Control

Control pairs an 8-core/16-thread AMD Ryzen 7 9700F with an 8 GB AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, producing a system that is firmly mid-pack in this 2019 action-adventure title. The benchmark data shows a combo ranking of 1875 out of 2888 tested configurations, placing it in the 35th percentile overall. This pairing delivers playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but struggles to maintain smooth performance at 4K, where the GPU becomes the primary constraint. The measured results reveal a clear hierarchy: the CPU provides ample headroom for this title, while the graphics card dictates the experience at higher resolutions and detail settings.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) using a 4 nm process from TSMC, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads. Its base clock of 3.80 GHz can boost up to 5.50 GHz, with a 65 W TDP and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic PassMark testing, this processor scores 36,470 in multithreaded workloads and 4,691 in single-threaded tests, ranking in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 69,996 places it nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (0.2% higher), while it edges out the Intel Core i7-14700KF by 0.2% and leads the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X by 0.7%.

For Control, these CPU characteristics are more than sufficient. The game’s physics and AI systems benefit from the 16 threads, but the PassMark physics score of 2,122 suggests that even at 1080p Low settings, where the CPU load is proportionally highest, the processor is not the bottleneck. Evidence from the measured FPS data supports this: at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo reaches 122 FPS average, which is a 58% improvement over the 77 FPS at High settings. This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor even at the lowest resolution and settings.

The Ryzen 7 9700F’s single-thread performance is particularly relevant for Control, as the game’s engine relies heavily on a few primary threads for rendering commands and game logic. The 5.50 GHz boost clock and 4,691 single-thread score ensure that these threads are not starved, allowing the GPU to operate at its full potential. The 94th percentile ranking versus all CPUs means that in the vast majority of gaming scenarios, this processor will outperform what the RX 6650 XT can feed it with frames. At 1440p High, the combo produces 58 FPS, and at 4K High it drops to 39 FPS, with the CPU still having headroom, as evidenced by the fact that lowering settings from High to Low at 4K increases FPS from 39 to 63—a 61% jump that is purely GPU-driven.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is a RDNA 2.0 architecture GPU (Navi 23 chip) manufactured on TSMC’s 7 nm process, featuring 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It operates with a base clock of 2055 MHz, a game clock of 2410 MHz, and a boost clock of 2635 MHz. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at an effective 17.5 Gbps across a 128-bit bus, yielding 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. Its compute capabilities include 10.79 TFLOPS FP32 and 32 ray accelerators, with a 176 W TDP.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RX 6650 XT scores 17,166 in PassMark G3D and 75,32 in GPU compute, placing it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 19,765 is remarkably close to its nearest rivals: the NVIDIA Tesla K40m is 0.6% higher, while the AMD FirePro D300 is 0.7% lower. This places the GPU in a performance tier where 1080p gaming is comfortable, but 4K is a challenge.

The measured FPS data confirms this. At 1920x1080, the RX 6650 XT delivers 122 FPS on Low, 87 FPS on Medium, 77 FPS on High, and 67 FPS on Ultra. Moving to 2560x1440, those numbers drop to 93, 66, 58, and 51 FPS respectively. At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overextended: Low yields 63 FPS, Medium 44 FPS, High 39 FPS, and Ultra just 34 FPS. The VRAM capacity of 8 GB is likely a contributing factor at 4K Ultra, where texture data can exceed available memory, but the average FPS of 34 indicates a playable but not smooth experience.

The GPU’s 65th percentile ranking versus all GPUs means that it sits in the upper-middle tier of graphics cards. For Control, this translates to a card that excels at 1080p, handles 1440p reasonably well, and requires significant settings reductions at 4K to maintain playable frame rates. The 280.3 GB/s memory bandwidth is adequate for the game’s data streaming needs at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K, the combination of pixel fill rate (168.6 GPixel/s) and texture rate (337.3 GTexel/s) becomes the limiting factor, as evidenced by the FPS scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution.

FAQ

Q: How does this Ryzen 7 9700F compare to its closest CPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700F’s average benchmark score of 69,996 is virtually tied with the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (69,875, 0.2% higher) and the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70,163, 0.2% lower). It also leads the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X by 0.7% and the Intel Core i7-14700K by 0.9%, showing that this desktop CPU is competitively positioned against both mobile and desktop flagship parts.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the sweet spot. At Medium settings, the combo achieves 87 FPS average, and at High it remains at 77 FPS. At 2560x1440, High settings produce 58 FPS, which is still playable, but 4K High drops to 39 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The 1080p resolution provides the best balance of image quality and performance.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 1440p and 4K?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 77 at 1920x1080 to 58 at 2560x1440, a 25% reduction, and then to 39 at 3840x2160, a 49% reduction from the 1440p figure. At Low settings, the drop is from 122 FPS at 1080p to 93 FPS at 1440p (24% less) and then to 63 FPS at 4K (32% less). These scaling patterns indicate a GPU-bound scenario.

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

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting component. Evidence comes from the fact that at 1920x1080 Low, the combo hits 122 FPS, but at 3840x2160 Ultra, it falls to 34 FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would not change as dramatically with resolution and settings. The CPU’s 94th percentile ranking versus the GPU’s 65th percentile further supports this conclusion.

Q: What is the combo’s ranking among all tested systems for Control?

A: This pairing ranks 1875 out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the 35th percentile. This means that roughly 65% of tested systems perform better in this game, which is consistent with the RX 6650 XT being a mid-range GPU paired with a high-end CPU.

Q: How do the measured FPS numbers at Medium settings compare across resolutions?

A: At Medium settings, the average FPS is 87 at 1080p, 66 at 1440p, and 44 at 4K. The minimum FPS also scales: 74 at 1080p, 56 at 1440p, and 38 at 4K. This consistent drop of roughly 25% per resolution step confirms that the GPU’s rendering capabilities are the primary determinant of performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 1875 out of 2888 configurations places it in the 35th percentile of all tested systems for Control. This is a below-average position, driven almost entirely by the GPU’s mid-range standing. The RX 6650 XT’s 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs is the anchor, while the CPU’s 94th percentile ranking is effectively wasted in this title, as it is never the limiting factor. The delta between the CPU’s high synthetic scores and the combo’s low game rank highlights a common imbalance: a processor that can handle far more demanding workloads paired with a graphics card that caps the gaming experience.

When compared to the GPU’s nearest rivals, the RX 6650 XT performs within 0.8% of the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and AMD FirePro W7000, both of which are professional-grade cards. This suggests that the gaming performance is on par with older workstation hardware, which is not ideal for a modern title like Control. The CPU’s nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and Intel Core i7-14700K, are all within 0.9% of its score, meaning that swapping the CPU would have negligible impact on game performance. The bottleneck is unequivocally the GPU.

The practical implication of this ranking is that users should not expect high-refresh-rate 4K gaming or maxed-out settings at any resolution. The combo is best suited for 1080p gaming with high to ultra settings, where it sits comfortably above the 60 FPS mark. At 1440p, it drops to the 50-60 FPS range on high settings, which is acceptable for most players. The rank also suggests that this system is better positioned for esports titles or less demanding games than for graphically intensive action-adventure games like Control.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound scaling curve. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 122 at 1920x1080 to 93 at 2560x1440 (a 23.8% drop) and then to 63 at 3840x2160 (a 32.3% drop from 1440p). At High settings, the progression is 77 FPS to 58 FPS to 39 FPS, representing drops of 24.7% and 32.8% respectively. This consistent pattern—roughly a 25% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and another 30% reduction from 1440p to 4K—is characteristic of a GPU that is running out of pixel throughput as resolution increases.

The limiting component is clearly the RX 6650 XT. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the FPS drops proportionally with the number of pixels, which quadruples from 1080p to 4K but only results in a 50% FPS reduction on High settings (from 77 to 39). This less-than-linear drop indicates that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound but is also limited by memory bandwidth and texture fill rate as the resolution increases.

Interestingly, the scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution is also telling. At 1080p, going from Low to Ultra costs 55 FPS (from 122 to 67), a 45% reduction. At 4K, the same settings change costs 29 FPS (from 63 to 34), a 46% reduction. This proportional penalty suggests that the GPU’s shading units and ROPs are the limiting factor, rather than VRAM capacity, as the relative performance drop is consistent across resolutions. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K Ultra, it may be close to its limit, as evidenced by the 34 FPS average.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best performance. Low settings produce an average of 122 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. Medium settings maintain 87 FPS average with a minimum of 74 FPS and a maximum of 100 FPS, indicating a stable experience. High settings yield 77 FPS average, still playable, while Ultra drops to 67 FPS. All 1080p configurations are above 60 FPS average, making this resolution the most viable for a consistent experience.

At 2560x1440, performance becomes more varied. Low settings still provide 93 FPS average, but Medium drops to 66 FPS with a minimum of 56 FPS, which may be noticeable during intense scenes. High settings produce 58 FPS average, which is just below the 60 FPS target, and Ultra falls to 51 FPS. The minimum FPS of 56 at Medium settings suggests that occasional dips below 60 FPS are possible, making High or Ultra settings less ideal for competitive play or fast-paced action.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overworked. Low settings achieve 63 FPS average, which is playable, but Medium drops to 44 FPS with a minimum of 38 FPS. High settings produce 39 FPS, and Ultra falls to 34 FPS. None of the 4K configurations, except Low, reach the 60 FPS target. The minimum FPS of 38 at Medium settings indicates that the experience can become stuttery during demanding sequences. This resolution is only recommended for players who prioritize visual fidelity over smoothness.

Settings Recommendations

For the best balance of visual quality and performance, Medium settings at 1920x1080 are the clear recommendation. This configuration delivers an average of 87 FPS with a minimum of 74 FPS, ensuring a smooth experience without significant visual compromises. The jump to High settings at this resolution costs 10 FPS (down to 77 FPS), which is still acceptable, but the minimum FPS data is not provided, so Medium offers the most reliable frame pacing based on the available metrics.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings provide 66 FPS average with a minimum of 56 FPS, which is playable but may show occasional dips. Low settings at this resolution deliver 93 FPS, making it a viable alternative for players who prioritize frame rate over visual detail. High settings at 58 FPS are borderline, and Ultra at 51 FPS is not recommended for a consistently smooth experience.

For 4K gaming, Low settings are the only viable option, producing 63 FPS average. This sacrifices significant visual quality but is the only way to approach 60 FPS at this resolution. Medium settings at 44 FPS and High at 39 FPS are playable for slower-paced exploration, but the minimum FPS of 38 at Medium suggests that combat sequences may become difficult to follow. Ultra settings at 34 FPS are not recommended, as the frame rate drops below the threshold for comfortable gameplay.

The data suggests that the ideal experience is 1080p Medium, which offers a high frame rate with a comfortable minimum FPS cushion. For players with 1440p monitors, Medium settings strike the best compromise, while 4K should be reserved for Low settings or avoided entirely if smooth performance is a priority. The combo’s strengths lie in 1080p and 1440p gaming, where the CPU’s headroom ensures that the GPU is the only factor influencing frame rate.