Control

# Control with AMD Ryzen 7 7700 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

The pairing of AMD's Ryzen 7 7700 with NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1050 Ti presents a striking imbalance in Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title. The CPU is a modern 8-core, 16-thread Zen 4 processor that ranks in the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU is a Pascal-era part from 2016 that sits in only the 25th percentile of all GPUs. The measured frame rates in this combination rank 3670th out of 3720 tested combos in Control, placing this pairing in the bottom 1.3% of all tested configurations for this game. This is a system where the processor has enormous headroom, but the graphics card is the definitive bottleneck, as the data shows a consistent pattern of low frame rates across every resolution and settings preset.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 is built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, using TSMC's 5 nm process node. It contains 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The CPU has a 65 W TDP and supports DDR5 memory through a dual-channel interface, delivering 83.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor also features integrated Radeon Graphics, though in this configuration the discrete GTX 1050 Ti handles all rendering duties.

Benchmark data shows the Ryzen 7 7700's capabilities in isolation. In Cinebench R23, it scores 18,760 in multicore and 1,930 in single-core tests. Geekbench results show 15,371 multicore and 2,525 single-core scores. The 3DMark results are revealing: 8,484 with 16 threads, 6,933 with 8 threads, 3,931 with 4 threads, and 2,043 with 2 threads. The PassMark multithread score is 34,470, while the single-thread score is 4,063. These numbers place the CPU in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40,081. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 with a score of 40,048 (0.1% different), the Intel Core 5 221E at 40,144 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 270 at 40,246 (0.4% behind), and the Intel Core i9-13905H at 40,313 (0.6% behind).

For Control specifically, the CPU's role is largely theoretical because the frame rates are so low. At 1080p Low settings, the combination achieves 46 FPS average, which is the best result in the entire measured set. This suggests that even at the lowest settings, the GTX 1050 Ti is still the limiting factor. The CPU's 16 threads and high boost clocks are far more than Control requires, especially at these low frame rates. The data implies that the Ryzen 7 7700 is effectively idle waiting for the GPU to produce frames. The CPU's single-core performance, as measured by the 3DMark single-thread score of 1,049 and the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,930, would be more than sufficient for this game's physics and logic if the GPU could keep up. The 8-core, 16-thread configuration ensures there is no possibility of a CPU bottleneck in this title, even in complex scenes. The processor's performance percentile of 87 indicates it can handle far more demanding workloads than what this GPU pairing allows it to feed.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a Pascal architecture GPU built on Samsung's 14 nm process, featuring the GP107 chip with 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die. It has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The base clock is 1291 MHz with a boost clock of 1392 MHz. Memory consists of 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The card's compute capabilities include 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, a pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 66.82 GTexel/s. It draws 75 W from the motherboard, requiring no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The GPU's benchmark scores tell a story of limited performance. In PassMark, the G3D score is 6,340, while the GPU compute score is 2,652. DirectX benchmarks show scores of 104 for DX9, 45 for DX11, 31 for DX10, and 26 for DX12. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test yields a score of 305. Geekbench results include 10,001 for Vulkan, 18,129 for OpenCL, and 7,834 for Metal. The GPU sits in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4,193. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4,170 (0.6% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at 4,151 (1% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M at 4,241 (1.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4,268 (1.8% ahead).

In Control, the GTX 1050 Ti's limitations are starkly exposed. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a serious concern for a game released in 2019, and the measured results reflect this. At 1080p Low settings, the average FPS is 46, but moving to Medium drops it to 32 FPS, High to 29 FPS, and Ultra to 25 FPS. The 1440p results are worse: 34 FPS at Low, 24 FPS at Medium, 22 FPS at High, and 19 FPS at Ultra. At 4K, the card struggles to reach playable levels: 23 FPS at Low, 17 FPS at Medium, 15 FPS at High, and 13 FPS at Ultra. The pattern across settings and resolutions clearly indicates that the GPU's raw compute power and memory bandwidth are insufficient for Control's demands. The 112.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are simply not enough to maintain smooth frame rates. The card's 25th percentile ranking among all GPUs underscores how far behind modern hardware this part is, and Control's measured performance reflects this reality.

FAQ

Q: What is the best frame rate this combination can achieve in Control?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 46, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration that exceeds 40 FPS in the entire measured dataset.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 7 7700 has an average benchmark score of 40,081, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (40,048) and 0.2% higher than the Intel Core 5 221E (40,144). It trails the AMD Ryzen 9 270 by 0.4% and the Intel Core i9-13905H by 0.6%.

Q: How does the GPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has an average benchmark score of 4,193, which is 0.6% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4,170) and 1% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4,151). It is 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4,241) and 1.8% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4,268).

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 46 FPS average, while Ultra settings produce 25 FPS average. This represents a 21 FPS drop, or approximately 45.7% performance reduction, when moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this configuration?

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 25th percentile. Even at 1080p Low settings, the combination only achieves 46 FPS, and the CPU's 16 threads are far more than Control requires at these frame rates.

Q: How does this combination rank among all tested combos in Control?

A: This pairing ranks 3670th out of 3720 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the bottom 1.3% of all tested configurations for this game. Only 50 tested combos perform worse.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti ranks 3670th out of 3720 tested combinations in Control. This places the pairing in the bottom 1.3% of all tested configurations, with only 50 combinations performing worse. The ranking reflects the GPU's severe limitations rather than the CPU's capabilities. The Ryzen 7 7700's 87th percentile CPU ranking and average benchmark score of 40,081 are irrelevant to the final outcome because the GTX 1050 Ti's 25th percentile GPU ranking and average benchmark score of 4,193 dictate the frame rates. The data reveals that this is a case where the CPU is vastly overqualified for the GPU it is paired with. The measured frame rates at all resolutions and settings are consistent with the GPU's low benchmark scores, suggesting that the CPU contributes nothing to the performance ceiling. The rank of 3670 out of 3720 indicates that this combination is among the weakest for Control, and the data shows that even at the lowest settings and resolution, the system barely achieves playable frame rates. This ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's age and performance class, not any deficiency in the processor.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only settings preset that provides a consistently playable experience is Low at 1920x1080, which achieves 46 FPS average. All other configurations fall below 40 FPS, with most dropping well below 30 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the average is 32 FPS, which is borderline but still below the 46 FPS of Low settings. The data shows that High settings at 1080p produce 29 FPS, while Ultra produces 25 FPS, both of which are likely too low for a smooth experience in an action game like Control. At 1440p, even Low settings only achieve 34 FPS, and Medium drops to 24 FPS. At 4K, all settings produce frame rates below 24 FPS, making the game essentially unplayable at that resolution regardless of quality preset. The recommendation from the measured data is clear: use 1080p with Low settings for the best balance of visual quality and playability. Medium at 1080p is an alternative if the 32 FPS average is acceptable, but the 46 FPS at Low represents the only configuration that approaches standard playability thresholds. The min/max data for Medium settings shows 27-37 FPS at 1080p, 21-28 FPS at 1440p, and 14-19 FPS at 4K, indicating that even the "playable" configurations suffer from significant frame rate variation.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates for Control with this combination show a clear hierarchy based on resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the results are: Low settings produce 46 FPS average, Medium produces 32 FPS average with a minimum of 27 and maximum of 37, High produces 29 FPS average, and Ultra produces 25 FPS average. The 1080p data shows a 21 FPS spread between Low and Ultra settings, with each step up in quality costing approximately 3-14 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 34 FPS average, Medium produces 24 FPS average with a minimum of 21 and maximum of 28, High produces 22 FPS average, and Ultra produces 19 FPS average. The 1440p results show a 15 FPS spread between Low and Ultra, with the gap between settings narrowing compared to 1080p. At 3840x2160, Low settings produce 23 FPS average, Medium produces 17 FPS average with a minimum of 14 and maximum of 19, High produces 15 FPS average, and Ultra produces 13 FPS average. The 4K results show a 10 FPS spread between Low and Ultra, indicating that the GPU is so heavily constrained that settings adjustments have diminishing returns. The only configuration with min/max data beyond Medium settings is absent, suggesting the data collection focused on the Medium preset for frame time consistency analysis. The complete dataset reveals that no configuration at 1440p or 4K achieves even 35 FPS average, and only the 1080p Low setting breaks the 40 FPS barrier.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU's severe limitations. At Low settings, the transition from 1920x1080 (46 FPS) to 2560x1440 (34 FPS) represents a 26.1% drop, and further to 3840x2160 (23 FPS) represents a 50% drop from the 1080p baseline. At Medium settings, the progression is 32 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p (25% drop), and 17 FPS at 4K (46.9% drop from 1080p). High settings show 29 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p (24.1% drop), and 15 FPS at 4K (48.3% drop). Ultra settings produce 25 FPS at 1080p, 19 FPS at 1440p (24% drop), and 13 FPS at 4K (48% drop). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at all resolutions. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows roughly a 24-26% performance reduction, while the scaling from 1080p to 4K shows roughly a 48-50% reduction. This pattern suggests that the GTX 1050 Ti's 4 GB VRAM capacity and 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth are insufficient for higher resolutions, and the GPU's 2.138 TFLOPS of compute power cannot handle the increased pixel count. The data implies that the CPU is not contributing to the performance degradation at higher resolutions, as the percentage drops are consistent regardless of settings preset. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the scaling would show smaller percentage drops at higher resolutions where the GPU becomes more stressed. Instead, the uniform scaling pattern points entirely to the GPU as the limiting component, with the Ryzen 7 7700's substantial headroom going unused at every resolution.