44.2 FPS, which is still playable but may introduce noticeable stutter in action-heavy scenes. High settings at 1080p yield 42.4 FPS, which is similar to Medium and might be preferable if visual fidelity is more important than a few extra frames.

For users who cannot tolerate the visual compromise of Low settings, the Medium preset at 1080p is the best balance, offering a 27% improvement in FPS over High settings while maintaining a decent level of detail. The Ultra preset at 1080p is not recommended, as the 35.9 FPS average is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. At 2560x1440, none of the settings presets achieve a playable frame rate, with Low being the only option above 50 FPS (50.6), but this is still marginal. The 4K resolution is entirely unsuitable for this combination, as even the lowest settings produce an average of 33.2 FPS, which is not responsive enough for the game’s combat mechanics. The data strongly suggests that this hardware is best suited for 1080p gaming with reduced graphical settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS dataset reveals a consistent tiering of performance across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the averages are 60.5 (Low), 44.2 (Medium), 42.4 (High), and 35.9 (Ultra). This shows a clear drop of 16.3 FPS from Low to Medium, and then a further 8.3 FPS from High to Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is 24.6 FPS, which is a 40.7% reduction, highlighting the GPU’s struggle with higher presets. At 2560x1440, the averages are 50.6 (Low), 33.9 (Medium), 32.5 (High), and 24.8 (Ultra). The drop from Low to Medium is significant at 16.7 FPS, while the difference between Medium and High is minimal at 1.4 FPS, suggesting that the Medium preset is a better choice than High at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 33.2 (Low), 24.6 (Medium), 23.2 (High), and 19.2 (Ultra). The scaling here is severe; even the best case at Low settings is below 34 FPS. The difference between Medium and High is only 1.4 FPS, mirroring the 1440p pattern, but the absolute values are too low for practical gaming. Across all resolutions, the delta between Medium and High is consistently small (1.4 FPS at 1440p and 4K, and 1.8 FPS at 1080p), which suggests that the High preset’s additional effects do not justify the performance cost relative to Medium. The data shows that the most efficient settings are at 1080p with Low or Medium, with 1440p Low being a distant third option for users with a lower refresh rate monitor.