Control

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 pairing represents a stark contrast in architectural generations, combining a modern Zen 4 processor with an older, entry-level Turing GPU. Benchmark data for Control shows this combo landing at rank 1571 out of 1636 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 4% of configurations. This outcome is heavily dictated by the GPU’s limitations, as the CPU’s capabilities far exceed what the graphics card can feed to the display.

FAQ

*Q: What is the overall rank of this combination when tested in Control?*

A: The combo ranks 1571 out of 1636 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 4% of all configurations. This indicates that while the system is functional, its performance is significantly below the median experience for this game.

Q: How much faster is the Ryzen 5 8400F compared to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F has an average benchmark score of 25064. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, scores 25057, showing a deltaPct of 0. The Ryzen 5 7500F scores 24993, which is 0.3% slower. The Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 and EPYC 9474F are effectively tied, with deltas of -0.1% and -0.2% respectively.

Q: What is the best average FPS recorded for this combo at 1920x1080?

A: The highest average FPS at 1920x1080 is 55.3, achieved with the Low preset. This is the only setting that approaches playable frame rates, as the Medium preset drops to 42.4 FPS.

Q: Does the GPU outperform or underperform its direct competitors?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8746, which is 0.4% faster. The AMD Radeon 550X and Radeon Pro WX 5100 are also slightly faster, with deltas of -0.4% and -0.5%. The Quadro P2200 is 0.5% slower.

Q: What is the difference in performance between the High and Ultra presets at 2560x1440?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset yields an average of 27.4 FPS, while the Ultra preset drops to 20.8 FPS. This represents a 24% reduction in frame rate for the visual upgrade.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the GTX 1650 and how does it relate to its performance class?

A: The GTX 1650 has a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s, paired with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. This bandwidth figure is typical for an entry-level card and is a key constraint when processing high-resolution textures in Control.

How This Combo Ranks

The data places this combination at rank 1571 out of 1636, which signals a severe bottleneck. Only 65 other configurations perform worse in Control. This ranking is not a reflection of the CPU’s capabilities; rather, it is a direct consequence of the GPU’s position in the market. The GTX 1650 sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, meaning most graphics cards on the market outperform it. When paired with a CPU that sits at the 82nd percentile, the imbalance is stark.

The delta between the CPU and GPU percentiles is the defining characteristic of this combo. The processor is well above average, but the graphics card is below average. In a GPU-intensive title like Control, the system’s rank is dragged down entirely by the graphics solution. The measured FPS data confirms this: the system struggles to maintain 60 FPS even at the lowest settings and resolution. The ranking suggests that for this specific game, the user experience will be consistently poor, with frame rates that are often below the threshold for smooth, responsive gameplay.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The CPU’s benchmark scores are respectable, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851 and a single-core score of 2943. This indicates strong computational power that is more than adequate for modern gaming.

In Control, the CPU’s role is to handle game logic, physics, and the rendering thread’s command issuance. Given the GPU’s low output, the CPU is frequently idle, waiting for the graphics card to catch up. The 3DMark scores reflect this: the 8-thread score of 5275 and max-thread score of 6165 show that the CPU can handle significant parallel workloads. However, this capacity is underutilized when paired with a GTX 1650. The CPU’s high single-thread performance (951 in 3DMark single-thread) is also irrelevant when the frame rate is capped by the GPU’s fill rate. The data implies that the CPU is not a limiting factor in this configuration; it has ample headroom to drive a much more powerful graphics card.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern across all resolutions: performance is heavily constrained. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 55.3 FPS, which is the only playable result. Moving to Medium drops the average to 42.4 FPS, while High and Ultra yield 34.6 and 34.1 FPS, respectively. The difference between High and Ultra is minimal, suggesting that the GPU is hitting a hard performance ceiling.

At 2560x1440, the situation worsens. Low preset averages 42.7 FPS, which is still below the 60 FPS target. Medium drops to 32.0 FPS, High to 27.4 FPS, and Ultra to 20.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 10.7 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is 6.6 FPS, showing diminishing returns at higher settings. At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low preset averages 27.7 FPS, Medium 22.8 FPS, Ultra 18.5 FPS, and High 15.3 FPS. The data shows a linear degradation as resolution increases, with no setting providing a smooth experience at 4K.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the primary bottleneck in this system. It is a Turing-architecture GPU built on a 12 nm process, featuring 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its base clock is 1485 MHz, with a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s, which is a critical limitation for a game like Control that uses high-resolution textures.

The GPU’s benchmark scores are low, with a Passmark G3D score of 7880 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305. These numbers place it in the bottom half of all GPUs. Its compute performance, reflected in a Passmark GPU Compute score of 3048, is also weak. In Control, the GPU’s role is to render the game’s complex environments and particle effects. The measured FPS at all settings indicates that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are insufficient to handle the game’s demands at high resolutions. The 4 GB VRAM is also likely a limiting factor at 1440p and 4K, where texture data exceeds the available memory, causing stuttering or reduced frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable setting for a playable experience is the Low preset at 1920x1080, which averages 55.3 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches a standard 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 42.4 FPS, which is playable but noticeably less smooth. For users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, Low at 1080p is the recommended choice.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 42.7 FPS, which is borderline playable for slower-paced action but may feel choppy during intense combat sequences. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p are not recommended, as they drop below 30 FPS, which is generally considered the minimum for playability. At 3840x2160, none of the presets are recommended, as even the Low setting averages only 27.7 FPS. The data suggests that users should stick to 1080p with Low or Medium settings to get the most consistent experience. The Ultra preset at 1080p offers a 34.1 FPS average, which is a significant drop from Medium, making it a poor trade-off for the visual gains.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data shows a clear and steep decline as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 55.3 at 1080p to 42.7 at 1440p, a 22.8% decrease. Moving from 1440p to 4K, the average drops to 27.7, a further 35.1% decrease. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering workload increases quadratically with pixel count.

The drop is even more pronounced at higher settings. At Ultra, the average FPS falls from 34.1 at 1080p to 20.8 at 1440p, a 39% decrease, and then to 18.5 at 4K. The steep decline between 1080p and 1440p at Ultra settings suggests that the GPU’s memory bandwidth and shading capacity are being saturated. The fact that the CPU’s performance is consistent across resolutions, as evidenced by its high benchmark scores, indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor. The data implies that the GTX 1650 is entirely responsible for the frame rate drops, and that the Ryzen 5 8400F would be capable of delivering significantly higher FPS if paired with a more powerful graphics card.