Control

# Control with AMD Ryzen 5 8400F + AMD Radeon RX 9060

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 delivers a playable but not dominant experience in Control, with the GPU acting as the primary performance limiter across all tested resolutions. The combo ranks 1632nd out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database. Across the four settings presets and three resolutions, average frame rates range from 36 FPS at 4K Ultra to 130 FPS at 1080p Low, showing a wide performance envelope that depends heavily on how aggressively the user configures the game.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, revealing a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 82 at 1080p to 62 at 1440p, then to 42 at 4K. That represents a 24% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 32% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The cumulative drop from 1080p to 4K is roughly 49%, meaning the RX 9060 loses nearly half its frame rate when pixel count quadruples. This pattern is characteristic of a graphics card that is saturated by the rendering load rather than a CPU bottleneck, since the Ryzen 5 8400F's 6 cores and 12 threads at up to 4.70 GHz boost provide ample headroom for a game like Control.

At Low settings, the scaling is even more revealing. The 1080p Low result of 130 FPS drops to 98 FPS at 1440p (a 25% reduction) and then to 66 FPS at 4K (a 33% reduction from 1440p). The fact that even at the lowest settings the frame rate continues to drop sharply with resolution indicates that the GPU's raw pixel throughput is the limiting factor, not the CPU's ability to feed the renderer. The RX 9060's 64 ROPs and 1792 shading units at a boost clock of 2990 MHz are simply not enough to maintain high frame rates at 4K, regardless of how light the settings are.

Medium settings show a similar trajectory: 92 FPS at 1080p, 70 FPS at 1440p, and 47 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 24%, and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 33%. Ultra settings, the heaviest preset, yield 71 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 36 FPS at 4K — a 49% total loss from 1080p to 4K. The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings strongly suggests that the scaling behavior is purely resolution-driven, with the CPU contributing negligible variance. The Ryzen 5 8400F's single-thread performance, evidenced by a 3DMark single-thread score of 951 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943, is more than adequate for Control's demands at these frame rates.

Interestingly, the gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, Low is 130 FPS and Ultra is 71 FPS, a 59 FPS spread. At 1440p, the spread narrows to 44 FPS (98 vs 54). At 4K, it narrows to 30 FPS (66 vs 36). This compression at higher resolutions further confirms that the GPU becomes progressively more the bottleneck; when pixel count is the dominant cost, settings adjustments matter less because the card is already at its compute limit.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves in Control?

A: The highest measured average is 130 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration where the combo surpasses 120 FPS, indicating that high-refresh-rate 1080p play is possible but only with reduced graphical fidelity.

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

A: Yes, but barely. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 36, which is below the 40 FPS minimum of the 4K Medium preset (min 40 FPS, max 54 FPS). At 4K High the average is 42 FPS, and at 4K Low it is 66 FPS. The data shows that 4K is playable only at Low or Medium settings, with Ultra requiring a significant compromise on smoothness.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F's average benchmark score is 25005, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, scores 24964, a delta of 0.2% — effectively identical performance. The Intel Core i7-11850H (24935) and Intel Core i7-13620H (24911) are also within 0.4%, while the AMD EPYC 9474F (25103) is 0.4% ahead. This CPU is firmly in a mid-range performance cluster.

Q: What is the GPU's competitive position?

A: The Radeon RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014, sitting in the 59th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti with a score of 16129, which is 0.7% faster. The AMD Radeon R9 370X (15862) and AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15852) are both 1% slower, and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15679) lags by 2.1%. The RX 9060 is competitive with last-generation mid-range cards.

Q: Which resolution offers the best balance of frame rate and visual quality?

A: Based on the measured data, 1440p Medium at 70 FPS (min 59, max 80) provides the best combination of smoothness and fidelity. At 1080p, all presets exceed 71 FPS, but the visual upgrade to 1440p is substantial. At 1440p High (62 FPS) and 1440p Ultra (54 FPS) remain playable, but Medium's 70 FPS average with a 59 FPS minimum ensures fewer drops below 60 FPS.

Q: Is there a settings preset that guarantees 60 FPS at 1440p?

A: Yes, 1440p Medium averages 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS, which means it stays at or near 60 FPS for most of the experience. 1440p High averages 62 FPS but has no reported minimum, so it may dip below 60. 1440p Low averages 98 FPS and is the safest choice for locked 60 FPS with headroom.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the decisive component in this combo's Control performance. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for the game's needs at 1080p and 1440p but likely constrains 4K performance. The memory operates at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), and with a boost clock of 2990 MHz and a game clock of 2400 MHz, the card's compute throughput is fixed at 21.43 TFLOPS FP32. The data shows that this compute ceiling is the primary limiter at high resolutions.

The 64 ROPs on the RX 9060 are responsible for pixel output, and at 4K the card's pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s is insufficient to maintain high frame rates. The measured 4K results — 36 to 66 FPS depending on settings — align with a card that is rasterization-bound. The 112 TMUs and 334.9 GTexel/s texture rate handle texture filtering without becoming a bottleneck, as evidenced by the fact that Low settings at 4K still only reach 66 FPS, which is not a dramatic improvement over Medium's 47 FPS.

The GPU's benchmark percentile of 59 and its proximity to the RTX 3060 Ti (0.7% slower) suggest that users should expect last-generation mid-range performance. In Control specifically, the RX 9060's 8 GB VRAM is adequate for the game's 2019-era assets, but the card's overall compute power means that 4K Ultra (36 FPS) is not a viable experience for consistent 60 FPS play. The GPU's passmark G3D score of 17631 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3322 reflect a card that is designed for 1080p high-refresh or 1440p high-fidelity gaming, not 4K.

The RDNA 4.0 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC packs 29,700 million transistors into a 199 mm² die, but the modest 1792 shading units and 28 RT cores indicate a deliberately cut-down chip. Control does not heavily utilize ray tracing by default, so the RT core count is less relevant here than raw rasterization throughput. The GPU's FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 21.43 TFLOPS (1:1), which is a notable feature but not leveraged by Control's standard rendering path.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1632 out of 2888 tested combinations places it in the 43rd percentile of all tested CPU-GPU pairs. This is a below-median position, which is somewhat surprising given that the CPU is in the 77th percentile and the GPU is in the 59th percentile individually. The discrepancy arises because Control is a demanding title, and the RX 9060's performance level drags the overall combo down relative to pairs that feature stronger GPUs.

Within the context of the nearest rivals, the combo's position makes sense. The CPU is effectively tied with the Ryzen 5 7500F, Intel Core i7-11850H, and Intel Core i7-13620H (all within 0.4% delta), and the GPU is within 2.1% of four different cards. This means the combo sits in a crowded mid-range tier where small performance differences separate many entries. The rank of 1632 indicates that there are 1631 combos that perform better in this game, many of which likely pair mid-range CPUs with higher-tier GPUs.

The rank also reflects the 4K results, which are uniformly low. If the database weighted 1080p performance more heavily, the rank would likely improve, as the combo achieves 82 FPS at 1080p High and 130 FPS at 1080p Low. However, the inclusion of 4K data drags the overall ranking down because the GPU cannot maintain competitive frame rates at that resolution. Users targeting 1080p will find this combo performs well, but those expecting 4K capabilities will be disappointed relative to other tested pairs.

The percentile data supports this interpretation: the CPU's 77th percentile means it outperforms 77% of all CPUs in the database, while the GPU's 59th percentile is more modest. The combo rank of 1632/2888 (43.5th percentile) is lower than either component's individual percentile, confirming that the GPU is the limiting factor in this pairing. A stronger GPU with the same CPU would likely push the combo rank significantly higher, while a weaker CPU would not meaningfully change the outcome because the GPU is already the bottleneck.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers a full range of playable results. Low settings average 130 FPS, making this the only preset that comfortably exceeds 120 FPS for high-refresh-rate displays. Medium settings average 92 FPS with a minimum of 78 FPS and a maximum of 106 FPS, providing a smooth experience with headroom above 60 FPS. High settings average 82 FPS, which is still well above the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra settings average 71 FPS, which is playable but begins to approach the lower bound of what most users consider smooth. The 59 FPS spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p shows that settings have a substantial impact at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the results remain mostly playable but with less margin. Low settings average 98 FPS, which is excellent for 1440p and indicates that the GPU can handle the resolution when the render load is light. Medium settings average 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 80 FPS, meaning the experience is just at the edge of 60 FPS with occasional dips. High settings average 62 FPS, which is borderline; the lack of a reported minimum means it could drop below 60. Ultra settings average 54 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target and will be noticeable in fast-paced action sequences. The spread between Low and Ultra narrows to 44 FPS at this resolution, indicating that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, the results are marginal across the board. Low settings average 66 FPS, which is the only 4K preset that reaches an acceptable level of smoothness. Medium settings average 47 FPS with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 54 FPS, meaning the experience will have visible stutter during heavy scenes. High settings average 42 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target. Ultra settings average 36 FPS, which is the lowest measured result in the entire dataset and is barely playable. The spread between Low and Ultra narrows further to 30 FPS at 4K, confirming that the GPU's compute limits dominate at this resolution regardless of settings.

The data also shows that the minimum FPS values are only reported for Medium settings at each resolution: 78 FPS at 1080p, 59 FPS at 1440p, and 40 FPS at 4K. These minimums provide a sense of frame-time consistency; the 1440p Medium minimum of 59 FPS is particularly notable because it means the experience stays almost entirely above 60 FPS, while the 4K Medium minimum of 40 FPS indicates frequent dips below the average.

Settings Recommendations

For users prioritizing a locked 60 FPS experience, the data points to 1440p Medium as the best choice. The 70 FPS average with a 59 FPS minimum means the game will stay at or near 60 FPS for the vast majority of play, with only rare dips below that threshold. The visual quality at Medium is significantly better than Low, and the performance headroom is sufficient to avoid the frame-time spikes that would be present at 4K or at 1440p Ultra.

For those with 1080p displays, the decision depends on refresh rate. At 1080p High, the 82 FPS average is ideal for 75 Hz or 144 Hz monitors with room to spare, while 1080p Ultra at 71 FPS also works for 60 Hz displays and offers the best visual fidelity. Users with 144 Hz monitors should consider 1080p Medium at 92 FPS, which stays comfortably above 60 FPS and provides a smoother experience than High, though the visual difference between Medium and High is noticeable. The 1080p Low preset at 130 FPS is the only option that fully utilizes a 144 Hz panel, but the graphical sacrifices are substantial.

At 1440p, users should avoid Ultra (54 FPS) unless they are willing to accept sub-60 performance. High at 62 FPS is playable but lacks the safety margin of Medium. The Medium preset's 70 FPS average with a 59 FPS minimum is the recommended choice for 1440p gaming, as it balances visual quality with consistent frame delivery. For users with adaptive sync displays, 1440p High may be acceptable, as the 62 FPS average would be within the variable refresh range, but the lack of a reported minimum introduces uncertainty.

At 4K, the only viable option is Low at 66 FPS. Medium at 47 FPS and High at 42 FPS are below the 60 FPS target and will result in a noticeably less fluid experience. Ultra at 36 FPS is not recommended for any scenario, as the frame rate is too low for a game that involves fast-paced combat and environmental destruction. The data suggests that 4K should be reserved for users who prioritize resolution over smoothness and are willing to accept the visual downgrades of Low settings.

Ultimately, the best experience per the measured rows is 1440p Medium, which offers the ideal combination of resolution, visual quality, and frame rate consistency. The combo's hardware is well-matched for this configuration, and the 59 FPS minimum ensures that the game remains responsive even during demanding sequences. For 1080p users, High settings at 82 FPS is the safest recommendation.