Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and Radeon RX 6650 XT combination lands at rank 1049 out of 1636 tested combos in Control, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database. This position suggests the pairing is competent but not exceptional for this title, which is notable given that both components individually sit at respectable percentile rankings—the CPU at the 82nd percentile and the GPU at the 72nd percentile. The gap between component potential and in-game ranking hints that Control’s specific demands may not align perfectly with this hardware’s strengths. The data shows a system that can deliver playable frame rates at most settings, but it requires careful configuration to avoid dipping below smooth thresholds, particularly at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 1049 out of 1636 places it in the 64th percentile of all tested pairings, meaning roughly a third of configurations outperform it in Control. This underperformance relative to the CPU’s 82nd percentile is telling—the Ryzen 5 8400F is clearly not the limiting factor here. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 25064 puts it within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (24993) and statistically tied with the Ryzen 7 2700X (25057, delta 0%). This suggests the processor has ample headroom for the game’s logic and physics. The GPU, however, with its 72nd percentile ranking and average score of 29024, sits just 0.1% ahead of the RX 470 (28996) and 0.5% behind the Intel Arc A370M (29175). These rival deltas are negligible, indicating the RX 6650 XT is a mid-pack performer. In Control specifically, the combination achieves its rank through the GPU’s ability to handle the game’s rendering workload, but the overall position reveals that this pairing is better suited for 1080p or modest 1440p play rather than pushing extreme settings.

Settings Recommendations

Examining the measured FPS rows, the most balanced experience emerges at Medium settings across all resolutions. At 1920x1080, Medium produces 90.3 FPS, which is a substantial improvement over High’s 81.1 FPS and Ultra’s 70.4 FPS, while still looking better than Low’s 122.6 FPS. The pattern repeats at 2560x1440, where Medium delivers 65.5 FPS compared to High’s 59.1 FPS and Ultra’s 50.1 FPS—the former two are playable, but Ultra starts to feel marginal. At 3840x2160, Medium’s 44.9 FPS is the highest setting that remains above 40 FPS, whereas High drops to 38.7 FPS and Ultra falls to 34.5 FPS. The data indicates that Medium is the sweet spot: it consistently provides roughly 10-20% more performance than High while maintaining visual fidelity that is noticeably superior to Low. For users prioritizing smoothness over visuals, Low at 1080p (122.6 FPS) or 1440p (91.6 FPS) offers excellent responsiveness, but the quality sacrifice is steep. The recommendation is clear: run Medium settings for the best balance of frame rate and visual quality, regardless of resolution.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. At High settings, the frame rate drops from 81.1 FPS at 1080p to 59.1 FPS at 1440p (a 27% decrease) and then to 38.7 FPS at 4K (a 52% decrease from 1080p). This steep decline—halving the frame rate when quadrupling pixel count—is characteristic of a graphics card struggling with resolution scaling. The RX 6650 XT’s 8 GB of VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are likely contributors, as Control’s textures and effects demand substantial memory bandwidth. At Low settings, the scaling is similar: 122.6 FPS at 1080p drops to 91.6 FPS at 1440p (25% reduction) and 60.9 FPS at 4K (50% reduction). The consistent ~50% performance hit from 1080p to 4K across all settings confirms that the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU’s role is minimal here—its 6 cores and 12 threads at 4.20 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost are more than sufficient to feed the GPU’s frame output, as evidenced by the fact that even at 1080p Low, the system only reaches 122.6 FPS, which is well within CPU capability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset provides a clear picture of performance across all twelve tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the frame rates range from 70.4 FPS at Ultra to 122.6 FPS at Low, with Medium at 90.3 FPS and High at 81.1 FPS. This spread of 52.2 FPS between the lowest and highest settings demonstrates that Control is highly scalable on this hardware. The 1440p results show a narrower range: Ultra at 50.1 FPS, High at 59.1 FPS, Medium at 65.5 FPS, and Low at 91.6 FPS—a spread of 41.5 FPS. At 4K, the range tightens further: Ultra at 34.5 FPS, High at 38.7 FPS, Medium at 44.9 FPS, and Low at 60.9 FPS, a spread of 26.4 FPS. This narrowing spread at higher resolutions is another indicator of GPU limitation; as pixel count rises, the difference between settings shrinks because the GPU is saturated regardless of quality level. Interestingly, the jump from High to Ultra costs roughly 10-13 FPS at every resolution (10.7 at 1080p, 9.0 at 1440p, 4.2 at 4K), suggesting that Ultra’s additional effects are disproportionately expensive. The data also shows that Low settings at 4K (60.9 FPS) outperform Ultra at 1440p (50.1 FPS), which is a useful real-world insight for users deciding between resolution and quality.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 6650 XT’s specifications directly explain its performance characteristics in Control. With 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivering 280.3 GB/s bandwidth, the card has enough capacity for 1080p and 1440p textures but likely struggles with 4K’s higher memory demands. The GPU’s boost clock of 2635 MHz and game clock of 2410 MHz are reasonably high, and its 2048 shading units produce 10.79 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. These figures translate to the observed frame rates, where the card maintains playable performance up to Medium at 4K but falls below 60 FPS at High and Ultra. The GPU’s 32 ray tracing cores are present, though Control’s implementation may not heavily utilize them given the frame rates. The card’s 176 W TDP and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface are typical for this class, and the data suggests that the memory bandwidth is a limiting factor at higher resolutions—the 280.3 GB/s figure is modest by modern standards. The GPU’s percentile ranking of 72 places it above average, but its nearest rivals—RX 6800M (29011, delta 0%), RX 470 (28996, delta 0.1%)—show that it’s not a standout performer. The 0.5% deficit to the Intel Arc A370M (29175) is within noise but indicates that this GPU is solidly mid-tier.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the most comfortable, with all settings above 70 FPS. At 2560x1440, Medium (65.5 FPS) and Low (91.6 FPS) are playable, but High and Ultra dip below 60 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low (60.9 FPS) and Medium (44.9 FPS) are viable.

Q: How much performance does Ultra cost compared to High?

A: At 1080p, Ultra is 70.4 FPS versus High’s 81.1 FPS, a 10.7 FPS drop. At 1440p, the difference is 9.0 FPS (50.1 vs 59.1). At 4K, Ultra’s 34.5 FPS is 4.2 FPS below High’s 38.7 FPS. The cost is proportionally smaller at higher resolutions.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting component. The CPU ranks at the 82nd percentile with an average score of 25064, while the GPU sits at the 72nd percentile. The FPS drops of roughly 50% from 1080p to 4K across all settings confirm GPU-bound performance.

Q: How does this combo compare to other AMD pairings?

A: The CPU is statistically tied with the Ryzen 7 2700X (delta 0%) and Ryzen 5 7500F (delta 0.3%). The GPU is within 0.1% of the RX 6800M and RX 470, and 0.5% behind the Arc A370M. The combo’s overall rank of 1049 out of 1636 reflects this mid-tier positioning.

Q: What settings should I use for 60+ FPS at 1440p?

A: Only Low settings achieve this, with 91.6 FPS. Medium comes close at 65.5 FPS, which is above 60 but not by a large margin. High (59.1 FPS) and Ultra (50.1 FPS) fall short of the 60 FPS target.

Q: Does the GPU’s VRAM capacity affect 4K performance?

A: The 8 GB VRAM with 280.3 GB/s bandwidth is likely a factor. At 4K, even Low settings only reach 60.9 FPS, and Medium drops to 44.9 FPS. The steep scaling suggests memory bandwidth constraints beyond just raw compute power.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 5 8400F’s specifications indicate it is more than adequate for Control. With 6 cores and 12 threads based on Zen 4 architecture, it offers strong single-thread performance—evidenced by its 3DMark single-thread score of 951 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943. The CPU’s boost clock of 4.70 GHz and 16 MB of shared L3 cache provide responsive gameplay, and its 82nd percentile ranking confirms it outperforms most CPUs. The benchmark scores are particularly telling: Cinebench R23 multicore at 20851 and Passmark multithread at 24530 show robust multi-threaded capability, though Control likely doesn’t fully utilize all 12 threads. The CPU’s memory support for DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth is another advantage, though the GPU’s bottleneck means this headroom goes unused. The nearest CPU rivals—Ryzen 7 2700X (25057, delta 0%) and Ryzen 5 7500F (24993, delta 0.3%)—show that the 8400F is competitive with older and similarly-priced options. In this game, the CPU’s role is to provide consistent frame pacing without becoming a constraint, and the data shows it does so effectively. The fact that 1080p Low reaches 122.6 FPS without any apparent CPU limitation, while the GPU’s 4K performance plummets, underscores that the processor is not the bottleneck. The 65 W TDP and 4 nm process also mean the CPU runs efficiently, leaving thermal headroom for sustained gaming sessions. Ultimately, the CPU performs its job admirably, but the pairing’s overall rank is dictated by the GPU’s mid-tier capabilities in Control.