Control

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) using TSMC's 4 nm process. It operates at a base clock of 3.90 GHz and boosts up to 5.40 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The chip carries 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 32 MB L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s and connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 9600X posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25525 and a single-core score of 3603. Its Geekbench scores are 15182 multi-core and 3363 single-core. PassMark multithread score reaches 30027, with single-thread at 4570. These figures place the CPU at the 85th percentile among all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 28246.

For Control, a game released in August 2019, the CPU's high single-thread performance matters more than raw multi-thread throughput. The game's physics and AI routines often rely on fewer threads, and the 9600X's single-core strength (evident in the 3dmark single-thread score of 1253) ensures the processor is unlikely to bottleneck at lower resolutions. The 3dmark 16-thread score of 7585 and max-thread score of 7590 show that scaling beyond a few cores is modest, which aligns with a game that doesn't heavily utilize 12 threads. The data suggests the CPU is more than sufficient for Control's demands, leaving the GPU as the primary constraint in most scenarios.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ranks 1408 out of 1636 tested combos in Control. Being in the 14th percentile of all combos indicates that this configuration sits well below the median performance tier for this game. The ranking reflects the GPU's modest position rather than the CPU's capability — the 9600X is a strong processor, but the GTX 1660 Ti holds the combo back.

To contextualize the CPU's standing, the 9600X's nearest rivals in overall benchmark scores include the Intel Core i5-13490F (0.3% ahead), AMD Ryzen 5 230 (0.3% ahead), AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (0.4% behind), and Intel Core i5-14500T (0.5% behind). These are all close matches in raw compute, but the GPU pairing dictates the gaming outcome. The combo rank of 1408 suggests that most other tested configurations use more powerful graphics cards, which is expected given that the GTX 1660 Ti is an older, end-of-life product.

The data implies that users pairing this CPU with a stronger GPU would see substantially better results in Control, but as configured, the system delivers playable but not exceptional performance. The ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's 55th percentile standing among all GPUs, combined with the game's relatively demanding rendering at higher settings.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data shows a clear progression of performance degradation as resolution increases. At 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 94.4 FPS, which drops to 68.1 FPS at 1440p (a 27.9% reduction) and further to 47.6 FPS at 4K (a 49.6% reduction from 1080p). At High settings, the pattern continues: 59.7 FPS at 1080p, 45.9 FPS at 1440p, and 29.5 FPS at 4K.

This scaling behavior reveals that the GTX 1660 Ti is the limiting factor across all resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect FPS to remain relatively flat when lowering resolution, but instead we see significant gains at 1080p compared to 4K. The GPU's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth become increasingly stressed as pixel count rises. The 4K Ultra result of 26 FPS is particularly telling — it's nearly unplayable, and the gap between Low and Ultra at 4K (47.6 vs 26 FPS) shows the GPU's limited headroom for quality settings.

The fact that 1080p Low nearly hits 100 FPS (94.4) while 4K Ultra struggles to reach 30 FPS (26) indicates that the system is firmly GPU-bound. The CPU's strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 3603) ensures it can feed frames quickly at lower resolutions, but the GPU's pixel throughput (84.96 GPixel/s) and texture rate (169.9 GTexel/s) cap overall performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers an average of 94.4 FPS on Low settings, 67.3 FPS on Medium, 59.7 FPS on High, and 52.2 FPS on Ultra. The step from Low to Medium costs 27.1 FPS (a 28.7% drop), while the jump from High to Ultra costs 7.5 FPS (a 12.6% drop). This shows diminishing returns for quality settings at 1080p, with Low providing the only triple-digit experience.

At 2560x1440, performance drops across the board: Low averages 68.1 FPS, Medium 48.3 FPS, High 45.9 FPS, and Ultra 38.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 19.8 FPS (a 29.1% reduction), while High to Ultra is only 7.1 FPS (a 15.5% reduction). Notably, Medium and High are nearly identical at 1440p (48.3 vs 45.9), suggesting that the extra quality from High doesn't meaningfully impact the GPU at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the numbers become marginal: Low averages 47.6 FPS, Medium 33.9 FPS, High 29.5 FPS, and Ultra 26 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 13.7 FPS (a 28.8% reduction), and from High to Ultra is 3.5 FPS (an 11.9% reduction). Only Low settings approach playable territory at 4K, and even then, 47.6 FPS is below the ideal 60 FPS target. The data shows a consistent pattern: each resolution step roughly halves the available performance headroom, with the GPU's 6 GB VRAM buffer likely being a constraint at 4K Ultra.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is built on the Turing architecture (TU116 chip) using TSMC's 12 nm process. It features 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The GPU runs at a base clock of 1500 MHz and boosts to 1770 MHz, with memory clocked at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). It has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

The GPU's compute capabilities include 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 10.87 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio). Its pixel rate is 84.96 GPixel/s and texture rate is 169.9 GTexel/s. In synthetic benchmarks, the 1660 Ti scores 12871 in PassMark G3D and 5226 in GPU compute. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1061, while Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are 60863 and 58014, respectively. The GPU sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13925.

For Control, the 1660 Ti's 6 GB VRAM is a critical factor. The game's textures and effects at Ultra settings can exceed this capacity, particularly at 1440p and 4K, forcing the GPU to manage memory more conservatively. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (26) versus 4K Low (47.6) highlights this VRAM pressure. The GPU's nearest rivals — AMD Radeon RX 570X (0.4% ahead), NVIDIA Tesla K10 (0.7% behind), NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (0.8% ahead), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (0.8% ahead) — all fall in a similar performance band, confirming the 1660 Ti's mid-range positioning. The lack of dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores means Control's visual features are handled through traditional rasterization, which the GPU manages adequately at lower settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain 60+ FPS?

A: Based on the data, only 1080p Low achieves 60+ FPS, with an average of 94.4 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 67.3 FPS, which is still above 60 but barely. For a consistent 60 FPS experience, 1080p Low is the only guaranteed option.

Q: How does the 9600X compare to its closest CPU rivals?

A: The 9600X's average benchmark score of 28246 is 0.3% behind the Intel Core i5-13490F and AMD Ryzen 5 230, and 0.4-0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS and Intel Core i5-14500T. These are all within a negligible margin, indicating near-identical overall performance.

Q: Why does 4K Ultra perform so poorly (26 FPS) compared to 4K Low (47.6 FPS)?

A: The 6 GB VRAM on the GTX 1660 Ti is insufficient for Control's Ultra settings at 4K resolution. The 21.6 FPS difference (a 45.4% drop) suggests the GPU is both memory-constrained and compute-limited, as the higher settings demand more texture data and shading work than the Turing architecture can deliver at that pixel count.

Q: Is this combo more CPU-limited or GPU-limited?

A: The data clearly indicates GPU limitation. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 94.4 FPS, but this drops to 47.6 FPS at 4K Low — a 49.6% reduction from resolution scaling alone. If the CPU were the bottleneck, this drop would be much smaller. The 9600X's strong single-thread performance (3603 Cinebench R23) confirms it is not holding back the system.

Q: What GPU benchmark score does the GTX 1660 Ti achieve?

A: The GPU scores 12871 in PassMark G3D, 60863 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 58014 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1061. These place it at the 55th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested configurations in Control?

A: The combo ranks 1408 out of 1636 tested combos, putting it in the lower 14% of all configurations. This low ranking primarily reflects the GPU's age and mid-range performance, not the CPU's capability.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

For the best balance of visual quality and playability, 1080p Medium settings (67.3 FPS) is the recommended starting point. This preset delivers a smooth experience well above the 60 FPS threshold while maintaining moderate visual fidelity. If the user prioritizes frame rate over quality, 1080p Low (94.4 FPS) offers a substantial 40% performance boost over Medium, which is ideal for competitive play or high-refresh-rate displays.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more constrained. Low settings (68.1 FPS) are the only option that keeps the experience above 60 FPS, while Medium (48.3 FPS) and High (45.9 FPS) are nearly indistinguishable in performance, suggesting that choosing High over Medium costs only 2.4 FPS but provides better visuals. Ultra (38.8 FPS) is playable but noticeably less smooth, suitable for slower-paced exploration rather than combat-heavy sequences.

At 4K, none of the presets achieve 60 FPS. Low (47.6 FPS) is the most playable, while Medium (33.9 FPS), High (29.5 FPS), and Ultra (26 FPS) all fall below 35 FPS, which may cause noticeable stuttering in action scenes. Given the GPU's 6 GB VRAM limit, sticking to Low at 4K is the most sensible approach, as the higher presets provide diminishing visual returns for significant frame rate losses.

Overall, the data suggests that 1080p is the intended resolution for this combo, with Medium offering the best compromise between performance and aesthetics. For users willing to accept lower frame rates, 1440p Low is a viable alternative, but 4K should be reserved for static scenes or screenshots rather than active gameplay.