Control

This combo, pairing an AMD Ryzen 7 7700 with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, ranks 1572nd out of 1636 tested combinations in Control. That places it in the bottom 4% of all tested systems, a position that reflects a severe mismatch between the CPU’s capability and the GPU’s limitations. The data suggests this is a configuration where the graphics card, not the processor, dictates the entire experience, and the benchmark results consistently reinforce that narrative across every resolution and settings preset.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 1572 out of 1636 is a stark indicator of its standing. It is not merely below average; it sits near the very bottom of the database. This is not a case of a balanced mid-range system; rather, it is a pairing where one component is dramatically outperforming the other. The Ryzen 7 7700 sits in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, an elite position, while the GTX 1650 languishes in the 43rd percentile among GPUs. That 48-percentile gap is the story. The CPU is a top-tier part, but it is harnessed to a GPU that is below the median. In a game like Control, which is graphically demanding, this combination is effectively bottlenecked at every turn. The rank tells us that out of 1636 possible pairings, only 64 are slower. This is a hardware analyst’s cautionary tale about component pairing, where the sum is far less than the parts would suggest.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear limiting component in this system. Its specifications paint a picture of a card designed for 1080p gaming at modest settings, not for high-fidelity action-adventure titles. The GPU features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. The base clock runs at 1485 MHz with a boost up to 1665 MHz. These are not competitive numbers for a game released in 2019 that pushes visual effects. The 4 GB VRAM is particularly problematic for Control, a game known for its heavy use of textures and particle effects. At higher resolutions and settings, the card likely runs out of memory, causing stuttering or forcing the engine to swap data, which would explain the dramatic FPS drops. The 896 shading units and 32 ROPs are simply insufficient for the game’s demands. The data shows that even at the lowest settings, the card only manages to approach a playable frame rate at 1080p, and its performance collapses entirely at 4K. This is a GPU that is out of its depth, and the benchmark scores reflect that, with a PassMark G3D score of 7880 placing it in the 43rd percentile. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon 550X and NVIDIA Quadro P2200, are within a 0.5% delta, confirming that this card is in the lower tier of even its own class.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU bottleneck with absolute clarity. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 59.1 FPS. Dropping to 1440p Low yields 40.9 FPS, a 31% reduction. Moving to 4K Low, the average falls to 26.7 FPS, a further 35% drop. This pattern is consistent across all settings. For High settings, the numbers go from 38.9 FPS at 1080p to 24.8 FPS at 1440p (a 36% drop) and then to 18.3 FPS at 4K (a 26% drop). The scaling is not linear, but the trend is unmistakable: resolution increases are punishing the GPU far more than they would if the CPU were the constraint. If the Ryzen 7 7700 were the limiting factor, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively stable as resolution increases, since the CPU’s workload is largely independent of resolution. Instead, the FPS drops sharply, proving that the GTX 1650 is maxed out. The biggest jump is between 1080p and 1440p, indicating that the card struggles to fill the extra pixels. At 4K, the card is simply overwhelmed, with all presets falling below 27 FPS, making the game effectively unplayable.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, the only viable way to play Control with this hardware is at 1080p with Low settings. This is the only configuration that approaches a playable frame rate, hitting an average of 59.1 FPS. While not a locked 60, it is the closest this system gets to smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 40.4 FPS, which is a significant drop and likely introduces noticeable stutter in action sequences. High settings at 1080p produce 38.9 FPS, and Ultra drops to 34 FPS. None of these are ideal, but Low is the only one that stays above the 50 FPS threshold. At 1440p, even Low settings only manage 40.9 FPS, which is borderline. At 4K, all presets are below 27 FPS, making the game unplayable. The data suggests that for a better visual experience, the user would need to upgrade the GPU. However, staying within this configuration, the recommendation is to accept the visual compromises of Low settings at 1080p. It is a question of playability over fidelity, and the numbers show that Low is the only preset that delivers a playable experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The raw data provides a complete picture of the system’s performance across all twelve tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low averages 59.1 FPS, Medium averages 40.4 FPS, High averages 38.9 FPS, and Ultra averages 34 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 18.7 FPS, which is substantial. Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop to 40.9 FPS for Low, 30.9 FPS for Medium, 24.8 FPS for High, and 22.8 FPS for Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium at this resolution is 10 FPS, and the difference between Medium and High is another 6.1 FPS. At 3840x2160, the numbers fall off a cliff: Low averages 26.7 FPS, Medium 20.9 FPS, High 18.3 FPS, and Ultra 15.8 FPS. The delta between 1080p Low and 4K Low is 32.4 FPS, a 55% reduction. This breakdown shows that the card’s performance is highly sensitive to both resolution and settings, but the resolution is the dominant factor. The difference between Low and Ultra at any given resolution is consistent, ranging from 25 FPS at 1080p to 10.9 FPS at 4K, showing that the settings have a diminishing impact as the resolution increases, further confirming the GPU is the bottleneck.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 is a formidable processor that is being completely wasted in this pairing. It features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its architecture is Zen 4, built on a 5 nm process, and it has a 32 MB shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 29,302 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4,136 in single-core, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 40,468 is nearly identical to its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, which scores 40,431, a delta of just 0.1%. The CPU is clearly capable of feeding any GPU on the market. However, in Control, the CPU’s role is minimal because the GTX 1650 cannot process frames fast enough to utilize the CPU’s power. The data shows that the FPS is entirely dependent on the GPU’s capabilities. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would see FPS that is consistent across different resolutions, but we do not. The CPU is likely sitting idle, waiting for the GPU to finish rendering. This is a case where the processor’s 8 cores and 16 threads are irrelevant to the game’s performance. The game is GPU-bound, and the Ryzen 7 7700’s power is untapped, making it an expensive component that provides no benefit in this specific scenario.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve in Control?*

A: The highest measured average FPS is 59.1 at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration that comes close to a standard 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: It ranks 1572nd out of 1636 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 4% of all systems tested in the database for Control.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the frame rate?

A: The GPU is the limiting component. The FPS drops significantly as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU, which ranks in the 91st percentile, is not the constraint.

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

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average of 59.1 FPS, while Ultra settings produce 34 FPS. This represents a 25.1 FPS difference, or a 42% reduction in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

*Q: Is this combo capable of 4K gaming in Control?*

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 26.7 on Low settings, and the lowest is 15.8 on Ultra. All 4K results are far below the threshold for playable frame rates.

Q: How does the GPU’s benchmark score compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8,713. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8,746, which is a delta of -0.4%. This indicates the GTX 1650 is statistically on par with its closest competitors.