Control

# Control with AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 produces a heavily GPU-limited experience in Control, with the CPU sitting at the 92nd percentile among all processors while the GPU sits at just the 40th percentile. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings presets confirm that this combination ranks 2789th out of 2888 tested combos in this game, placing it in the bottom 4% of all configurations. The data shows a system where the GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute become the primary constraint, while the 9850X3D's 8 cores and 16 threads at up to 5.60 GHz boost clock remain largely underutilized.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and consistent across all settings presets, revealing a classic GPU-bound scenario. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 56 FPS at 1920x1080 to 43 FPS at 2560x1440 (a 23% reduction), then further to 29 FPS at 3840x2160 (a 48% reduction from 1440p). At High settings, the progression is 36 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K — the same relative drop pattern. Medium settings show 40 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 20 FPS at 4K, while Ultra settings degrade from 31 FPS at 1080p to 23 FPS at 1440p and 16 FPS at 4K.

The scaling behavior indicates that pixel throughput is the limiting factor. Moving from 1080p to 4K increases the pixel count by roughly 4.4 times, but the measured FPS does not drop by that same factor — it drops by roughly 50-55% depending on preset. This suggests that while the GPU is the bottleneck, the game's rendering workload does not scale perfectly linearly with resolution, likely due to fixed-cost CPU-side processing that becomes relatively more significant at lower resolutions. At 1080p, the GTX 1650's 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate and 93.24 GTexel/s texture rate are simply insufficient to maintain high frame rates even at Low settings.

The diminishing returns of resolution scaling are visible in the data: the gap between 1440p and 4K (roughly 33-38% FPS reduction) is smaller than the gap between 1080p and 1440p (roughly 23-26% FPS reduction) at equivalent settings. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU is so far past its effective range that additional pixel load produces less relative impact — the card is already saturated. For practical purposes, the GTX 1650 cannot deliver playable performance at 4K in Control under any preset, with the highest 4K result being 29 FPS at Low settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the TU117 chip using TSMC's 12 nm process, with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock of 1485 MHz boosts to 1665 MHz, delivering 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute from 896 shading units. The memory clock runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective), and the card features 56 TMUs and 32 ROPs. With a 75 W TDP and no power connectors required, this is a low-power card that draws entirely from the PCIe slot.

In Control, the GPU's limitations are stark. The highest measured average FPS across all 12 tested configurations is 56 FPS at 1080p Low, and the lowest is 16 FPS at 4K Ultra. The card's 4 GB VRAM is likely a significant constraint at higher resolutions and settings, though the measured data does not include VRAM usage figures. The benchmark results show that the GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472 places it at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% ahead), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% ahead), AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% ahead), and Intel Arc A310 (1% behind).

The GTX 1650's DirectX performance in synthetic benchmarks is telling — it scores 58 in Passmark DirectX 11, 35 in DirectX 12, and 39 in DirectX 10. These are extremely low scores, suggesting the card struggles with modern API workloads. Control uses DirectX 12 (the card supports DirectX 12_1), and the measured FPS reflects this weakness. The gap between Low and Ultra settings at any given resolution is roughly 40-45%, which is typical for a GPU of this class — the settings presets primarily affect shading quality, texture filtering, and post-processing, all of which load the GPU's fixed-function units.

The GPU's 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth becomes a critical bottleneck at higher resolutions where texture fetch demands increase. At 4K, even the Low preset (29 FPS) cannot maintain playable frame rates, and the Ultra preset drops to 16 FPS. This pattern is consistent with a card whose memory subsystem is overwhelmed by the increased data demands of higher resolutions.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D is a Zen 5 (Granite Ridge) processor on the AM5 socket, manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process. It features 8 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 96 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The CPU's 120 W TDP and unlocked multiplier make it a high-end desktop part.

In the context of Control, the CPU is massively over-provisioned relative to the GPU. The 9850X3D's benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance — Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22807 and single-core score of 2228, with a Passmark multithread score of 41318 and single-thread score of 4704. Its average benchmark score of 58386 places it at the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (0.1% ahead), Intel Xeon w5-2545 (0.2% behind), Intel Core i9-14900 (0.5% ahead), and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 (0.7% behind).

The data indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution or settings preset. The FPS differences between 1080p and 4K at the same settings are entirely attributable to GPU load. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 56 FPS, which is the highest measured result — this is still well below what the 9850X3D could feed a more capable GPU. Control is not a CPU-heavy game in this configuration, as evidenced by the uniform FPS scaling across resolutions. If the CPU were a bottleneck, we would expect to see smaller FPS differences between resolutions, particularly at low settings where GPU load is reduced.

The CPU's 96 MB of L3 cache and high boost clock of 5.60 GHz are more than sufficient for Control's single-threaded game logic and physics. The 8 cores and 16 threads handle background tasks and streaming without issue, but the game's rendering pipeline is entirely constrained by the GTX 1650's output. The Passmark physics score of 4171 and floating point math score of 81998 indicate robust computational throughput, but these capabilities are not exercised in this GPU-bound scenario.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimizing the experience with this hardware combination. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 56 FPS average, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that approaches smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 1080p drops to 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS and maximum of 46 FPS, while High yields 36 FPS and Ultra drops to 31 FPS. For a game like Control, which features fast-paced combat and environmental destruction, the jump from Low to Medium costs 16 FPS (a 29% reduction) while High costs an additional 4 FPS and Ultra another 5 FPS.

The data suggests that 1080p Low is the only truly playable configuration, offering 56 FPS average. The Medium preset at 1080p provides 40 FPS average with a 34 FPS minimum, which may be acceptable for players who prioritize visual quality over smoothness, but the 34 FPS minimum indicates potential stutter during intense scenes. At 2560x1440, the best result is 43 FPS at Low settings, which is marginal but playable; Medium drops to 30 FPS and High to 27 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset achieves playable frame rates — the best is 29 FPS at Low, which is below the 30 FPS threshold typically considered minimum for playability.

Given the measured rows, the recommended configuration is 1920x1080 with the Low preset for the best balance of frame rate and responsiveness. Players who can tolerate lower frame rates may choose 1080p Medium for improved visual fidelity, accepting the 40 FPS average and 34 FPS minimum. The 1440p Low preset offers 43 FPS and is a viable alternative for users with 1440p displays who prioritize resolution over settings quality. Avoid Ultra settings at any resolution — the visual improvement over High is minimal while the FPS cost is significant (from 36 to 31 FPS at 1080p, and from 18 to 16 FPS at 4K).

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K?

A: The data shows no playable 4K configuration. The best 4K result is 29 FPS at Low settings, with Medium at 20 FPS, High at 18 FPS, and Ultra at 16 FPS. All 4K results fall below the 30 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1080p?

A: The Low preset at 1920x1080 delivers 56 FPS average, the highest measured result in the dataset. Medium drops to 40 FPS, High to 36 FPS, and Ultra to 31 FPS. Low is the only preset that maintains a consistently smooth frame rate.

Q: How does the CPU compare to similar processors?

A: The Ryzen 7 9850X3D has an average benchmark score of 58386, placing it at the 92nd percentile. It scores 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M, 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900, and 0.7% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470.

Q: Is the GTX 1650 a bottleneck in this configuration?

A: Yes. The GPU sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs with an average score of 7472, while the CPU sits at the 92nd percentile. The FPS scaling across resolutions confirms GPU-bound performance, with frame rates dropping by roughly 50% from 1080p to 4K at every settings preset.

Q: What is the minimum FPS at 1080p Medium?

A: The measured minimum is 34 FPS with a maximum of 46 FPS and an average of 40 FPS. This indicates some frame time variance, but the minimum remains above 30 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472 is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 750, 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon R7 350, and 1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are as follows: Low preset delivers 56 FPS, Medium delivers 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS and maximum of 46 FPS, High delivers 36 FPS, and Ultra delivers 31 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 25 FPS total drop, with the largest single-step decrease occurring between Low and Medium (16 FPS).

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low preset delivers 43 FPS, Medium delivers 30 FPS with a minimum of 26 FPS and maximum of 35 FPS, High delivers 27 FPS, and Ultra delivers 23 FPS. The 1440p results are consistently 23-25% lower than their 1080p counterparts at the same settings preset.

At 3840x2160, the measured results are: Low preset delivers 29 FPS, Medium delivers 20 FPS with a minimum of 17 FPS and maximum of 24 FPS, High delivers 18 FPS, and Ultra delivers 16 FPS. The 4K results are 48-52% lower than the 1440p results at equivalent settings, and 68-72% lower than the 1080p results.

The complete dataset shows a consistent pattern: each step up in resolution reduces frame rates by roughly a quarter to a third, while each step up in settings at a fixed resolution reduces frame rates by roughly 10-20%. The only configuration that exceeds 50 FPS is 1080p Low, and the only configurations that exceed 40 FPS are 1080p Low (56 FPS), 1080p Medium (40 FPS), and 1440p Low (43 FPS). All other configurations fall below 40 FPS, and all 4K configurations fall below 30 FPS. The Medium presets are the only ones with measured minimum and maximum values, showing a 10-12 FPS variance range at each resolution.