Control

This analysis examines the performance of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in Control, based solely on the provided measured data. The dataset includes average FPS, and in some cases minimum and maximum FPS, for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions across Low, Medium, High, and Ultra settings. The goal is to interpret these numbers in the context of the hardware's capabilities and its standing among other tested combinations.

FAQ

*Q: What is the overall ranking of this CPU-GPU combination in Control?*

A: The combo ranks 2789 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom percentile of all tested systems for this game.

Q: How does the GTX 1650's performance compare to its nearest rivals in general benchmarks?

A: In the average benchmark score, the GTX 1650 scores 7472. Its closest rival, the Intel Arc A310, scores 7550, which is 1% higher. Conversely, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425) are all slightly lower, with deltaPct values of 0.3%, 0.4%, and 0.6% respectively.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 9700F's general processing power compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700F has an average benchmark score of 69996. This is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (69875, +0.2% delta) and the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70163, -0.2% delta). It is slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (69515, +0.7% delta) and the Intel Core i7-14700K (69355, +0.9% delta).

Q: What is the best average FPS achievable with this hardware at 1080p?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 56, achieved at the Low settings preset. This is the only setting at 1080p that reaches a playable level of 60 FPS or above, though it falls slightly short, and the minimum FPS is not recorded.

Q: At what resolution and settings does the GPU become the primary bottleneck?

A: The data shows a significant drop in performance when moving from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K. At 4K, the average FPS falls to as low as 16 on Ultra and 18 on High, indicating that the GPU's rendering capacity is the limiting factor at these higher resolutions.

Q: How much faster is the CPU compared to the GPU in their respective benchmark percentiles?

A: The CPU's percentile rank among all CPUs is 94, meaning it outperforms 94% of tested processors. The GPU's percentile rank among all GPUs is 40, meaning it outperforms only 40% of tested graphics cards. This large discrepancy highlights a major performance imbalance in this pairing.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the primary bottleneck in this configuration for Control. The GPU's specifications include 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. Its core clocks are a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz. These figures are modest for a modern game. The data confirms this, as the GPU's percentile rank is a low 40, and its average benchmark score of 7472 is nearly matched by integrated graphics like the Intel UHD Graphics 750.

In the context of Control, the GPU's limitations are starkly visible in the measured FPS. The game's reliance on GPU processing for rendering is evident from the steep decline in performance as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 56. When moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 43, a decrease of 13 FPS. At 4K Low, it falls further to 29. This pattern is consistent across all settings, showing the GPU's pixel throughput is the main constraint. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is also a factor; at higher resolutions and settings, the demand for memory can exceed this, although the FPS figures alone already point to a fundamental lack of compute power.

The GTX 1650's performance is positioned at the bottom of the stack, as its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and Intel UHD Graphics 750. The data shows that even a 1% difference from the Intel Arc A310 is significant, but all these competitors are in a similar low-performance tier. This pairing with a high-end CPU does not compensate for the GPU's inability to handle the rendering load, making it the clear limiting factor in achieving higher frame rates.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F presents a stark contrast to the GPU. This processor is a high-end part, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture. It has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. Its benchmark scores are robust: a Passmark single-thread score of 4691 and a multi-thread score of 36470. The CPU's percentile rank of 94 indicates it is in the top 6% of all processors tested, and its average score of 69996 is on par with top-tier rivals like the Intel Core i7-14700K and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X.

In Control, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics, and draw calls. Given the extremely high performance of this CPU relative to the GPU, it is almost certainly underutilized. The FPS data shows a uniform drop across all settings when resolution increases. For example, at 1080p High, the average is 36 FPS, and at 1440p High, it is 27 FPS. This pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the CPU is capable of delivering frames much faster than the GPU can render them. The CPU's power is proven by its Passmark physics score of 2122, but this raw capability does not translate to higher FPS when the GPU is saturated.

The disparity between the CPU's 94th percentile and the GPU's 40th percentile is the central theme. The Ryzen 7 9700F has the processing headroom to support a much more powerful graphics card. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is not a limiting factor at any resolution or setting tested, as the performance ceiling is consistently set by the GTX 1650. This is a clear case of a high-end processor being paired with an entry-level GPU, resulting in the CPU's potential being largely unrealized in this specific game.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 2789 out of 2888 tested combinations in Control. This places it in the bottom 3.4% of all systems tested, a very low position that reflects the GPU's performance. The ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's low standing, as the CPU is a top-tier part. The data suggests that this pairing is heavily imbalanced, with the GPU significantly dragging down the overall system performance.

Given the CPU's benchmark scores, it is clear that the processor is not the reason for this low rank. The CPU's average benchmark score of 69996 places it in the same performance class as the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and Intel Core i7-14700K, which are flagship-level processors. However, the GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472 is in a class with integrated graphics. The combo rank of 2789 is a result of this mismatch, illustrating how a weak GPU can negate the benefits of a strong CPU. In a game like Control, which has demanding graphics, the GPU is the decisive component for overall performance.

The ranking also highlights the performance tier this system occupies. It is not a mid-range or even a budget gaming system; it is at the very bottom of the performance spectrum for this game. The 2789th rank out of 2888 is a strong indicator that the system will struggle to provide a smooth experience at most settings. The only configuration that approaches acceptable playability is 1080p with Low settings, which still only yields an average of 56 FPS. This data point reinforces the idea that the system's overall ranking is primarily a reflection of the GPU's limited capabilities.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data shows a clear and predictable decline as the resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, which is a classic sign of a GPU-limited system. Examining the Medium preset, which has complete data, provides a clear picture. At 1920x1080, the average FPS is 40. At 2560x1440, it drops to 30, a 25% reduction. At 3840x2160, it falls to 20, a further 33% reduction from the 1440p score and a 50% reduction from the 1080p score.

This scaling pattern indicates that the GTX 1650 is the primary limiting component. As the resolution increases, the number of pixels the GPU must process grows exponentially. The GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth, which are 53.28 GPixel/s and 128.1 GB/s respectively, are insufficient to maintain performance at higher resolutions. The CPU, with its high core count and clock speeds, has no trouble feeding the GPU with data; the bottleneck is purely in the rendering pipeline.

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is significant across all settings. For instance, on Low settings, the average FPS drops from 56 at 1080p to 29 at 4K. On High settings, it drops from 36 to 18. This consistent pattern across different quality presets confirms that the resolution is the dominant factor in performance variation. The data suggests that to achieve a playable frame rate, the resolution must be kept low, as the GPU does not have the horsepower to handle higher pixel counts. The scaling behavior is a textbook example of a system where the GPU is the only thing that matters for performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at the system's performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows:

• Low: Average FPS is 56, with no min/max recorded.
• Medium: Average FPS is 40, with a minimum of 34 and a maximum of 46.
• High: Average FPS is 36, with no min/max recorded.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 31, with no min/max recorded.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably:

• Low: Average FPS is 43, with no min/max recorded.
• Medium: Average FPS is 30, with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 35.
• High: Average FPS is 27, with no min/max recorded.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 23, with no min/max recorded.

At 3840x2160, the system is heavily strained:

• Low: Average FPS is 29, with no min/max recorded.
• Medium: Average FPS is 20, with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 24.
• High: Average FPS is 18, with no min/max recorded.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 16, with no min/max recorded.

The data shows a clear hierarchy. The best possible average FPS is 56, achieved at 1080p Low. This is the only configuration that comes close to the 60 FPS target, but it still falls short. At 1080p Medium, the average is 40, and at High, it is 36, which are both playable but not smooth. At 1440p, all settings produce average FPS below 45, with Ultra dipping to 23. At 4K, the system is effectively unplayable, with all average FPS values being 29 or lower. The minimum FPS values recorded for Medium settings at each resolution (34 at 1080p, 26 at 1440p, 17 at 4K) indicate that frame pacing can be inconsistent, making the experience feel even less smooth than the average suggests.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS, the optimal experience with this hardware in Control is achieved at 1080p with the Low settings preset. This configuration yields an average FPS of 56, which is the highest score recorded. While it does not reach a locked 60 FPS, it is the only preset that approaches a smooth, playable frame rate. The data suggests that any other setting or resolution will result in a more pronounced compromise on performance.

For players who prioritize visual quality over a high frame rate, 1080p Medium is a viable alternative, offering an average of 40 FPS. However, the minimum FPS of 34 indicates that there will be noticeable dips. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p, with averages of 36 and 31, are less desirable as they provide diminishing visual returns for a significant drop in performance. At 1440p, even the Low preset only averages 43 FPS, making it a poor choice for a game that benefits from smooth motion. The 4K resolution should be avoided, as all settings result in an average FPS below 30, which is not a playable experience.

The data indicates that the GTX 1650 is the limiting factor, and the settings must be adjusted to accommodate its capabilities. The recommended configuration is, therefore, 1080p with Low settings to maximize frame rate. If a player is willing to accept a lower frame rate, 1080p Medium offers a balance, but the performance data clearly shows that pushing the resolution or settings higher will result in a significant and undesirable impact on the game's smoothness. The system's low combo rank of 2789 out of 2888 reinforces that this hardware is at the bottom of the performance curve for Control.