Control

# Control — AMD Ryzen 5 8400F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

This pairing is a study in contrast: a current-generation 6-core Zen 4 desktop processor paired with a Turing-era GPU that was already mid-range at launch. In Control, a game known for heavy real-time effects and destructible environments, the measured results show a system that is strictly GPU-bound at every resolution tested. The GTX 1660 Ti’s 6 GB frame buffer and 192-bit memory interface become the decisive factors, while the Ryzen 5 8400F’s compute headroom goes largely unused. The data below breaks down exactly where this combo lands, what the CPU and GPU each contribute, and which settings deliver a playable experience.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, confirming that the GPU is the limiting component across the board. At High settings, average frame rate falls from 57 FPS at 1920x1080 to 43 FPS at 2560x1440, a 25% reduction. Moving to 3840x2160 High, the average drops further to 29 FPS, which is 49% below the 1080p figure. The scaling is nearly linear with pixel count, which is the hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario — the CPU is not holding back the frame rate at any point.

At Low settings, the same pattern appears but with higher absolute numbers: 91 FPS at 1080p, 69 FPS at 1440p, and 46 FPS at 4K. The 4K Low result is still below 60 FPS, so even with all quality features disabled, this combo cannot hit a smooth 4K experience. Medium settings show 64 FPS at 1080p, 49 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings are the most demanding: 50 FPS at 1080p, 38 FPS at 1440p, and only 25 FPS at 4K.

The takeaway is that 1080p is the only resolution where this system approaches playable frame rates across all presets. Even at 1440p, only Low settings break past 60 FPS, and the jump from 1440p to 4K costs roughly 33% of the frame rate at every preset. The GTX 1660 Ti’s 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 6 GB GDDR6 capacity are simply not enough to feed Control’s particle-heavy combat at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3,720 tested CPU-GPU combinations in Control, this pairing ranks 3,176th. That places it in the bottom 15% of all combos, which is consistent with the GPU’s age and tier. The GTX 1660 Ti sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs in the benchmark database, with an average score of 7,723. Its nearest rivals in the GPU rankings are the AMD Radeon 540 (average score 7,673, 0.7% slower), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, 1.9% slower), the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557, 2.2% slower), and the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, 2.3% slower). These are all entry-level or older workstation parts, which puts the 1660 Ti’s performance into perspective — it is not competing with modern mid-range cards.

The CPU side is much stronger. The Ryzen 5 8400F sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25,005. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (24,964, 0.2% faster), the Intel Core i7-11850H (24,935, 0.3% faster), the Intel Core i7-13620H (24,911, 0.4% faster), and the AMD EPYC 9474F (25,103, 0.4% slower). The 8400F is effectively tied with these parts in raw compute, which means the processor is not the bottleneck in this game — the GPU is. The combo’s low rank is entirely attributable to the 1660 Ti, not the CPU.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on Zen 4 architecture, built on TSMC’s 4 nm process. It has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Memory support is dual-channel DDR5, with a theoretical bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The chip supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only) and uses the AMD Socket AM5.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 8400F shows strong multithreaded performance: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 20,851, while single-core scores 2,943. PassMark multithread is 24,389, and single-thread is 3,685. The 3DMark results show scaling from 1,874 (2 threads) to 6,165 (max threads), indicating that the processor can utilize its full thread count when needed. However, Control is not a CPU-intensive title at these settings. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (91 FPS) is the highest in the dataset, and even that does not stress the CPU’s limits — the GPU is still the first to saturate.

The 8400F’s 6 cores and 12 threads are more than enough for Control’s physics and AI workloads. The game’s destructible environments and telekinetic combat do spawn many dynamic objects, but the CPU’s 16 MB L3 cache and high boost clock handle these without issue. The processor’s 77th percentile ranking confirms it is well above average, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.4% of its average score. In this combo, the CPU is effectively idle headroom — the 1660 Ti simply cannot feed it enough frames to matter.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers 12 configurations: three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). Every row is a measured result, not an estimate.

At 1920x1080, the averages are: Low 91 FPS, Medium 64 FPS, High 57 FPS, Ultra 50 FPS. The Medium preset has recorded minimum and maximum values of 55 and 74 FPS, respectively, showing a 19 FPS range. This is the only resolution where all presets exceed 50 FPS, and Low is the only preset that breaks 90 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the averages drop to: Low 69 FPS, Medium 49 FPS, High 43 FPS, Ultra 38 FPS. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 41 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS, a 15 FPS range. Only Low settings stay above 60 FPS here; every other preset falls below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 46 FPS, Medium 33 FPS, High 29 FPS, Ultra 25 FPS. The Medium preset has min/max of 28 and 38 FPS. No preset at 4K reaches 60 FPS, and even Low is below 50 FPS. The drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 45 FPS, a 49% reduction.

The frame time consistency, where recorded, shows that Medium settings produce the tightest ranges relative to their averages. At 1080p Medium, the range is 19 FPS on a 64 FPS average (30% spread). At 1440p Medium, the range is 15 FPS on a 49 FPS average (31% spread). At 4K Medium, the range is 10 FPS on a 33 FPS average (30% spread). This consistency suggests that Medium is the most stable preset for this hardware, with no major stutter spikes.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is built on the TU116 chip, using the Turing architecture on TSMC’s 12 nm process. It has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The base clock is 1,500 MHz with a boost clock of 1,770 MHz. Memory is 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, running at 12 Gbps effective, yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The card’s pixel rate is 84.96 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 169.9 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.437 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 10.87 TFLOPS (2:1). The card uses a dual-slot cooler, one 8-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. It supports PCIe 3.0 x16 and DirectX 12 (12_1).

In the GPU benchmark database, the 1660 Ti scores an average of 7,723, placing it at the 41st percentile. Its nearest rivals are all weaker parts, as noted earlier. The card’s PassMark G3D score is 12,871, while DirectX 12 performance scores 51 and Vulkan scores 5,827 in Geekbench. These numbers reflect a GPU that was mid-range in 2019 and is now firmly entry-level.

In Control, the GPU’s limitations are evident. At 1080p, the card can handle Low settings at 91 FPS, but Ultra drops to 50 FPS — a 45% reduction. The 6 GB VRAM is likely a constraint at 4K, where even Low settings only reach 46 FPS. The 192-bit memory bus and 288 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for Control’s high-resolution textures and volumetric effects. The card’s 41st percentile ranking among all GPUs explains why this combo ranks so low: the CPU is capable, but the GPU is not.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the best experience for this combo is at 1920x1080 with Medium settings. The average of 64 FPS is above the 60 FPS threshold, and the recorded minimum of 55 FPS means the frame rate rarely dips below playable levels. The range of 55–74 FPS provides a consistent feel without major hitches. High settings at 1080p (57 FPS average) are also viable, but the lack of recorded min/max values makes it harder to guarantee smoothness. Ultra at 1080p (50 FPS average) is borderline, and the 20 FPS gap between Low and Ultra suggests diminishing returns.

At 2560x1440, Low settings (69 FPS) are the only preset that stays above 60 FPS. Medium (49 FPS) is playable but not smooth, and High (43 FPS) and Ultra (38 FPS) are better suited to slower-paced moments than combat. For players who prioritize resolution over quality, 1440p Low is the recommended choice. At 4K, no preset is truly playable — the highest average is 46 FPS at Low, which will feel stuttery in action sequences. The data clearly indicates that 1080p is the intended resolution for this hardware.

For a balanced experience, 1080p Medium is the sweet spot. It offers a 64 FPS average with a 55 FPS minimum, which is acceptable for a game like Control that mixes exploration with fast combat. If visual fidelity matters more than frame rate, 1080p High at 57 FPS is a reasonable compromise. The 4K and 1440p results are best avoided unless the player is willing to drop to Low and accept sub-60 FPS performance. The GTX 1660 Ti’s 6 GB VRAM and 288 GB/s bandwidth simply cannot sustain higher presets at higher resolutions, making 1080p the only practical choice for this pairing.