Control

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT and Radeon RX 6600 combination delivers a playable but resolution-sensitive experience in Control. The data shows a clear pattern where the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck as pixel count rises, while the CPU’s strong multi-threaded headroom keeps performance consistent at lower resolutions. This pairing sits at rank 1301 out of 1636 tested combos for this title, placing it in the lower half of the field, yet the measured frames per second tell a more nuanced story about where this system excels and where it struggles.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 4K produces a dramatic shift in frame rates that clearly identifies the GPU as the limiting factor. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 110.4 FPS, but this drops to 84.5 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 57 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 48.4% reduction in performance from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, a scaling factor that points directly at the Radeon RX 6600’s pixel-pushing capabilities rather than any CPU constraint.

The Ultra preset shows an even steeper decline. Starting at 57.6 FPS on 1080p, it falls to 47.2 FPS at 1440p and bottoms out at 32.6 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 4K Ultra is 43.4%, confirming that the rendering load at higher resolutions overwhelms the GPU’s 8 GB frame buffer and 128-bit memory interface. Notably, the difference between 1440p and 4K is more punishing than the jump from 1080p to 1440p, suggesting the RX 6600 hits a hard wall when pixel count approaches 8.3 million.

The CPU’s role becomes apparent when comparing the Low preset across resolutions. The Ryzen 7 5800XT, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, can feed the GPU efficiently at 1080p, where the 110.4 FPS result is likely near the upper limit of what this graphics card can output. However, the CPU’s 3DMark single-thread score of 959 and multi-thread score of 7683 indicate it has ample headroom, so the frame rate collapse at higher resolutions is not a processor limitation. The data shows a textbook GPU-bound scenario, where the RX 6600’s 8.928 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 224.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth become the governing factors.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 6600’s specifications directly explain the measured results. With a boost clock of 2491 MHz and a game clock of 2044 MHz, the card operates at a high frequency, but its 128-bit bus and 8 GB GDDR6 memory create a bandwidth ceiling that becomes evident at 4K. The 224.0 GB/s bandwidth is a modest figure for modern titles, and Control’s high-resolution textures and particle effects appear to saturate this connection, causing the frame rate to dip below 60 FPS at every preset above Low when running at 3840x2160.

The GPU’s 28 ray tracing cores and 1792 shading units are present, but the benchmark data shows that even without ray tracing enabled (as assumed in the measured rows), the card struggles to maintain smooth performance at 4K. At 1080p, the RX 6600 performs admirably, with the Ultra preset hitting 57.6 FPS and High reaching 70.3 FPS. The jump from Medium to High at 1080p costs only 8 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra costs 12.7 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset introduces effects that disproportionately tax the GPU.

Comparing the RX 6600 to its nearest rivals, the data shows it is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 6700M (0.2% faster) and AMD Radeon 890M (0% delta), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti by just 0.5%. This places the GPU in the 69th percentile of all graphics cards, a solid mid-range position. The RX 6600’s 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but the 4K results suggest that memory capacity and bandwidth are the primary constraints, as the card’s compute capabilities are not the bottleneck at those resolutions.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Control at 60 FPS on a 4K monitor?*

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS recorded is 57 FPS on Low settings. All other presets at 4K fall below 42 FPS, with Ultra dropping to 32.6 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combination?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 as the sweet spot. At 1080p, even the Ultra preset achieves 57.6 FPS, while Low hits 110.4 FPS, providing a comfortable range for different visual preferences.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 5800XT compare to its closest CPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The 5800XT scores 29774 on average, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE and 0.3% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360. It trails the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS and AMD Ryzen 7 7840H by 0.3% each.

*Q: Is the RX 6600’s 8 GB VRAM enough for Control at high settings?*

A: At 1080p and 1440p, the GPU handles High settings well, posting 70.3 and 54.8 FPS respectively. However, at 4K, the frame rates drop to 33.6 FPS on High, suggesting the VRAM or bandwidth is insufficient for that resolution.

Q: What is the performance delta between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: The difference is 37.3 FPS, with Low hitting 84.5 FPS and Ultra falling to 47.2 FPS. This represents a 44.1% performance hit from the highest to lowest preset.

Q: Does the CPU limit performance at any tested resolution?

A: No. The Ryzen 7 5800XT’s multi-core score of 23794 in Cinebench R23 and its 86th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicate it is not the bottleneck. The frame rate scaling with resolution confirms a GPU-limited scenario.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 110.4 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded across all configurations. Medium settings reduce this to 78.3 FPS, a 29.1% drop. High settings yield 70.3 FPS, and Ultra brings the average down to 57.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 52.8 FPS, demonstrating that the RX 6600 has the headroom to run the game at high frame rates when pixel count is manageable.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance becomes more moderate. Low settings still deliver a smooth 84.5 FPS, but Medium drops to 57.8 FPS and High to 54.8 FPS. Ultra at 1440p falls to 47.2 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold for competitive play but acceptable for a narrative-driven title. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1440p is 37.3 FPS, a smaller absolute difference than at 1080p but still significant.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates become marginal. Low settings manage 57 FPS, which is borderline playable. Medium drops to 41.4 FPS, High to 33.6 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 32.6 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 24.4 FPS, showing that even the most aggressive settings reductions cannot overcome the GPU’s resolution ceiling. The 4K results are consistently below 60 FPS, making this resolution unsuitable for smooth gameplay with this hardware.

Settings Recommendations

For players prioritizing frame rate, the Low preset at 1920x1080 is the clear choice, delivering 110.4 FPS and ensuring a fluid experience with minimal visual compromises. However, the data suggests that Medium at 1080p offers a better balance, hitting 78.3 FPS while presumably retaining more visual fidelity. The 32.1 FPS gap between Low and Medium at 1080p is substantial, but the resulting frame rate remains well above the 60 FPS target.

At 1440p, the Medium preset at 57.8 FPS is the most reasonable option, as it stays near the 60 FPS mark while providing better image quality than Low’s 84.5 FPS. High at 1440p drops to 54.8 FPS, a marginal difference that may not justify the extra visual load. Ultra at 1440p should be avoided unless the user accepts 47.2 FPS, which is below the standard smoothness threshold.

For 4K gaming, the data indicates that Low settings at 57 FPS is the only viable preset, and even that is borderline. Medium at 41.4 FPS and High at 33.6 FPS are too choppy for most users. The Ultra preset at 32.6 FPS is effectively unplayable. Therefore, the recommendation is to stay at 1080p with High or Medium settings for the best experience, or 1440p with Medium if a higher resolution is desired. The measured results make it clear that this hardware is not suited for 4K in Control, regardless of the preset chosen.