Control

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 delivers a fundamentally GPU-limited experience in Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title. The data shows that across all tested resolutions and settings, the GTX 1650’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and modest compute resources become the primary constraint, while the 8-core, 16-thread Ryzen 7 5800X sits largely underutilized. This combination ranks 3588 out of 3720 tested combos in this game, placing it in the lower percentile of system pairings. The measured FPS figures reveal a pattern: at 1080p Low the combo achieves 56 FPS, but every step up in resolution or settings drops performance steeply, with 4K Ultra falling to just 16 FPS. The GTX 1650, built on the Turing architecture with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, with memory running at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus. The Ryzen 7 5800X, on the other hand, offers a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with 32 MB of L3 cache, but these specifications cannot compensate for the GPU’s bandwidth and pixel throughput limits in a game like Control. Benchmark results indicate that the CPU’s 3DMark single-thread score of 943 and multi-thread score of 7578, along with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15476, are far beyond what this GPU can leverage at higher graphical presets. The analysis below breaks down resolution scaling, combo ranking, GPU role, measured FPS, FAQs, and CPU role using only the provided data.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling behavior of this combo reveals a steep performance cliff as pixel count increases, pointing squarely at the GPU as the limiting component. At 1080p Low, the system averages 56 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded across the entire dataset. Moving to 1440p Low drops the average to 43 FPS, a reduction of 13 FPS or approximately 23% lower than the 1080p result. Pushing to 4K Low yields 29 FPS, which is roughly 48% below the 1080p Low figure. This pattern indicates that even at the lowest settings, the GTX 1650 cannot maintain playable frame rates at higher resolutions, and the CPU’s performance headroom becomes irrelevant.

When examining the Medium preset, the scaling follows a similar trajectory. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 40, with a minimum of 34 and a maximum of 46. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 30 FPS, with minimum and maximum values of 26 and 35 respectively. At 4K Medium, the average falls to 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 24. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is 10 FPS, while the gap between 1440p and 4K is another 10 FPS, showing a consistent decline of roughly 25-33% per resolution step. This linear degradation suggests that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth—128.1 GB/s—are saturated early, and each additional pixel amplifies the bottleneck.

High settings show a similar but slightly shallower curve. At 1080p High, the average is 36 FPS. At 1440p High, it falls to 27 FPS, a 25% reduction. At 4K High, the average is 18 FPS, which is exactly half of the 1080p High score. The Ultra preset, which is the most demanding, starts at 31 FPS at 1080p, drops to 23 FPS at 1440p, and plummets to 16 FPS at 4K. The difference between 1080p Ultra and 1080p Low is 25 FPS, meaning that settings changes have a larger impact than resolution changes at the same preset level. For instance, going from 1080p Low to 1080p Ultra costs 25 FPS, while going from 1080p Ultra to 1440p Ultra costs only 8 FPS. This indicates that the GPU’s shading units and texture units are overwhelmed by the combined load of higher settings and higher resolutions, but the memory subsystem becomes the harder wall as pixel count grows.

The data also shows that the minimum FPS figures, where available, reinforce the instability at higher loads. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 34 FPS, but at 4K Medium, the minimum drops to 17 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 26 FPS. These minimums suggest that frame pacing suffers as the GPU struggles to keep up, with the 4K Medium minimum being nearly half of the 1080p Medium average. Overall, the resolution scaling analysis confirms that this combo is heavily GPU-bound, with the CPU’s capabilities only visible at 1080p Low where 56 FPS approaches a reasonable playable level.

How This Combo Ranks

In the context of all tested CPU-GPU combinations for Control, this pairing sits at rank 3588 out of 3720 combos, placing it in the bottom 4% of systems. This rank reflects the GTX 1650’s position in the GPU hierarchy, as the card’s average benchmark score is 7472, with a percentile ranking of 40 against all GPUs. The combo’s low rank is not surprising given that the GPU’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (avgScore 7447, deltaPct 0.3), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (avgScore 7441, deltaPct 0.4), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (avgScore 7425, deltaPct 0.6). These comparisons show that the GTX 1650’s raw performance is only marginally better than integrated or older mobile graphics solutions, with the Intel Arc A310 slightly ahead at 7550 (deltaPct -1). In a game like Control, which has demanding rendering features, such a GPU will inherently limit the system’s ranking.

The CPU side of the equation does little to boost the combo’s standing. The Ryzen 7 5800X has an average benchmark score of 29123, with a percentile rank of 81 against all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H (avgScore 29093, deltaPct 0.1), the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 (avgScore 29245, deltaPct -0.4), the Intel Core i5-13500HX (avgScore 29270, deltaPct -0.5), and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT (avgScore 28940, deltaPct 0.6). These deltas are all within 1% of the 5800X’s score, indicating that the CPU is competitively positioned among its peers. However, when paired with a GPU that ranks in the 40th percentile, the overall combo rank suffers. The data suggests that even a top-tier CPU cannot overcome a GPU that is fundamentally underpowered for the game’s requirements. The combo rank of 3588 out of 3720 means that only 132 other tested combos performed worse, making this a system that would struggle with Control’s higher presets and resolutions.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 plays the dominant role in determining this combo’s gaming performance, and its specifications explain the measured FPS figures. The GPU is built on the Turing architecture using the TU117 chip, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. It features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS, which is modest by modern standards. The memory subsystem consists of 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory capacity and bandwidth are critical constraints in Control, a game that often exceeds 4 GB of VRAM usage at higher settings and resolutions.

The clock speeds of the GTX 1650 are set at a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz. The memory clock is 2001 MHz, translating to 8 Gbps effective. These clocks are relatively low compared to higher-tier GPUs, and they directly impact the fill rate and texture throughput. In the measured FPS data, the GPU’s limitations become evident: at 1080p Low, the system achieves 56 FPS, but this drops to 36 FPS at 1080p High and 31 FPS at 1080p Ultra. These reductions correlate with increased shading and texture work, which the GTX 1650’s 896 shading units and 56 TMUs cannot handle efficiently. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is also a likely factor, as Control’s textures at High and Ultra presets may exceed this limit, forcing the GPU to swap data from system memory, which further reduces performance.

The GPU’s benchmark scores provide additional context. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 305, while its Geekbench OpenCL score is 29629 and Vulkan score is 33042. PassMark scores include a G3D score of 7880 and a GPU compute score of 3048. These figures place the GTX 1650 in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it performs better than roughly 40% of the database, but it lags behind the majority. The nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and Intel UHD Graphics 750, are not gaming-focused parts, which underscores how low the GTX 1650 sits in the hierarchy. In Control, this translates to sub-60 FPS at all tested settings and resolutions, with the only playable experience being at 1080p Low where 56 FPS is recorded. The GPU’s 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate a low-power design, but that does not compensate for its performance limits.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of how this combo performs across resolutions and settings. At 3840x2160 (4K), the system averages 18 FPS at High settings, 29 FPS at Low, 20 FPS at Medium, and 16 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset has recorded minimum and maximum values of 17 and 24 FPS respectively, showing tight but low frame rates. None of the 4K results reach 30 FPS, making the game unplayable at this resolution regardless of settings. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 13 FPS, which is a significant gap but still leaves the performance far below acceptable levels.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the averages improve but remain modest. High settings yield 27 FPS, Low yields 43 FPS, Medium yields 30 FPS (with min 26 and max 35), and Ultra yields 23 FPS. The Low preset at 1440p is the only setting that approaches playability, but it still falls short of 60 FPS. The jump from Low to High at 1440p is 16 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 4 FPS, indicating diminishing returns from higher settings. The medium preset’s minimum of 26 FPS suggests occasional dips that could cause noticeable stutter.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the performance is the best in the dataset. Low settings achieve 56 FPS, which is the only average above 50 FPS. High settings reach 36 FPS, Medium reaches 40 FPS (with min 34 and max 46), and Ultra reaches 31 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 16 FPS, while Medium to High is 4 FPS, and High to Ultra is 5 FPS. This demonstrates that the Low preset is the most efficient for this combo, while Ultra severely taxes the GPU. Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: lowering settings provides larger FPS gains than lowering resolution, but neither alone can bring the system to a smooth 60 FPS at 1440p or 4K.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system in Control?

A: Based on the measured data, the highest average FPS is 56 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that exceeds 50 FPS. At 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 43 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 29 FPS. For a balance of visual quality and performance, 1080p Medium (40 FPS) or 1440p Low (43 FPS) are the most viable options.

Q: How does the GTX 1650’s memory capacity affect performance in Control?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The measured FPS shows significant drops when moving from Low to High or Ultra settings, which likely reflects the game exceeding the 4 GB VRAM limit at higher presets. For example, at 1080p Low the average is 56 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra it drops to 31 FPS, a 25 FPS reduction.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X a bottleneck for this GPU in Control?

A: No, the data indicates the system is GPU-limited. The Ryzen 7 5800X has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz and a 3DMark single-thread score of 943, which is sufficient for gaming. The combo rank of 3588 out of 3720 is driven by the GPU’s low performance, as the CPU’s benchmark scores (e.g., Cinebench R23 multi-core 15476) are far higher than what the GTX 1650 can utilize in this game.

Q: What are the minimum FPS values for the Medium preset?

A: The Medium preset has recorded minimums of 34 FPS at 1920x1080, 26 FPS at 2560x1440, and 17 FPS at 3840x2160. These values show that the system experiences frame drops that worsen with resolution, making the game feel less stable at higher pixel counts.

Q: How does this combo compare to other CPU-GPU pairings in Control?

A: The combo ranks 3588 out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 4% of systems. This low rank is consistent with the GPU’s 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the CPU ranks in the 81st percentile. The GPU’s nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and Intel UHD Graphics 750, are not gaming-focused, further highlighting the GTX 1650’s limitations.

Q: Can this system achieve 60 FPS at any setting in Control?

A: No, the measured data shows that the highest average FPS is 56 at 1080p Low. All other settings and resolutions produce averages below 50 FPS, with 4K Ultra yielding just 16 FPS. The system is incapable of reaching 60 FPS in this game based on the provided data.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X provides a strong foundation for this combo, but its capabilities are largely untapped in Control due to the GPU bottleneck. The CPU is part of the 5000 series, built on the Zen 3 architecture with the Vermeer codename, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a 32 MB L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and it operates on the AMD Socket AM4 with PCIe Gen 4 (20 lanes). The TDP is 105 W, and the CPU has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

Benchmark results show that the 5800X is a high-performance processor. Its 3DMark scores include 7586 for 16 threads, 1846 for 2 threads, 3543 for 4 threads, 6035 for 8 threads, and 7578 for max threads, with a single-thread score of 943. Cinebench R15 scores are 2608.5 for multi-core and 265.5 for single-core, while Cinebench R23 scores are 15476 for multi-core and 1574.5 for single-core. Geekbench scores are 11036 for multi-core and 2032 for single-core. PassMark tests show a multi-thread score of 27732 and a single-thread score of 3445, with additional scores for integer math (94969), floating-point math (52639), and data compression (345414). These figures place the CPU in the 81st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29123. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H (deltaPct 0.1), Intel Xeon Phi 7210 (deltaPct -0.4), Intel Core i5-13500HX (deltaPct -0.5), and AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT (deltaPct 0.6), all within a narrow performance band.

In the context of Control, the CPU’s role is to manage game logic, physics, and draw calls, but the measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the system reaches 56 FPS, which suggests that the CPU can handle the game’s single-threaded workload up to that point. The CPU’s single-thread score of 943 in 3DMark and 1574.5 in Cinebench R23 indicate strong per-core performance, which is important for games that rely on a few threads. However, as resolution and settings increase, the GPU’s workload expands, and the FPS drops regardless of the CPU’s capability. For example, at 4K Ultra, the average is 16 FPS, which is not a CPU limitation but a GPU one. The CPU’s 16 threads and multi-thread scores (e.g., 7578 in 3DMark max threads) are far more than needed for this game, and the data shows no evidence of CPU bottlenecking. The combo rank of 3588 out of 3720 is driven by the GPU’s low standing, not the CPU. If paired with a more powerful GPU, this CPU would likely perform much better, but with the GTX 1650, its potential remains unrealized in Control.