Control

# Control with AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER delivers a telling picture of bottleneck behavior in Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title. With the CPU ranking in the 92nd percentile among all processors and the GPU sitting in the 53rd percentile, the data reveals a system where the graphics card is the clear limiting factor at higher resolutions, yet the CPU's strength becomes apparent at lower settings. The measured FPS across 12 configurations—spanning three resolutions and four quality presets—shows how this combination behaves when the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 5.027 TFLOPS of compute are pushed against the Ryzen 7 9850X3D's 8 cores and 16 threads.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals the GPU-bound nature of this pairing. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 91 FPS at 1920x1080 to 69 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 46 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 49.5% reduction from 1080p to 4K, a steep decline that points squarely at the GTX 1660 SUPER as the bottleneck. The GPU's 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 192-bit bus width are simply overwhelmed as pixel count quadruples, while the Ryzen 7 9850X3D's 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth and 96 MB of L3 cache remain largely untapped.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is even more punishing: 50 FPS at 1080p drops to 38 FPS at 1440p, then to 25 FPS at 4K—a 50% loss from 1080p to 4K. The pattern across all presets confirms that resolution scaling is governed almost entirely by the GPU's fill rate and shading capacity. The GTX 1660 SUPER's 85.68 GPixel/s pixel rate and 157.1 GTexel/s texture rate are fixed hardware limits, and the data shows these limits being hit hard as resolution climbs. Interestingly, the gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 41 FPS (91 vs 50), while at 4K the gap narrows to 21 FPS (46 vs 25), suggesting that at higher resolutions the GPU is so saturated that preset changes yield diminishing returns.

The Medium preset provides the only complete min/max FPS data in the pack, offering a window into frame pacing. At 1080p Medium, the range is 55-74 FPS with an average of 64; at 1440p Medium, it is 41-56 FPS with an average of 49; at 4K Medium, it is 28-38 FPS with an average of 33. The consistency of the spread—roughly 19-20 FPS between min and max across resolutions—indicates that the GPU is delivering steady frame delivery without CPU-induced hitches, reinforcing that the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is not the constraining component. The CPU's PassMark multithread score of 41318 and single-thread score of 4704 suggest ample headroom for Control's physics and AI workloads, which is consistent with the observed stable frame times.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS achievable with this combo at 1080p?

A: The highest measured average is 91 FPS at Low settings and 1920x1080. The next highest is 64 FPS at Medium, followed by 57 FPS at High and 50 FPS at Ultra.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER's average benchmark score is 12986, placing it 0.4% ahead of the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940) and 0.4% ahead of the RX 580 (12928), while being 0.7% behind the Tesla M2090 (13075) and 0.9% ahead of the Radeon 740M (12870).

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 9850X3D a bottleneck at 4K in Control?

A: The data suggests no. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 25, while at 4K Low it is 46. This wide spread across presets indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, as a CPU bottleneck would show similar FPS regardless of graphics settings.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested configurations in Control?

A: This combo ranks 2471 out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the lower 15th percentile of all configurations for this game.

Q: Does the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB VRAM cause issues at 4K?

A: While the data does not include VRAM usage metrics, the observed 4K averages of 25-46 FPS across presets suggest the GPU's 6 GB capacity and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for smooth 4K play, though the game does run.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 9850X3D compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 58386, which is 0.1% ahead of the Xeon Platinum 8260M (58323), 0.5% ahead of the Core i9-14900 (58115), 0.2% behind the Xeon w5-2545 (58504), and 0.7% behind the Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 (58826).

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p gameplay, the Medium preset at 64 FPS average represents the best balance of visual quality and performance, especially given that the min FPS of 55 stays above common 60 Hz display thresholds. High settings at 57 FPS average is a close second, but the 7 FPS drop from Medium to High may not justify the visual gains for most users. Ultra at 50 FPS average is playable but dips below the 60 FPS target, making it a compromise for those prioritizing image quality over smoothness. Low at 91 FPS is the clear choice for competitive play or high-refresh monitors, but the visual downgrade is significant.

At 1440p, Medium at 49 FPS average is the recommended starting point, as it maintains a playable experience with a 41 FPS minimum. High at 43 FPS and Ultra at 38 FPS are increasingly demanding, with the latter approaching the 30 FPS console-like territory. Low at 69 FPS is surprisingly strong and suggests that players willing to sacrifice quality can achieve near-60 FPS at 1440p with this GPU. The data indicates that 1440p Low (69 FPS) is a more viable option than 1080p Ultra (50 FPS) for those prioritizing frame rate, though the visual differences between these presets are substantial.

At 4K, none of the presets deliver a consistently smooth experience. Medium at 33 FPS average with a 28 FPS minimum is the most playable option, but it falls short of the 60 FPS target by a wide margin. Low at 46 FPS is the highest average, but the lack of min/max data for that preset makes it harder to assess frame stability. Ultra at 25 FPS is borderline unplayable for most action games. The recommendation for 4K is to accept that this GPU is not suited for the resolution in Control, and to either lower to 1440p or reduce settings to Low for the best experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full preset ladder is available. Low produces an average of 91 FPS, Medium produces 64 FPS with a min of 55 and max of 74, High produces 57 FPS, and Ultra produces 50 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 45% performance loss, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium (27 FPS), followed by smaller drops to High (7 FPS) and Ultra (7 FPS). This pattern suggests that the Medium preset captures most of the visual improvements while exacting a proportionally large performance cost, while High and Ultra provide diminishing returns.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 69 FPS (Low), 49 FPS (Medium, min 41, max 56), 43 FPS (High), and 38 FPS (Ultra). The relative scaling from Low to Ultra is a 45% loss, nearly identical to 1080p. However, the absolute FPS values are lower across the board, with the gap between Low and Ultra widening to 31 FPS (from 41 FPS at 1080p). This indicates that the GTX 1660 SUPER is hitting its memory bandwidth limits more severely at 1440p, as the 6 GB frame buffer and 192-bit interface struggle with the increased pixel load.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 46 FPS (Low), 33 FPS (Medium, min 28, max 38), 29 FPS (High), and 25 FPS (Ultra). The performance loss from Low to Ultra is 45.7%, consistent with the other resolutions. Notably, the absolute FPS values are low enough that even the Low preset at 46 FPS would feel choppy on a 60 Hz display. The Medium preset's min of 28 FPS indicates that frame times can become quite long, which would manifest as noticeable stutter during intense action sequences in Control's physics-heavy combat encounters.

GPU Role

The GTX 1660 SUPER's role in this combo is defined by its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory operating at 14 Gbps effective, delivering 336.0 GB/s across a 192-bit bus. The 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs are arranged in a configuration that produces 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and a texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s. These specifications place the GPU in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, with a PassMark G3D score of 12699 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1278. The GPU's nearest rival, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, is 0.4% ahead, while the RX 580 is also 0.4% ahead—indicating that the GTX 1660 SUPER sits in a tightly contested performance tier.

The measured FPS data shows that the GPU's 6 GB VRAM is a significant constraint at 4K, where the average FPS across all presets stays below 50. The 12 GB frame buffer of higher-tier cards would provide more headroom, but this GPU's 6 GB is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p at Medium settings. The boost clock of 1785 MHz and base clock of 1530 MHz are modest by modern standards, yet the GPU manages to deliver playable frame rates at 1080p Medium. The GPU's 125 W TDP and dual-slot design are consistent with its mid-range positioning, and the PCIe 3.0 x16 interface does not appear to be a bottleneck given the CPU's Gen 5 support.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D brings 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. With a base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz, this CPU achieves a PassMark multithread score of 41318 and a single-thread score of 4704. The 96 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB L2 per core provide substantial on-chip storage, which is particularly beneficial for games like Control that feature complex physics simulations and procedural destruction. The CPU's Cinebench R23 scores of 22807 (multi-core) and 2228 (single-core) place it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs.

In Control, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls, handle AI, and manage the game's physics engine. The measured FPS data indicates that the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is more than adequate for this task, as evidenced by the consistent FPS differences between presets at each resolution. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar FPS across Low, Medium, High, and Ultra at a given resolution. Instead, the 41 FPS spread at 1080p (91 Low vs 50 Ultra) and 21 FPS spread at 4K (46 Low vs 25 Ultra) clearly show the GPU as the limiting component. The CPU's PassMark physics score of 4171 and data compression score of 474501 suggest it can handle Control's physics and streaming workloads without issue.

How This Combo Ranks

This combo ranks 2471 out of 2888 tested configurations for Control, placing it in the bottom 15% of all combos. This low ranking is driven almost entirely by the GPU's 53rd percentile standing, as the CPU's 92nd percentile would normally propel a combo much higher. The GTX 1660 SUPER's 12699 PassMark G3D score and 5.027 TFLOPS compute are simply insufficient for a game like Control, which is known for its demanding real-time ray tracing features (though the data does not specify whether those are enabled in the measured results). The combo's rank of 2471 suggests that many other CPU+GPU pairings, even those with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs, would outperform it in this title.

The gap between the CPU's strength and GPU's weakness is stark. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D's average benchmark score of 58386 puts it within 0.7% of the Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 (58826) and 0.5% ahead of the Core i9-14900 (58115), while the GTX 1660 SUPER's 12986 average score is within 0.7% of the Tesla M2090 (13075) and 0.4% of the RX 580 (12928). This pairing creates a scenario where the CPU is effectively idle during GPU-bound scenes, wasting its potential. For Control specifically, the data suggests that a more balanced combo—one with a mid-range CPU and a GPU in the 70th percentile or higher—would achieve a better combo rank, as the game's performance is so heavily weighted toward the graphics card.