Control

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti combination sits at rank 1436 out of 1636 tested combos in Control. That places this pairing in the bottom 12% of all tested configurations, a reflection of the GPU's age and position in the market rather than a condemnation of the processor. The CPU itself is a strong performer, holding the 84th percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27220. That score puts it just 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i9-9900K and 0.8% ahead of both the Intel Core i7-12700H and the Intel Core i7-1370P. The Ryzen 7 5700 clearly is not the bottleneck in this pairing; it brings eight cores and sixteen threads based on the Zen 3 architecture to the table.

The GPU, however, tells a different story. The GTX 1660 Ti sits at the 55th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13925. It trades blows with the AMD Radeon RX 570X, sitting 0.4% ahead of that card, and trails the NVIDIA Tesla K10 by 0.7%. The RTX A2000 Mobile and GTX 680 are each within 0.8% of the 1660 Ti's score. This is a GPU that was mid-pack at launch and has aged into the lower-middle tier. The resulting combo ranking reflects that: the processor has substantial headroom, but the graphics card caps what Control can deliver. The data shows a system where the CPU is performing well above its pairing's overall standing, while the GPU anchors the experience to lower frame rates.

GPU Role

The GTX 1660 Ti brings 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That memory configuration is the single most important factor for Control at higher resolutions, as the game's texture streaming and physics-heavy scenes demand both capacity and throughput. The card's base clock runs at 1500 MHz with a boost clock of 1770 MHz, and the memory operates at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed. In terms of raw compute, the GPU offers 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 10.87 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1), backed by 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units.

The architecture is Turing on a 12 nm process, with 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. The pixel rate is 84.96 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 169.9 GTexel/s. These specifications explain the measured behavior in Control: at 1080p, the card can push past 60 FPS on most settings, but as resolution climbs, the 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit bus become limiting factors. The card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which covers Control's API requirements. The 120 W TDP and dual-slot design with a single 8-pin connector suggest a card that was designed for mainstream systems, and its performance profile in this game matches that positioning.

FAQ

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 5700 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 7 5700 posts an average benchmark score of 27220, which is 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i9-9900K (27043), 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12700H (27006) and Intel Core i7-1370P (26991), and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 (26909).

Q: What is the GTX 1660 Ti's standing relative to comparable GPUs?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti has an average benchmark score of 13925, placing it 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 570X (13871), 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (13821) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (13812), but 0.7% behind the NVIDIA Tesla K10 (14029).

Q: What frame rate can this combo achieve at 1080p with High settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with High settings, the combo delivers an average of 56.6 FPS. That is playable but not smooth for fast-paced action, and it sits well below the 89.7 FPS achieved at Low settings.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this pairing?

A: The data points to the GPU as the primary limiter. The CPU ranks in the 84th percentile against all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 55th percentile against all GPUs. The frame rate drops sharply as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate falls to 24.5 FPS. That is below the threshold for smooth gameplay and indicates that this resolution and setting combination is not viable for this hardware.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 with Medium settings offers a balance at 67.4 FPS, while Low settings push to 89.7 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low settings exceed 60 FPS, hitting 69.6 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data covers four resolutions and four settings tiers, providing a complete picture of how this combo scales. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are highest: Low settings deliver an average of 89.7 FPS, Medium drops to 67.4 FPS, High comes in at 56.6 FPS, and Ultra falls to 53.9 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 35.8 FPS, showing that settings have a significant impact at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages shift downward. Low settings produce 69.6 FPS, which is the only setting at this resolution to clear 60 FPS. Medium yields 49.7 FPS, High drops to 45.6 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 35.7 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings ranges from 13.0 FPS (Low) to 18.2 FPS (Ultra), indicating that the GPU is working harder as pixel count rises.

At 3840x2160, the numbers become marginal. Low settings average 49.4 FPS, which is still playable but not ideal. Medium drops to 30.8 FPS, High falls to 30.7 FPS, and Ultra averages just 24.5 FPS. The difference between Medium and High at 4K is negligible at 0.1 FPS, suggesting that the game is hitting a hard GPU limit rather than a settings-driven bottleneck. The jump from 1440p to 4K costs between 20.2 FPS (Low) and 11.2 FPS (Ultra) across settings.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU's limitations clearly. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 89.7 FPS at 1080p to 69.6 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 22.4%, and then to 49.4 FPS at 4K, a further 29.0% drop from 1440p. The total loss from 1080p to 4K is 40.3 FPS, or 44.9% of the original frame rate. This is a steep decline that points to the 192-bit memory bus and 6 GB VRAM struggling to feed the increased pixel workload.

At High settings, the scaling is similar but with lower starting points: 56.6 FPS at 1080p, 45.6 FPS at 1440p, and 30.7 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 19.4% from 1080p to 1440p and 32.7% from 1440p to 4K. The total loss of 25.9 FPS represents a 45.8% reduction. This consistency across settings suggests that the resolution scaling is driven by the GPU's raw throughput and memory bandwidth rather than by specific game settings.

The Ultra settings curve is the most telling. Starting at 53.9 FPS at 1080p, it drops to 35.7 FPS at 1440p (a 33.8% loss) and then to 24.5 FPS at 4K (a 31.4% loss from 1440p). The total reduction from 1080p to 4K is 29.4 FPS, or 54.5% of the original. This heavier percentage loss at higher settings indicates that the GPU is not just bandwidth-limited but also compute-limited when the game's visual effects are fully enabled. The 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is simply insufficient for 4K Ultra in a title like Control, which relies on complex physics and particle effects.

The data also shows an interesting anomaly at 4K: Medium and High settings produce nearly identical average frame rates at 30.8 and 30.7 FPS respectively. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU hits a hard performance ceiling where additional settings changes have no measurable impact. The limiting component is the GPU's memory subsystem and shader throughput, not the settings configuration. The CPU, with its 16 MB of L3 cache and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, has ample headroom to feed the GPU at these resolutions.