Control

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT pairing delivers a high-refresh-rate 1080p and 1440p experience in Control, with playable 4K performance. The data shows a combination that scales predictably with settings, where the GPU becomes the primary constraint at higher resolutions.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm process from TSMC, containing 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is ample for Control's textures and effects at any resolution tested. The GPU's base clock is 1825 MHz, with a game clock of 2015 MHz and a boost clock of 2250 MHz. This clock arrangement allows the card to sustain high throughput in sustained gaming loads, as reflected in the measured FPS.

In this specific game, the GPU's 4608 shading units and 72 RT cores handle the game's physics-heavy environments and particle effects. The FP32 performance of 20.74 TFLOPS is a meaningful indicator of raw rasterization power, and the benchmark results confirm that the card is not starved for compute resources at 1080p and 1440p. At 4K, however, the load shifts. The 58 FPS average at 4K High shows the GPU is nearing its limits, while the 50 FPS at 4K Ultra indicates a clear ceiling. The GPU's 85th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48477, places it in the upper tier, but not at the absolute top.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the RX 6800 XT's average benchmark score is 1.5% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile (47743) and 2.5% lower than the Intel Arc A550M (49737). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti and AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 by 3% each (scores of 49957 and 50001, respectively). This positioning suggests that in Control, the card should perform competitively with those parts, and the measured FPS confirms it holds its own. The 16 GB VRAM allocation is a significant advantage here; even at 4K Ultra, there is no indication of memory throttling, as the frame rates drop due to compute limits rather than capacity issues. The 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient to feed the 128 ROPs and 288 TMUs without creating a bottleneck, which is why the scaling from 1080p to 4K remains relatively smooth.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Raphael), fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock is 3.80 GHz with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, and it carries a 65 W TDP. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. For a game like Control, which is known for its physics simulations and destructible environments, the CPU's multi-threaded capabilities are relevant, but the single-thread performance is what often dictates frame pacing.

The benchmark results show a strong single-core showing: a 3dmark single-thread score of 1049 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1930. The multi-core scores are equally robust, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18760 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 15371. The CPU's 87th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40081, places it in the upper echelon of desktop processors. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, scores 40048 (0.1% difference), while the Intel Core 5 221E scores 40144 (-0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 9 270 scores 40246 (-0.4%). The Intel Core i9-13905H scores 40313 (-0.6%). These deltas are negligible, meaning the 7700 is essentially at parity with its closest competitors in synthetic tests.

In Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and handle the game's physics engine. At 1080p Low, the average FPS of 179 suggests the CPU is capable of pushing very high frame rates without becoming a bottleneck. The 3dmark 2-thread score of 2043 and 4-thread score of 3931 indicate that the CPU's dual and quad-core performance is sufficient for the game's main thread. The 3dmark 8-thread score of 6933 and 16-thread score of 8484 show that even when the game utilizes more threads for background tasks, the CPU has headroom. The 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, paired with DDR5 support and a dual-channel interface, ensures that data flows efficiently to the CPU cores. This combination prevents the CPU from being the limiting factor in this pairing, as evidenced by the FPS scaling patterns across resolutions.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at High settings, the average FPS drops from 113 to 86, a 23.9% decrease. From 1440p to 4K at High, the FPS drops from 86 to 58, a 32.6% decrease. This accelerating drop-off is typical of a GPU-limited scenario, where each resolution increase adds a significant pixel load that the GPU must process.

At Low settings, the scaling is more pronounced. The average FPS goes from 179 at 1080p to 136 at 1440p (a 24% drop) and then to 92 at 4K (a 32.4% drop from 1440p). The fact that 1080p Low achieves 179 FPS indicates that the CPU is not holding the system back in this configuration; if it were, the frame rate would plateau or drop more sharply at lower resolutions. The 4K Low result of 92 FPS is still very playable, showing that the GPU has enough raw power to handle the game at reduced settings even at high pixel counts.

The Medium settings rows include min and max FPS data, which provides insight into frame consistency. At 1080p Medium, the average is 127 FPS with a min of 108 and max of 146. At 1440p Medium, the average is 96 FPS with a min of 82 and max of 111. At 4K Medium, the average is 65 FPS with a min of 55 and max of 75. The min-to-max spread widens as resolution increases, indicating that the GPU is working harder and frame times become less consistent. This is a classic sign of GPU saturation, where occasional spikes in rendering complexity cause frame drops.

The overall trend suggests that the RX 6800 XT is the limiting component at 1440p and above, while the Ryzen 7 7700 has enough headroom to support up to 4K without becoming a bottleneck. The data does not show any anomaly where the CPU would cause stuttering or low 1% lows; the min FPS values at Medium settings are proportional to the averages, suggesting stable performance.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT ranks 1183 out of 3720 tested combos in Control. This places it in the top 31.8% of all tested systems. Given that the GPU ranks in the 85th percentile and the CPU in the 87th percentile individually, the combo ranking is slightly lower than either part's individual percentile. This suggests that while both components are strong, the pairing does not synergize to push into the top quartile of combos, likely because the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions, preventing the CPU from fully flexing its capabilities.

The ranking implies that there are 2537 other combos that perform better in this specific game. This is not a poor showing, but it indicates that for Control, the RX 6800 XT is the more impactful component, and pairing it with a faster CPU would not yield substantial gains. The combo's position in the middle of the upper third is consistent with the measured FPS, which show solid performance but not class-leading numbers. For context, the GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks (RTX A1000 Mobile, Arc A550M, RTX 5070 Ti, RX Vega 64) have average scores within 3% of the RX 6800 XT, so the combo's ranking is likely similar to what those parts would achieve with a comparable CPU.

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

At 1920x1080, the data shows the full range of settings performance. Low settings produce an average of 179 FPS, which is the highest measured result in the entire dataset. Medium settings yield an average of 127 FPS, with a minimum of 108 and a maximum of 146. High settings average 113 FPS, and Ultra settings average 98 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 81 FPS, representing a 45.3% reduction in performance when maxing out all settings. This scaling is relatively linear, with each step up in quality costing roughly 20-25% of the previous frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops proportionally. Low settings average 136 FPS, Medium averages 96 FPS (min 82, max 111), High averages 86 FPS, and Ultra averages 74 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 62 FPS, or 45.6%, which is nearly identical to the percentage drop at 1080p. This consistency indicates that the GPU is scaling predictably with settings changes, and the CPU is not introducing any non-linearities. The 1440p results are all above 60 FPS, making this resolution the sweet spot for high refresh rate monitors.

At 3840x2160, the GPU begins to show its limits. Low settings average 92 FPS, Medium averages 65 FPS (min 55, max 75), High averages 58 FPS, and Ultra averages 50 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 42 FPS, or 45.7%, maintaining the same percentage scaling as lower resolutions. However, the absolute numbers are lower, with Ultra dipping to exactly 50 FPS. This is still technically playable, but it is at the edge of what most users would consider smooth. The Medium setting at 4K provides a min of 55 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS target but with potential for dips below it during intense scenes.

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

Based on the measured FPS, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance across all three resolutions. At 1080p, Medium delivers an average of 127 FPS with a minimum of 108 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay even in the most demanding scenes. At 1440p, Medium averages 96 FPS with a minimum of 82 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for a responsive experience. At 4K, Medium averages 65 FPS with a minimum of 55 FPS, meaning there will be occasional dips below 60 FPS, but the overall experience remains playable.

For users with a 1080p or 1440p monitor, the High preset is also a viable option. At 1080p High, the average of 113 FPS is still exceptionally smooth, and at 1440p High, the average of 86 FPS provides a solid high-refresh-rate experience. The Ultra preset, however, offers diminishing returns. At 1080p Ultra, the 98 FPS average is still good, but at 1440p Ultra, the 74 FPS average starts to approach the 60 FPS boundary, and at 4K Ultra, the 50 FPS average is below the ideal threshold for fast-paced action.

The data suggests that Medium is the recommended default setting for most users, as it provides the largest frame rate headroom while still maintaining visual fidelity. The min FPS values at Medium (108 at 1080p, 82 at 1440p, 55 at 4K) are consistently higher than the averages of the next tier up, which means that Medium will provide a more consistent experience than High or Ultra. For those who prioritize visual quality over raw frame rate, High at 1440p is the best compromise, as it maintains an average above 60 FPS while offering better graphical features. The Low preset is only recommended for competitive play at 1080p, where the 179 FPS average can be leveraged for maximum responsiveness.