Control

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X paired with the AMD Radeon RX 570 is a distinctly dated combination for Control, landing near the very bottom of the database’s tested configurations. The combo secures a rank of 1591 out of 1636 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 3% of all systems measured. This is not a matchup that yields a competitive experience at modern standards; rather, the data indicates a severe bottleneck that prevents the hardware from delivering playable frame rates in most scenarios. The position is a direct reflection of the GPU’s age relative to the game’s demands, despite the CPU’s relatively strong standing in the broader benchmark hierarchy.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame of 1591 out of 1636 places this system in the 2.7th percentile of all tested configurations for Control, a staggeringly low position that signals fundamental performance inadequacy. The Ryzen 7 5800X itself is a capable processor, with an average benchmark score of 27606 and a percentile of 84 against all CPUs. However, the pairing with the RX 570 drags the entire system down. The GPU’s average benchmark score of 30158 places it in the 74th percentile against all GPUs, yet its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (deltaPct 0.2), the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT (deltaPct 0.2), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile (deltaPct 0.8). These are all modern, high-performance parts, which highlights how anomalous the RX 570’s placement is; its score is statistically similar to those cards, but in a real-world game like Control, the architectural differences and memory limitations become stark. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (deltaPct 0.3) and Intel Core i5-12600KF (deltaPct -0.8), are all within a few points of it, indicating that the processor is not the weak link here. The data clearly attributes the catastrophic ranking to the graphics subsystem.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 570 is the primary constraint in this configuration, and its specifications reveal why. It features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. This is a paltry amount of VRAM for a game like Control, which is known for its heavy texture and effect loads. The GPU’s base clock is 1168 MHz with a boost clock of 1244 MHz, and its memory runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). While the GPU has 2048 shading units and 128 texture mapping units, its 32 ROPs are a limiting factor for pixel throughput, with a pixel rate of 39.81 GPixel/s. The FP32 performance is 5.095 TFLOPS, which sounds adequate on paper, but the 4 GB frame buffer is the critical flaw. At higher resolutions and settings, the card quickly runs out of memory, forcing the system to swap data, which manifests as catastrophic frame rate drops. The GPU’s TDP is 150 W, and its production status is end-of-life, confirming that this is legacy hardware being pushed far beyond its intended scope. The data shows that the GPU’s performance is not just low; it is wholly insufficient for the game’s demands, leading to average frame rates that fall below playable thresholds in nearly every configuration.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, there is no “good” preset, but the Low settings at 1920x1080 provide the only remotely viable experience. At 1080p Low, the system achieves an average of 54.6 FPS, which is the single highest frame rate recorded across all 12 test configurations. This is marginally above the 60 FPS target, though it is the only setting that crosses that line. Moving up to Medium at 1080p drops the average to 38.8 FPS, a 29% reduction, while High yields 37.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 29.5 FPS. The data suggests that for any semblance of smooth gameplay, the user must sacrifice nearly all visual fidelity. At 1440p, the Low preset delivers 41.2 FPS, which is borderline playable for a slower-paced title but still misses the mark for a responsive action game. The 4K resolution is a lost cause, with even Low settings only producing 26.3 FPS. Therefore, the recommendation is unequivocal: use the Low preset at 1920x1080. Any attempt to increase visual quality results in frame rates that fall below 40 FPS, which is unsuitable for the game’s fast-paced combat and physics-based encounters.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent and predictable pattern of performance degradation as resolution and settings increase. At 1920x1080, the Low preset produces an average of 54.6 FPS, which is the only playable result. Medium settings at the same resolution yield 38.8 FPS, and High is nearly identical at 37.9 FPS, suggesting a CPU or memory bottleneck that prevents scaling between these two presets. Ultra drops further to 29.5 FPS, showing that the GPU is overwhelmed by the highest fidelity assets. Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates plummet. Low settings achieve 41.2 FPS, which is a 24% drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium at 1440p produces 30.1 FPS, High yields 27.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 22.1 FPS. These numbers are all below the playable threshold, indicating that 1440p is not a realistic target for this hardware. At 3840x2160, the results are abysmal. Low settings produce 26.3 FPS, High yields 21.2 FPS, Medium drops to 18.9 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 18.4 FPS. The difference between Medium and Ultra at 4K is just 0.5 FPS, which shows that the GPU is severely limited by its raw compute and memory bandwidth, not just the settings. The lack of min and max FPS data means we cannot assess frame time consistency, but the averages alone are enough to declare this configuration unsuitable for 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a steep and consistent decline that points squarely at the GPU as the limiting component. For the Low preset, performance drops from 54.6 FPS at 1080p to 41.2 FPS at 1440p, a 25% reduction, and then to 26.3 FPS at 4K, a 52% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This scaling is non-linear, with the largest proportional loss occurring between 1440p and 4K, which is typical of a GPU that is exhausting its memory bandwidth and fill rate. For the High preset, the trend is similar: 37.9 FPS at 1080p, 27.9 FPS at 1440p, and 21.2 FPS at 4K. The CPU is unlikely to be the cause of this scaling, as the Ryzen 7 5800X has ample headroom with its 8 cores and 16 threads, and its benchmark results show it is a top-tier processor. The data indicates that the RX 570’s 4 GB VRAM and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are simply insufficient for the higher pixel counts, forcing the card to work beyond its design limits. The result is that every step up in resolution yields a disproportionately large drop in frame rate, confirming that the graphics card is the definitive bottleneck in this system.