Control

# Control with AMD Ryzen 7 9700F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

This combination pairs a modern 8-core Zen 5 processor with a legacy Pascal-era GPU, creating one of the most lopsided pairings in the benchmark database. The measured results across Control's resolution and settings matrix tell a clear story: the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the definitive bottleneck, while the Ryzen 7 9700F operates far below its potential. The data shows a combo ranking of 2854 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing this pairing in the bottom 1.2% of all tested systems for this game. That ranking, combined with the FPS figures across all resolutions, indicates a system where the GPU's age and memory limitations fundamentally cap the experience.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep and consistent decline as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 46 FPS, but dropping to 2560x1440 Low reduces that to 34 FPS, a 26% decrease. Moving further to 3840x2160 Low yields only 23 FPS, which is exactly half of the 1080p Low result. The scaling pattern across all settings shows that every resolution step costs roughly 25-30% of performance, which points squarely at the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth as the limiting factors. The GTX 1050 Ti's 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 44.54 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply not sufficient to feed higher resolution framebuffers, regardless of the CPU's capabilities.

At Medium settings, the pattern repeats with 32 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. The High preset sees 29, 22, and 15 FPS respectively, while Ultra drops to 25, 19, and 13 FPS. The consistent ~7-8 FPS penalty between 1080p and 1440p, and another ~7 FPS penalty between 1440p and 4K, suggests that the GPU is hitting a hard computational wall rather than a memory capacity issue. If the 4 GB VRAM were the primary constraint, the scaling would show a more dramatic cliff at higher resolutions, but instead the decline is linear. This linearity indicates that the GP107 chip's 768 shading units and 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are simply overwhelmed by the pixel workload at higher resolutions. The Ryzen 7 9700F, with its 5.50 GHz boost clock and 8 cores, is unquestionably not the constraint here. Even at 4K Ultra, where the system manages only 13 FPS, the CPU is likely idling while the GPU struggles to complete each frame.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a Pascal architecture GPU on a 14 nm process, released in 2016 with a launch MSRP of 139 USD. Its specifications include 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.1 GB/s bandwidth. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1291 MHz and a boost clock of 1392 MHz, with memory running at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). These numbers place the GPU in the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database, and its average benchmark score of 4193 puts it in the company of the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (0.6% faster) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (1% faster). The GTX 1050 Ti's nearest rivals are all mobile or low-end desktop parts, which underscores its position as an entry-level GPU even among its contemporaries.

In Control specifically, the GPU's 4 GB VRAM capacity is a critical factor. At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the game uses enough memory to keep the system at 32 FPS, but the min FPS of 27 FPS suggests occasional stutters when memory pressure spikes. The 128-bit memory bus and 112.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the game's streaming requirements at higher resolutions. At 4K, the 4 GB VRAM is likely exceeded, which would explain why the Ultra preset at 3840x2160 manages only 13 FPS — the GPU is both compute-bound and memory-throttled. The DirectX 12 score of 26 in Passmark and the DirectX 11 score of 45 further illustrate the GPU's age; modern titles like Control, which leverage DX12 features, will not perform well on this architecture. The GPU's 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it a low-power part, but that efficiency does not translate to gaming performance in this title.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of playable settings for this combo. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 46 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches a smooth experience. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 FPS, which is borderline playable but will feel inconsistent during action sequences. High and Ultra at 1080p drop to 29 and 25 FPS respectively, both below the threshold for a comfortable gaming experience. For 1440p, the Low preset's 34 FPS is the only viable option, while at 4K, every preset falls below 23 FPS, making the game effectively unplayable at that resolution. The data indicates that 1080p Low is the only setting that provides a genuinely playable frame rate, with 1080p Medium as a secondary option for users who prioritize visual quality over smoothness.

The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 14 FPS (from 46 to 32), which is a 30% performance penalty for what is typically a moderate visual improvement. The jump from Medium to High costs another 3 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 4 FPS. This diminishing return pattern suggests that the Low preset is the sweet spot for this GPU, with Medium being acceptable only if the user can tolerate sub-30 FPS dips. At higher resolutions, the settings sliders have less impact because the GPU is already saturated; the difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 10 FPS (23 vs 13), compared to a 21 FPS difference at 1080p (46 vs 25). This compression of the settings range at higher resolutions further confirms that the GPU's raw throughput is the binding constraint.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2854 out of 2888 tested combinations places this pairing in the bottom 1.2% of all systems tested in Control. This ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU, given that the GTX 1050 Ti sits in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the Ryzen 7 9700F sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The discrepancy between these two percentiles — a 69-point gap — is among the largest in the database and indicates a severely unbalanced pairing. The CPU's average benchmark score of 69996 places it near the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (0.2% faster), Intel Core i7-14700KF (0.2% slower), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (0.7% faster), and Intel Core i7-14700K (0.9% faster). These are all high-end processors from recent generations, and the 9700F holds its own against them in synthetic benchmarks. Yet in Control, the system performs as if it has a low-end CPU, because the GPU caps every frame.

The ranking data implies that the vast majority of the 2888 tested combos deliver better performance than this pairing. The 34 combinations ranked below this one likely feature even older or weaker GPUs, possibly integrated graphics or mobile parts from a decade ago. For a system with a 2025-era CPU and a 2016-era GPU, the ranking reflects the GPU's age more than any other factor. The data suggests that pairing the Ryzen 7 9700F with even a mid-range GPU from the last few years would dramatically improve the combo's rank, as the CPU has ample headroom to support much higher frame rates.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is a Zen 5 architecture processor built on TSMC's 4 nm process, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads. Its base clock of 3.80 GHz boosts to 5.50 GHz, and it includes 32 MB of shared L3 cache alongside 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. In synthetic benchmarks, the 9700F demonstrates strong performance: its Passmark multithread score of 36470 and single-thread score of 4691 place it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The floating point math score of 77955 and integer math score of 120788 indicate substantial computational headroom for physics and AI workloads in games.

In Control, however, the CPU's capabilities are entirely untapped. The game is not CPU-intensive at the resolutions tested; even at 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the system only reaches 46 FPS. Control's engine, which relies on physics and destructible environments, can benefit from strong multi-core CPUs, but the GTX 1050 Ti cannot produce frames fast enough to engage the 9700F's full potential. The CPU's 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the GPU's 112.1 GB/s (though the comparison is not direct, as the CPU and GPU use separate memory pools), and the CPU's 8 cores at 5.50 GHz boost are far beyond what Control requires at these frame rates. The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in any measured configuration; the GPU is the bottleneck in all 12 measured scenarios.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system in Control?

A: The measured data shows that 1920x1080 with Low settings produces 46 FPS, which is the highest frame rate of any configuration. At 1080p Medium, the system drops to 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 FPS, which is playable but less smooth.

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 9700F or the GTX 1050 Ti the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The GTX 1050 Ti sits in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the Ryzen 7 9700F is in the 94th percentile. The frame rates across all resolutions and settings are consistent with GPU-bound performance.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems in Control?

A: This pairing ranks 2854 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 1.2% of all systems. Only 34 combinations perform worse.

Q: Can this system play Control at 4K?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the best measured result is 23 FPS on Low settings, with Medium at 17 FPS, High at 15 FPS, and Ultra at 13 FPS. All 4K configurations fall well below playable frame rates.

Q: What is the CPU's benchmark performance relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700F's average benchmark score of 69996 is 0.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX, 0.2% lower than the Intel Core i7-14700KF, 0.7% lower than the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, and 0.9% lower than the Intel Core i7-14700K.

Q: Does increasing graphics settings from Low to Ultra have a proportional impact on FPS?

A: No. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 21 FPS (46 to 25), but at 4K, the difference is only 10 FPS (23 to 13). The settings impact diminishes as resolution increases because the GPU becomes saturated.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system achieves 46 FPS on Low settings, 32 FPS on Medium (with minimum 27 and maximum 37 FPS), 29 FPS on High, and 25 FPS on Ultra. The 1080p results show the widest spread between presets, indicating that the GPU has some headroom at this resolution to respond to settings changes.

At 2560x1440, the measured averages are 34 FPS on Low, 24 FPS on Medium (with minimum 21 and maximum 28 FPS), 22 FPS on High, and 19 FPS on Ultra. The 1440p results compress the range between Low and Ultra to 15 FPS, compared to 21 FPS at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the system delivers 23 FPS on Low, 17 FPS on Medium (with minimum 14 and maximum 19 FPS), 15 FPS on High, and 13 FPS on Ultra. The 4K results show the narrowest spread of only 10 FPS between Low and Ultra, demonstrating that the GPU is at its absolute limit even on the lowest settings. The min FPS values are only recorded for Medium settings across all resolutions, but the available data shows 27 FPS at 1080p, 21 FPS at 1440p, and 14 FPS at 4K, indicating that frame pacing becomes more erratic as resolution increases. The overall pattern across all 12 measured configurations shows a system that is unequivocally GPU-limited, with the CPU's substantial capabilities having no measurable impact on the final frame rates.