Control

Control, released on 2019-08-26, is a demanding Action Adventure title that stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily. This analysis examines the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti, a combination that ranks 3176 out of 3720 tested combos for this game. The data shows a system that can handle the game, but requires careful settings management to maintain smooth frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions where the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700G is an 8-core, 16-thread processor built on the Zen 3 architecture (Cezanne codename) using a 7 nm process from TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP and a 16 MB L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. Its benchmark scores are solid for gaming: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12830.5 and a single-core score of 1494, plus a Geekbench multicore score of 9950 and single-core score of 1894. The 3DMark scores show scaling from 899 (single-thread) to 6629 (16-thread), indicating the processor can leverage its full thread count when needed.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is significant but secondary to the GPU. The game's physics and AI systems benefit from the 8-core setup, and the 16 threads ensure background tasks don't interfere with frame pacing. The Ryzen 7 5700G sits at the 79th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27051. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-9900K, scores 27097, a negligible -0.2% difference. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 445 is 0.4% behind at 26936, and the Intel Core i7-1370P is 0.6% behind at 26900. This places the 5700G in a competitive position—it's not the fastest, but it's within a fraction of a percent of its closest peers, meaning CPU-bound scenarios in Control will not be the limiting factor at most settings.

The PassMark multithread score of 24419 and the physics score of 999 suggest strong general-purpose performance. For Control, which uses physics-heavy destruction and environmental interactions, this translates to stable frame times even when multiple objects are being manipulated simultaneously. The single-thread score of 3283 ensures that the game's main thread, which often handles game logic, won't choke. At 1080p Low, where the CPU has more headroom relative to the GPU, the system achieves 91 avg FPS, indicating the processor can feed the GPU adequately. However, the gap between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p (91 vs 50 FPS) is driven by GPU load, not CPU limitations—the CPU can handle the upper-tier settings without becoming the bottleneck.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing-architecture GPU with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. It has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with base and boost clocks of 1500 MHz and 1770 MHz respectively. The GPU's memory runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. It delivers 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, with a texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s. The GPU has a TDP of 120 W and requires a 300 W suggested PSU.

In benchmark terms, the GTX 1660 Ti scores 12871 in PassMark G3D, 51029 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 5827 in Geekbench Vulkan. It ranks at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7723. Its nearest rivals are notably weaker: the AMD Radeon 540 is 0.7% behind at 7673, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is 1.9% behind at 7580, and the Intel Arc A310 is 2.3% behind at 7550. This suggests the GTX 1660 Ti is at the lower end of modern GPU performance, which is critical for Control's demanding visuals.

The GPU's 6 GB VRAM is a key constraint in Control. At 4K Ultra, the game requires more memory than available, causing the average FPS to drop to just 25. The 12 Gbps effective memory speed helps, but the bandwidth limitation becomes apparent at higher resolutions. The GPU's DirectX 12 (12_1) support aligns with Control's requirements, and the 1536 shading units handle the game's particle effects and lighting, but the compute load at 4K overwhelms the card. The passmark DirectX 11 score of 103 and DirectX 12 score of 51 indicate that DX12 performance is weaker, which is relevant since Control uses DX12—this explains why the GPU struggles more than its raw G3D score might suggest.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 60 FPS at 1080p?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings. The data shows 91 avg FPS at 1080p Low, which exceeds 60 FPS. At Medium, it drops to 64 avg FPS, which is also above 60 but with a minimum of 55 FPS, indicating occasional dips. High and Ultra settings fall below 60 FPS at 57 and 50 avg FPS respectively.

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

A: 1080p is the only resolution where playable frame rates are consistently achievable. At 1440p, the best case is 69 avg FPS at Low, but Medium drops to 49 avg FPS. At 4K, even Low settings only yield 46 avg FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 7 5700G scores 27051 on average, which is nearly identical to the Intel Core i9-9900K's 27097, a -0.2% difference. It is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 7 445 and 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i7-1370P. This means CPU performance is not a differentiator for this combo.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti ranks at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7723. This places it below the median, which is consistent with its performance limitations in Control at higher resolutions.

Q: What frame rate can be expected at 1440p Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows 49 avg FPS at 1440p Medium, with a minimum of 41 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS. This is playable but not smooth, as the minimum dips below 45 FPS.

Q: Is the 6 GB VRAM sufficient for Control at 4K?

A: No. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS falls to 25, and even at 4K Low it only reaches 46 FPS. The VRAM capacity and bandwidth are insufficient for 4K rendering in this title, as evidenced by the steep performance drop from 1080p to 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ranks 3176 out of 3720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the bottom 15% of all tested systems. This low ranking is primarily due to the GPU's position at the 41st percentile, which drags down the overall performance. The CPU's strong 79th percentile ranking cannot compensate for the GPU's limitations in a game like Control that is heavily GPU-bound.

The combo's rank means that out of 3720 configurations tested, only 544 perform worse. This is not a flattering position, but it reflects the hardware's capabilities. The CPU is capable—it matches or exceeds its nearest rivals—but the GPU is the weak link. For context, the GTX 1660 Ti's nearest rivals are all significantly slower, which explains why this combo struggles to break into higher ranks. The deltaPct values show the GPU is only 0.7% faster than the AMD Radeon 540, indicating that any upgrade to the GPU would likely move the combo up substantially in the rankings.

The ranking also implies that users of this combo will need to make significant compromises in settings to achieve acceptable performance. The measured FPS data confirms this: at 1080p Ultra, the combo only manages 50 avg FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target for most gamers. The combo's rank is consistent with its performance profile—it's a mid-range CPU paired with an entry-level GPU, and Control's demanding nature exposes the GPU's weaknesses.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU as the primary bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 91 avg FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 69 avg FPS, a 24.2% reduction. At 4K Low, it falls to 46 avg FPS, a 49.5% reduction from 1080p. These drops are steeper than what would be expected if the CPU were the limiting factor, confirming that the GPU is saturated at higher resolutions.

At Medium settings, the scaling is similar: 64 avg FPS at 1080p, 49 at 1440p (a 23.4% drop), and 33 at 4K (a 48.4% drop from 1080p). The minimum FPS also scales down, from 55 at 1080p to 41 at 1440p and 28 at 4K. This pattern indicates that the GPU's compute and memory bandwidth are insufficient for the increasing pixel count. The 6 GB VRAM is also a factor, as 4K textures and effects exceed its capacity, causing the GPU to swap data and further reducing performance.

The scaling from 1440p to 4K is particularly telling. At High settings, 1440p yields 43 avg FPS, while 4K yields 29 avg FPS—a 32.6% drop. This is a larger drop than the 1080p to 1440p transition (24.2%), suggesting that the GPU's memory bandwidth is a hard limit at 4K. The fact that the CPU can maintain high scores in synthetic benchmarks while the FPS drops so steeply confirms that the GPU is the limiting component in this combo.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across resolutions and settings. At 1080p, the combo achieves 91 avg FPS at Low, 64 at Medium (with a minimum of 55 and maximum of 74), 57 at High, and 50 at Ultra. This shows a clear degradation as settings increase, with the gap between Low and Ultra being 41 FPS (45%).

At 1440p, the numbers are lower: 69 avg FPS at Low, 49 at Medium (minimum 41, maximum 56), 43 at High, and 38 at Ultra. The Medium settings at 1440p provide a playable experience, but the minimum of 41 FPS means there will be noticeable stutters during intense scenes. The High and Ultra settings at 1440p are below 45 FPS, which is marginal for a fast-paced action game.

At 4K, the performance is largely unplayable: 46 avg FPS at Low, 33 at Medium (minimum 28, maximum 38), 29 at High, and 25 at Ultra. Even at Low settings, the 46 avg FPS is below the 60 FPS target, and the minimum FPS of 28 at Medium indicates severe frame drops. The 4K Ultra figure of 25 avg FPS is the worst case, making the game essentially unplayable at that setting.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the combo can handle 1080p at Medium or High with acceptable performance, but struggles at 1440p and above. The minimum FPS values at Medium settings across all resolutions (55 at 1080p, 41 at 1440p, 28 at 4K) highlight the GPU's inability to maintain consistent frame times under load.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the resolution. At 1080p, Medium settings offer the best balance: 64 avg FPS with a minimum of 55 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for most of the time. High settings at 1080p (57 avg FPS) are also acceptable, but the minimum FPS is not recorded, and the average is below 60. Low settings at 1080p (91 avg FPS) are the smoothest, but at the cost of visual fidelity.

For users prioritizing frame rate, 1080p Low is the clear choice, delivering 91 avg FPS with no recorded minimum dips. For a balance of visuals and performance, 1080p Medium is recommended—the 64 avg FPS and 55 FPS minimum ensure a mostly smooth experience. 1080p High is a compromise, with 57 avg FPS that may be acceptable for less demanding players.

At 1440p, the best option is Low settings (69 avg FPS), which provides a playable frame rate. Medium settings at 1440p (49 avg FPS) are borderline, and the minimum of 41 FPS makes it risky for competitive play. High and Ultra at 1440p are not recommended, as they drop below 45 FPS. At 4K, no settings are recommended, as even Low only achieves 46 avg FPS, and the visual quality at Low is not worth the performance hit.

The overall best experience is 1080p Medium, which offers a good balance of visual quality and performance, with the minimum FPS staying above 55. For players who prioritize smoothness above all else, 1080p Low is the safest choice. The GPU's limitations mean that any attempt to run at higher resolutions will result in sub-60 FPS performance, so sticking to 1080p is the only way to get a consistent experience from this combo.