Control

# Control with AMD Ryzen 5 9600X + AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT delivers a robust Control experience, placing the combination at rank 548 out of 1636 tested combos in this game. The CPU’s Zen 5 architecture with 6 cores and 12 threads, boosting to 5.40 GHz, provides strong single-thread performance that complements the GPU’s RDNA 2.0 architecture. The GPU sits at the 87th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU ranks at the 85th percentile, indicating a balanced pairing where neither component dramatically bottlenecks the other in typical gameplay scenarios.

FAQ

Q: What is the combo’s overall ranking in Control among tested combinations?

A: This CPU-GPU pairing ranks 548th out of 1636 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the upper third of all recorded configurations.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 9600X compare to its nearest CPU rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 5 9600X scores 28,246 on average, which is 0.3% higher than both the Intel Core i5-13490F (28,173) and AMD Ryzen 5 230 (28,164). It trails the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS by 0.4% and the Intel Core i5-14500T by 0.5%.

Q: What is the RX 6800 XT’s standing relative to its nearest GPU competitors?

A: The RX 6800 XT averages 49,982, which is 0.5% ahead of the Intel Arc A550M (49,737) and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 50HX (49,071). It sits 1.7% behind the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (50,826) and 2.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER (48,704).

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1080p with High settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with High settings, the combo delivers an average of 115.9 FPS, which remains well above typical display refresh rates and indicates smooth gameplay.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this combination?

A: At 3840x2160, the average frame rate ranges from 50.2 FPS on Ultra to 89.9 FPS on Low. High settings produce 57.5 FPS, making 4K playable but with some compromises on visual fidelity for consistent smoothness.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the CPU and GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X has a launch MSRP of $279, and the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT has a launch MSRP of 649 USD.

How This Combo Ranks

The rank of 548 out of 1636 tested combos places this pairing in the 66th percentile of all configurations evaluated in Control. This is a strong showing, particularly considering the game’s 2019 release and the hardware’s capabilities relative to more modern counterparts. The Ryzen 5 9600X’s average benchmark score of 28,246 sits close to its nearest rivals—within 0.5% of four other CPUs—indicating that the processor is not an outlier in performance but rather a consistent mid-to-high tier contender. Similarly, the RX 6800 XT’s average score of 49,982 places it within 2.6% of its nearest competitors, showing tight competition at this performance level.

The combination’s ranking suggests that in Control, the GPU is likely the primary driver of frame rates at higher resolutions, while the CPU’s strong single-thread performance (evidenced by a 3,603 score in Cinebench R23 single-core) ensures that even at lower resolutions, the system avoids CPU-bound frame drops. At 1080p, where CPU load is proportionally higher, the combo still achieves 179.8 FPS on Low settings, demonstrating that the 6-core/12-thread processor with a 5.40 GHz boost clock handles the game’s physics and AI calculations without becoming a limiting factor. The rank reflects a configuration that delivers consistently high performance across all tested settings, with no anomalous dips that would push it lower in the standings.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is the dominant component in this pairing for Control’s visual output. With 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, the GPU provides 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is ample for the game’s texture streaming and asset loading at high resolutions. The memory clock runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, while the GPU’s base clock is 1825 MHz and boost clock reaches 2250 MHz, with a game clock of 2015 MHz. These clocks ensure that the card sustains high throughput during extended gameplay sessions, particularly under the sustained load of Control’s physics-heavy environments.

The 72 ray tracing cores and 128 ROPs contribute to the GPU’s ability to handle the game’s graphical effects, though Control’s implementation of ray tracing is not heavily utilized in the measured FPS data. The GPU’s FP32 performance of 20.74 TFLOPS provides the raw compute power necessary for the game’s particle effects and destructible environments. The 16 GB frame buffer is particularly advantageous at 3840x2160, where memory capacity can become a limiting factor on lesser cards; here, the Ultra preset at 4K achieves 50.2 FPS, suggesting that memory bandwidth and capacity are sufficient to avoid stuttering even when textures are maxed out. The GPU’s position at the 87th percentile among all GPUs, combined with its nearest rival scores (0.5% above Intel Arc A550M and 2.6% above NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER), confirms that it is a capable mid-to-high-end solution for this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo’s performance scales predictably with settings. Low settings produce an average of 179.8 FPS, Medium delivers 128.9 FPS, High reaches 115.9 FPS, and Ultra drops to 99.2 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 13.0 FPS, while the drop from High to Ultra is 16.7 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset imposes a significant additional load relative to High. At this resolution, the frame rates are consistently above 90 FPS even on the most demanding preset, making 1080p a comfortable environment for high-refresh-rate displays.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages decrease but remain strong. Low settings yield 134.2 FPS, Medium produces 95.6 FPS, High delivers 85.8 FPS, and Ultra falls to 77.0 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 38.6 FPS drop, while Medium to High is 9.8 FPS, and High to Ultra is 8.8 FPS. The relative consistency between Medium, High, and Ultra at this resolution suggests that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor as pixel count increases, but the 77 FPS floor on Ultra remains playable.

At 3840x2160, performance takes a more pronounced hit. Low settings average 89.9 FPS, Medium drops to 66.2 FPS, High reaches 57.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 50.2 FPS. The transition from Low to Medium represents a 23.7 FPS loss, while Medium to High is 8.7 FPS, and High to Ultra is 7.3 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 50.2 FPS is just above the 50 FPS threshold, indicating that while 4K is achievable, it requires accepting either lower settings or a variable refresh rate monitor to smooth out occasional dips. The data shows that the combo’s performance envelope spans from a high of 179.8 FPS at 1080p Low to a low of 50.2 FPS at 4K Ultra, providing a wide range of options depending on the user’s display and preference for visual quality versus frame rate.

Settings Recommendations

For users targeting 60 FPS as a baseline, the measured data indicates that 4K Ultra at 50.2 FPS falls short, while 4K High at 57.5 FPS is still marginally below the target. The 4K Medium preset at 66.2 FPS comfortably exceeds 60 FPS, making it the recommended choice for 4K displays where smoothness is prioritized over maximum visual fidelity. At 2560x1440, all presets exceed 77 FPS, so the Ultra preset at 77.0 FPS is viable for users with 144 Hz monitors who want the best image quality without sacrificing responsiveness. For 1080p, even the Ultra preset at 99.2 FPS clears the 60 FPS threshold by a wide margin, and the High preset at 115.9 FPS offers a good balance for high-refresh-rate panels up to 120 Hz.

The most efficient settings-to-performance ratio appears at 1440p High, where 85.8 FPS is achieved with a moderate visual quality step down from Ultra. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 8.8 FPS, so users sensitive to graphical details may still prefer Ultra, but those prioritizing frame rate consistency will find High nearly indistinguishable in competitive scenarios. At 1080p, Medium at 128.9 FPS provides a 13.0 FPS advantage over High with minimal visual degradation, making it a strong choice for esports-style play where every frame counts. Conversely, 4K Low at 89.9 FPS is an outlier in terms of performance per visual quality, as the low preset likely disables several impactful effects that define the game’s atmosphere; the 4K Medium preset is a better compromise. Ultimately, the data suggests that 1440p Ultra or 1080p High delivers the best overall experience, balancing the GPU’s 16 GB memory and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth against the game’s demanding visuals, while 4K users should settle on Medium to maintain a smooth frame rate.