Control

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700G and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT combination delivers a solid, if not spectacular, experience in Control, with the data showing a clear trend: this pairing is heavily GPU-bound at higher resolutions, while the CPU’s capabilities become more apparent at 1080p. The measured frame rates place this combo at rank 1015 out of 1636 tested combinations, indicating a mid-pack performance level for this specific title.

Resolution Scaling

The benchmark data reveals a predictable, yet steep, performance curve as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the system achieves 79 FPS, which drops to 58.9 FPS at 2560x1440, and further down to 42.7 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 46% reduction in average frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K, a scaling pattern that strongly suggests the GPU is the limiting factor.

The 1440p to 4K transition is particularly punishing, with a 27.5% performance drop, while the 1080p to 1440p step costs about 25.4% of the frame rate. This non-linear decline is characteristic of a graphics card that is running out of pixel throughput at higher resolutions, especially given the RX 7600 XT’s 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 16 GB of VRAM is not the bottleneck here; rather, the raw fill rate and shader processing power are being saturated.

Interestingly, the CPU’s influence is visible at the lowest resolution. The Ryzen 7 5700G, with its 8 cores and 16 threads based on Zen 3 architecture, provides enough headroom to push frame rates well above 100 FPS at 1080p Low, hitting 122.9 FPS. However, at 4K Ultra, the frame rate collapses to 36.8 FPS, confirming that the RX 7600 XT’s compute capabilities (22.57 TFLOPS FP32) are the primary constraint in this title’s most demanding settings.

FAQ

*Q: How does this CPU-GPU combo perform at 1080p in Control?*

A: At 1080p, the system is well-suited for high-refresh-rate play. The data shows 79 FPS on High, 88.3 FPS on Medium, and 122.9 FPS on Low. Even at Ultra, it maintains 70.9 FPS, which is smooth for most displays.

Q: What is the best resolution for a balanced experience?

A: 2560x1440 appears to be the sweet spot. At High settings, the system delivers 58.9 FPS, which is playable, though not ideal for fast-paced action. Dropping to Low yields 93.9 FPS, offering a strong balance between visual fidelity and performance.

*Q: Is the RX 7600 XT’s 16 GB VRAM sufficient for Control?*

A: Yes, the 16 GB GDDR6 memory is more than adequate. The performance drops observed at 4K (from 62.1 FPS on Low to 36.8 FPS on Ultra) are attributable to the GPU’s processing power (22.57 TFLOPS) rather than memory capacity, as the game’s engine doesn’t appear to be VRAM-limited in these tests.

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

A: The 5700G sits at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 25626 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U (25706, deltaPct -0.3), and it is only 0.5% faster than the Intel Core 5 210H (25490). This indicates the CPU is not a performance outlier.

Q: What is the impact of changing settings from Low to Ultra at 1440p?

A: The frame rate drops from 93.9 FPS on Low to 53.1 FPS on Ultra, a 43.5% reduction. This suggests that Ultra settings introduce significant graphical effects that heavily tax the GPU, making Medium (68.7 FPS) a more reasonable choice for consistent smoothness.

Q: Does the GPU’s performance align with its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7600 XT ranks at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs. Its average score of 20146 is only 0.3% higher than the RX 460 (20088) and 1.9% higher than the RTX 2060 SUPER (19774), but it is 1.9% slower than the RTX 3070 Mobile (20534). This indicates it is a mid-range performer, which matches the Control results.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is the critical component driving the benchmark results. Its performance in Control is defined by its RDNA 3.0 architecture, which provides 2048 shading units and 32 ray accelerators. The card’s boost clock of 2755 MHz and game clock of 2470 MHz are key to its throughput, but the data shows that the architecture’s raw compute power is the deciding factor at higher resolutions.

The GPU’s memory configuration deserves attention. With 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, it offers 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. While the capacity is generous, the bandwidth is a limiting factor when pushing 4K resolutions. The pixel rate of 176.3 GPixel/s and texture rate of 352.6 GTexel/s are modest figures that explain the steep performance cliff from 1440p to 4K.

Synthetic benchmarks corroborate this analysis. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 17132 places it in a competitive but not elite tier, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2348 reflects its mid-range positioning. The data from Control mirrors this: the card can handle High settings at 1440p (58.9 FPS), but Ultra at 4K (36.8 FPS) pushes it beyond its comfortable operating range.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, the High preset (79 FPS) is the recommended choice, as it provides a substantial visual upgrade over Medium (88.3 FPS) with only a 10.5% performance cost. Ultra (70.9 FPS) is acceptable for users prioritizing image quality over frame rate stability.

For 1440p, the Medium preset (68.7 FPS) offers the best experience. It provides a smooth, playable frame rate while retaining enough graphical fidelity to appreciate the game’s art style. High (58.9 FPS) is playable but may feel less responsive, while Low (93.9 FPS) sacrifices too much visual quality for the performance gain.

At 4K, the data suggests that High (42.7 FPS) and Medium (42 FPS) are nearly identical in performance, making High the clear choice if the user can tolerate sub-60 FPS. Low (62.1 FPS) is the only preset that achieves a comfortable frame rate at this resolution, but it will look noticeably less detailed. Ultra (36.8 FPS) is not recommended for serious gameplay due to its low frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured average frames per second reveals a consistent pattern across all resolutions and settings. At 3840x2160, the system achieves 42.7 FPS on High, 62.1 FPS on Low, 42 FPS on Medium, and 36.8 FPS on Ultra. The proximity of High and Medium scores (42.7 vs 42) suggests that the Ultra preset’s additional effects are the primary cause of the significant drop to 36.8 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the results are more differentiated. High yields 58.9 FPS, Low produces 93.9 FPS, Medium delivers 68.7 FPS, and Ultra drops to 53.1 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 9.8 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra costs 5.8 FPS, indicating that diminishing returns begin at the High preset.

Finally, at 1920x1080, the system performs admirably. High achieves 79 FPS, Low reaches 122.9 FPS, Medium hits 88.3 FPS, and Ultra maintains 70.9 FPS. The difference between the lowest and highest settings is 52 FPS, showcasing the CPU’s ability to feed the GPU effectively at this resolution. Notably, the 1080p Low result (122.9 FPS) is the only measurement exceeding 120 FPS, confirming that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming with a high-refresh-rate monitor.