Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title that stresses both CPU and GPU heavily, and this particular pairing of an AMD Ryzen 7 7700X with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 produces a very specific bottleneck profile. The benchmark data shows this combo ranks 3708 out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom percentile of all systems tested for this game, which aligns with the GPU's 40th percentile standing among all graphics cards. The CPU, by contrast, is a high-end 8-core/16-thread Zen 4 part that sits at the 85th percentile of all processors, creating a massive imbalance where the graphics card becomes the definitive limiting factor across every resolution and settings preset.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Control?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 44 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is the only configuration that comes close to playable frame rates.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Control?

A: The combo ranks 3708 out of 3720 total combinations tested, meaning it outperforms only 12 other system configurations in this game's benchmark suite.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 4K at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 33 at 1920x1080 to 25 at 2560x1440, and finally to 16 at 3840x2160, representing a substantial 51.5% reduction from 1080p to 4K.

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 7700X or the GTX 1650 more responsible for the low frame rates?

A: The GTX 1650 is clearly the bottleneck, as the CPU's 85th percentile standing and strong multi-threaded scores (19088 in Cinebench R23 multi-core) far exceed what this game needs, while the GPU's 40th percentile ranking and 4 GB VRAM capacity severely constrain performance.

Q: Does the GTX 1650 support modern graphics APIs needed for Control?

A: Yes, the GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, though its PassMark DirectX 12 score of only 35 indicates weak DX12 performance relative to other APIs.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X brings substantial processing power to this pairing, with 8 cores and 16 threads running at a 4.50 GHz base clock and 5.40 GHz boost clock. This Zen 4 architecture processor, built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 6,570 million transistors packed into a 71 mm² die, delivers benchmark scores that place it at the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 19088 and single-core score of 1987 demonstrate that this processor has ample headroom for gaming workloads, while the 3DMark multi-threaded scores show strong scaling from 8859 at 16 threads to 8852 at max threads.

The CPU's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 83.2 GB/s dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth provide the kind of memory subsystem performance that modern games like Control can leverage for streaming assets and physics calculations. However, the measured frame rates in this game tell a different story: at 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 44 FPS, which is still below the 60 FPS threshold most players target. This indicates that even at the lowest resolution and settings where CPU load would be most apparent, the processor is not the limiting factor. The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 (0.3% faster), Intel Core 7 250H (0.5% faster), and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 (0.5% faster), all of which have similar average scores around 35,700-35,800, confirming the 7700X sits in a highly competitive performance tier.

The PassMark multi-thread score of 35686 and single-thread score of 4190 further reinforce that this is a top-tier gaming processor. Yet Control's frame rates do not reflect this strength. The game's physics and AI systems can theoretically utilize multiple cores, but with frame rates capped below 45 FPS even at the lowest settings, the GPU is clearly preventing the CPU from reaching its potential. The 7700X could likely push well over 100 FPS in Control if paired with a sufficiently powerful graphics card, but this GTX 1650 pairing leaves that performance untapped.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the dominant constraint in this system, and its specifications explain why. This Turing-architecture GPU, built on TSMC's 12 nm process with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by modern standards and particularly limiting for a game like Control that features detailed textures and complex visual effects. The GPU's 1485 MHz base clock and 1665 MHz boost clock deliver 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, placing it at the 40th percentile of all graphics cards.

The GTX 1650's benchmark results paint a clear picture of its capabilities. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305, Geekbench OpenCL score of 29629, and Vulkan score of 33042 all indicate entry-level performance. More telling are the PassMark scores: DirectX 12 at 35, DirectX 11 at 58, and DirectX 10 at 39, while DirectX 9 achieves 124. This pattern suggests the GPU struggles with newer API workloads, which is problematic for Control given its use of modern rendering techniques. The GPU's nearest rivals in benchmark performance include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% slower), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% slower), AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% slower), and Intel Arc A310 (1% faster), placing it in the company of much older or integrated solutions.

The 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate this is a low-power design, and the dual-slot form factor with 229 mm length houses a cooler that is adequate for these modest power requirements. The suggested 250 W PSU confirms the card's efficiency focus. For Control specifically, the 4 GB VRAM capacity is likely insufficient for High or Ultra textures at higher resolutions, potentially causing texture streaming issues and frame drops. The memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s also limits the card's ability to feed the rendering pipeline at higher resolutions, explaining the steep performance declines observed when moving from 1080p to 1440p to 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

This system's rank of 3708 out of 3720 tested combinations places it in the bottom 0.3% of all configurations tested in Control. This ranking is remarkably poor when considering the CPU's strength — the Ryzen 7 7700X sits at the 85th percentile of all processors, yet the overall system performance is dragged down by the GTX 1650's 40th percentile standing. The discrepancy between component percentiles (85 vs 40) highlights an extreme bottleneck scenario where the GPU is holding back a processor that could comfortably handle much higher frame rates.

The combo ranking suggests that in the context of Control's performance hierarchy, this system performs like a much older or lower-end configuration despite having a modern high-end CPU. The 3708 rank means only 12 other system combinations perform worse, likely those pairing even weaker GPUs with similarly capable or weaker CPUs. This positioning is consistent with the GPU's benchmark standing, as the GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472 places it near the bottom of the discrete GPU market, just above integrated graphics solutions like the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441) and barely below the Intel Arc A310 (7550).

From a system balance perspective, the data suggests this pairing is severely mismatched. The CPU contributes negligible bottleneck at any resolution, as evidenced by the fact that frame rates scale almost entirely with resolution and settings changes — a pattern characteristic of GPU-limited scenarios. The 7700X's 3DMark 8-thread score of 7057 and 4-thread score of 4074 indicate it can handle the game's threading requirements with ease, while the GTX 1650's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 305 shows it struggles with even basic DX12 rendering workloads. If the goal is to understand how CPU and GPU interact in Control, this combo provides a textbook example of GPU saturation.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates across all resolution and settings combinations reveal a consistent pattern of GPU-limited performance. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 44 FPS on Low, 33 FPS on Medium (with minimum 28 and maximum 38), 28 FPS on High, and 20 FPS on Ultra settings. Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers drop to 33 FPS on Low, 25 FPS on Medium (minimum 21, maximum 28), 21 FPS on High, and 15 FPS on Ultra. At 3840x2160, performance falls further to 22 FPS on Low, 16 FPS on Medium (minimum 14, maximum 19), 14 FPS on High, and 10 FPS on Ultra.

These numbers demonstrate that the GTX 1650 cannot maintain playable frame rates in Control under any configuration. Even the best case scenario — 1080p Low at 44 FPS — falls short of the 60 FPS target most players desire, and the 1% low performance would likely be significantly worse given the minimum FPS values recorded at Medium settings. The frame time consistency appears poor as well, with the 1080p Medium configuration showing a 10 FPS spread between minimum and maximum, suggesting noticeable stuttering during intense scenes.

The resolution scaling is particularly revealing. At Low settings, dropping from 1080p to 1440p costs 11 FPS (25% reduction), and dropping to 4K costs another 11 FPS (33% reduction from 1440p). At Medium settings, the progression from 33 to 25 to 16 FPS represents a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 36% drop from 1440p to 4K. These proportional reductions align with the GPU's fillrate and bandwidth constraints — the 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient for higher resolutions in this visually demanding title.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, the only viable settings preset for this combo is Low at 1920x1080, which delivers 44 FPS average. This is the sole configuration that approaches acceptable playability, though it still falls short of the 60 FPS ideal. The Medium preset at 1080p produces 33 FPS, which represents an 11 FPS sacrifice for improved visuals but remains below the 30 FPS minimum that some players consider the floor for playable frame rates. The frame time data at Medium (28-38 FPS range) suggests occasional dips into unplayable territory during action sequences.

The High preset at 1080p yields 28 FPS, and Ultra drops to 20 FPS — both firmly in slideshow territory for a game like Control that requires precise timing and smooth camera movement. At 1440p and 4K, all presets produce frame rates below 33 FPS, making these resolutions unsuitable for this hardware combination. The data clearly indicates that players should prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity with this GPU, accepting the significant visual compromises of Low settings to achieve the best possible gameplay experience.

It is importantly the gap between Low and Medium at 1080p (11 FPS) is larger than the gap between Medium and High (5 FPS), suggesting diminishing returns on visual quality investment. The jump from High to Ultra costs 8 FPS, indicating that Ultra settings impose a particularly heavy burden on this GPU's limited resources. For players who insist on higher visual quality, the 33 FPS Medium preset at 1080p represents the best compromise between fidelity and playability, though it requires accepting sub-60 FPS performance.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data reveals the GTX 1650's fundamental limitations in Control. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS decreases by approximately 24-25% across all settings presets, and from 1440p to 4K, the additional decrease ranges from 33-36%. This scaling pattern is steeper than the pixel count increase would suggest — going from 1080p to 1440p increases pixel count by 78%, yet frame rates drop only 25%, indicating that the GPU is not purely fillrate-limited at lower resolutions but becomes increasingly bottlenecked by memory bandwidth and pixel throughput as resolution rises.

The 4K results are particularly telling. At 4K Low, the system manages 22 FPS, while 4K Ultra drops to 10 FPS — a 55% reduction from Low to Ultra at the same resolution. This compares to a 55% reduction at 1080p (44 to 20 FPS) and a 55% reduction at 1440p (33 to 15 FPS), showing that the settings presets have consistent proportional impacts regardless of resolution. However, the absolute numbers at 4K are so low that even the Low preset produces an unplayable experience.

The resolution scaling pattern strongly suggests the GPU is the limiting component at all resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect frame rates to remain relatively constant as resolution increases, since the CPU workload would be unchanged. Instead, the consistent 24-36% FPS drops at each resolution step indicate that the GPU's rendering pipeline — specifically its 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 53.28 GPixel/s pixel fillrate — is saturated at every tested configuration. The 128-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory technology, while adequate for the GPU's intended 1080p gaming segment, cannot support the higher resolution demands of a game like Control with its complex lighting, particle effects, and detailed environments.