Control

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D and AMD Radeon RX 7700 combination delivers a highly playable Control experience across most settings, with the data showing a clear shift in bottleneck behavior as resolution increases. At 1080p, the system is capable of pushing frame rates well above 100 fps on lower presets, while 4K Ultra demands more from the graphics card than this pairing can consistently provide. The measured results place this combo at rank 1294 out of 2888 tested combinations, indicating a solid mid-to-upper tier standing for this specific title.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D is an 8-core, 16-thread processor built on the Zen 3 architecture with a 7 nm process node. It operates with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, drawing a 105 W TDP. The chip features a substantial 96 MB shared L3 cache, which is a key characteristic for gaming workloads that benefit from larger cache pools. Its 3DMark single-thread score of 804 and multi-thread score of 6764 indicate strong per-core performance, while the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22366 shows significant throughput capability for a desktop processor in this class.

The processor's role in Control becomes apparent when examining the frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K. At 1920x1080 Low settings, the system achieves 148 fps, which suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU efficiently at high frame rates. The 3DMark 2-thread score of 1575 and 4-thread score of 3097 demonstrate that the CPU has adequate single and lightly-threaded performance for games that rely on fewer cores. The Ryzen 7 5700X3D sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24709. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D, scores 24728, representing a negligible 0.1% difference. The Intel Core i5-12450HX trails by 0.5%, while the Intel Core i5-11600 is 0.6% behind. These tight margins indicate that the 5700X3D is competitively positioned in raw compute benchmarks, though its gaming performance is what matters here.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is not the primary constraint, as the system delivers 148 fps on Low settings. However, the gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 67 fps, which is substantial. This delta implies that while the CPU can handle the game's logic and draw calls, the GPU becomes the limiting factor when visual fidelity increases. The processor's 16 threads provide ample headroom for background tasks and game engine overhead, and its 3DMark max-thread score of 6755 closely matches the 16-thread score, indicating good scaling across all cores. The PassMark multi-thread score of 26318 further confirms that this chip handles heavily threaded workloads without issue.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with a 5 nm process node, featuring 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with a bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s. The GPU runs at a base clock of 1900 MHz, a game clock of 2041 MHz, and a boost clock of 2459 MHz, with memory clocked at 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective). It has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, along with 40 ray tracing cores. The card's FP32 performance is rated at 25.18 TFLOPS, and its texture rate is 393.4 GTexel/s, with a pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s.

The GPU's 16 GB VRAM capacity is a significant asset for Control, a game known for its detailed environments and effects. At 4K Ultra settings, the system averages 41 fps, which indicates that the GPU is heavily loaded at this resolution and preset combination. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2865 and PassMark G3D score of 20974 place the RX 7700 at the 58th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15852. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 370X, is nearly identical at 15862 (0.1% difference), while the AMD Radeon RX 9060 is 1% faster. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti scores 16129, which is 1.7% higher, showing that the RX 7700 is competitive with previous-generation mid-range options.

The measured FPS data reveals the GPU's scaling behavior across resolutions. At 1920x1080 Medium, the system achieves 105 fps with a minimum of 89 and maximum of 121 fps, demonstrating smooth frame delivery. Moving to 2560x1440 Medium drops the average to 80 fps, and at 3840x2160 Medium it falls to 54 fps. This progression shows that the RX 7700 has enough memory bandwidth and compute power for 1440p gaming, but 4K requires lower settings to maintain playable frame rates. The GPU's 16 GB VRAM is not a limiting factor in these tests, as even at 4K Ultra the memory capacity is sufficient; the constraint is raw shading and rasterization throughput.

FAQ

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 5700X3D compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 7 5700X3D has an average benchmark score of 24709, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D's 24728. It is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX and 0.5% behind the Intel Core i5-12450HX, with the Intel Core i5-11600 trailing by 0.6%.

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this system achieves in Control?

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 148 fps, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration that exceeds 140 fps, with the next highest being 112 fps at 2560x1440 Low.

Q: Which resolution and settings combination produces the lowest frame rate?

A: The lowest average frame rate is 41 fps, recorded at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings. This is the only tested configuration that drops below 45 fps, and it represents a significant performance hit compared to the 48 fps achieved at 4K High.

Q: Does the system maintain consistent frame pacing at 1440p Medium?

A: At 2560x1440 Medium, the system averages 80 fps with a minimum of 68 fps and a maximum of 92 fps. The 24 fps spread between minimum and maximum indicates some variance, but the average remains well above 60 fps for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the GPU's benchmark score compare to the RTX 3060 Ti?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 has an average benchmark score of 15852, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti scores 16129. The RX 7700 trails by 1.7%, indicating that the RTX 3060 Ti holds a slight performance advantage in general compute workloads.

Q: What is the performance difference between 1080p Low and 1080p Ultra?

A: At 1920x1080, the system achieves 148 fps on Low settings and 81 fps on Ultra settings. This represents a 67 fps difference, or a 45% drop in average frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of how this system handles Control across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 148 fps on Low settings, which is the highest frame rate recorded in the entire test suite. Medium settings reduce the average to 105 fps, with a minimum of 89 fps and a maximum of 121 fps, showing a playable range even during demanding scenes. High settings yield 93 fps, while Ultra drops to 81 fps. The progression from Low to Ultra at 1080p spans 67 fps, which is a considerable range but still keeps every preset above 80 fps for a smooth experience on standard refresh rate monitors.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates scale down predictably. Low settings produce 112 fps, which is still excellent for high-refresh 1440p displays. Medium settings drop to 80 fps, with a minimum of 68 fps and maximum of 92 fps, indicating that the system can handle 1440p gaming with some headroom. High settings average 71 fps, while Ultra falls to 61 fps. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 51 fps, which is smaller than at 1080p but still significant. The 61 fps average on Ultra is right at the boundary of what many consider smooth, and the data suggests that High settings provide a more comfortable margin.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's workload increases substantially. Low settings maintain a respectable 76 fps, which is surprising for 4K and indicates the RX 7700 has enough raw horsepower for lower graphical demands. Medium settings drop to 54 fps, with a minimum of 46 fps and maximum of 62 fps, which is borderline playable but may cause noticeable stutter in fast-paced combat. High settings average 48 fps, while Ultra drops to 41 fps. The 4K results show a clear pattern: the system can handle Low settings at 4K comfortably, but higher presets push the GPU to its limits. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 35 fps, which is the smallest absolute gap across all resolutions, suggesting that at 4K the GPU is the dominant constraint regardless of settings.

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

The resolution scaling analysis reveals important insights about where the bottleneck lies in this system. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at Low settings, the frame rate drops from 148 fps to 112 fps, a reduction of 36 fps or 24.3%. This is a modest decline that suggests the CPU still has headroom at 1440p, as the GPU is taking on more pixel work but the processor can keep up with the increased draw calls. At Medium settings, the drop from 105 fps to 80 fps represents a 23.8% reduction, which is nearly identical in percentage terms, indicating consistent scaling behavior.

The transition from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 is where the GPU constraint becomes more pronounced. At Low settings, the frame rate falls from 112 fps to 76 fps, a 32.1% drop, which is larger than the 1080p to 1440p transition. This steeper decline at higher resolutions is a classic sign that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor, as pixel throughput requirements increase quadratically with resolution. At Medium settings, the drop from 80 fps to 54 fps represents a 32.5% reduction, and at High settings, the drop from 71 fps to 48 fps is 32.4%. These consistent percentage declines across all presets when moving to 4K confirm that the RX 7700's rasterization throughput is the primary constraint at this resolution.

The data also shows that the CPU is not a limiting factor at any resolution, since the frame rates scale predictably with GPU load. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see diminishing returns as resolution increases, with frame rates plateauing at a certain level. Instead, the frame rates continue to decline steadily from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the GPU is always the component that determines performance. The 3DMark single-thread score of 804 and the 148 fps result at 1080p Low suggest that the CPU is capable of driving frame rates well above what the GPU can sustain at higher resolutions, making this pairing well-balanced for 1440p gaming but GPU-limited at 4K.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, all four presets deliver playable frame rates, with even Ultra averaging 81 fps. However, the difference between High and Ultra is only 12 fps, while the visual fidelity gains from Ultra may not justify the performance cost. High settings at 93 fps provide a smooth experience with good visual quality, and Medium at 105 fps offers even more headroom for high-refresh monitors. For most players at 1080p, High settings strike the best balance, as it maintains frame rates above 90 fps while still delivering detailed visuals.

At 2560x1440, High settings at 71 fps is the recommended choice for a smooth experience, as it stays above 60 fps with room to spare. Ultra at 61 fps is playable but leaves little margin for dips during intense scenes, and the minimum frame rate data is not available for this preset, which introduces some uncertainty. Medium at 80 fps with a minimum of 68 fps is a safer option for players who prioritize consistent frame delivery over maximum visual fidelity. The 1440p results suggest that High is the sweet spot for this resolution, offering a good compromise between image quality and performance.

At 3840x2160, the options are more constrained. Low settings at 76 fps provide the only truly smooth 4K experience, while Medium at 54 fps is borderline and High at 48 fps may cause noticeable judder. Ultra at 41 fps is not recommended for serious gameplay, as it falls below the 60 fps threshold that most players consider essential for action games. For 4K gaming, Low or Medium settings are the practical choices, with Medium offering better visuals at the cost of some smoothness. The data indicates that this system is best suited for 1440p High or 1080p Ultra, with 4K reserved for players who prioritize resolution over frame rate and are willing to accept lower settings.