Control

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 presents a stark example of GPU-bound performance in Control. The data shows a massive processor with 16 cores and 32 threads paired with a graphics card that is the clear limiting factor in this title. The benchmark results indicate that to get a playable experience, settings and resolution must be tailored strictly to the GTX 1650's capabilities, as the CPU's potential is largely untapped here.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data clearly indicates that the Low preset is the only viable option for achieving smooth gameplay on this system. At 1080p, the Low preset yields an average of 58 FPS, which is the only setting in the entire matrix that approaches the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 1080p drops to 38.2 FPS, which is a significant 34% decrease from Low, and High falls further to 34.3 FPS. Pushing to Ultra at 1080p results in 32.5 FPS, showing that the jump from High to Ultra costs less performance than the jump from Low to Medium, but still leaves the game in a sub-optimal range.

The situation worsens at higher resolutions. At 1440p, even the Low preset only manages 42.3 FPS, while Medium and High drop to 29.7 and 29 FPS respectively. At 4K, the Low preset is the only setting that breaks the 20 FPS barrier, achieving 29.3 FPS, but this is still far from a smooth experience. The data suggests that players should prioritize the Low preset, and if visual fidelity is desired, they should consider that the performance cost of higher settings is steep. For a consistent frame rate, sticking to 1080p with Low settings is the only recommendation that provides a fluid experience, as the step up to Medium at 1080p costs nearly 20 FPS.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the definitive bottleneck in this configuration. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth is a modest allocation for a game like Control, which is known for its dense environments and particle effects. The GPU's 896 shading units and 32 ROPs are reflected in its benchmark scores, such as a Passmark G3D score of 7880, which places it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals, like the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, show that it is a mid-to-low-tier performer, with the data showing the GTX 1650 trailing the Radeon Pro WX 5100 by 0.5% in average benchmark score.

The GPU's clock speeds, with a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz, are not enough to compensate for the limited memory bandwidth and raw compute power. The FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is a clear indicator of its capabilities. In Control, this translates to the dramatic FPS drops seen when moving from Low to Medium settings, as the GPU struggles to handle the increased texture detail and shading complexity. The 4K Ultra result of 14.2 FPS is a direct consequence of the GPU being overwhelmed, and the data suggests that this card is fundamentally unsuited for high-fidelity or high-resolution play in this title.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and highlights the GPU limitation. At the Low preset, the average FPS falls from 58 at 1080p to 42.3 at 1440p (a 27% drop) and then to 29.3 at 4K (a 49% drop from 1080p). This scaling pattern indicates that the GTX 1650's fill rate and memory bandwidth are being saturated as the pixel count increases. The drop is not linear, suggesting that at 4K, the GPU is hitting a hard wall in its ability to process the required geometry and textures.

For the High preset, the trend is similar, with FPS dropping from 34.3 at 1080p to 29 at 1440p and then to 17.6 at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is nearly 49%, again pointing to the GPU as the primary constraint. The data shows that the CPU, despite its immense power, is not able to influence these numbers. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller difference between resolutions at the same settings, but the consistent and large FPS drops across all presets confirm that the GTX 1650 is the sole factor limiting performance.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for a playable frame rate at 1080p?

A: The Low preset is the only option that provides a near-60 FPS experience, averaging 58 FPS at 1920x1080. All other presets at this resolution fall below 40 FPS, with Medium at 38.2 FPS and High at 34.3 FPS.

Q: Can this system handle 1440p gaming in Control?

A: The data shows that even the Low preset at 2560x1440 only averages 42.3 FPS. This is playable for some, but it is a significant step down from the 1080p Low experience, and higher presets at this resolution all fall below 30 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its direct rivals in this game?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 8713, which places it 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200. Its 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs suggests that its performance in Control is on the lower end of the spectrum.

Q: Is the Ryzen 9 5950X helping to improve the FPS in this game?

A: The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is not a contributing factor to the frame rates. The FPS is almost entirely dependent on the GPU, as evidenced by the significant drops in performance when increasing resolution or settings, which would not be the case if the CPU were the bottleneck.

Q: What is the expected performance at 4K with Ultra settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 14.2 FPS at 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset. This is a very low frame rate that is not suitable for a smooth gaming experience, and the data confirms that 4K is not a viable resolution for this GPU in this title.

Q: Is there a large performance difference between the Low and Medium presets?

A: Yes, the difference is substantial. At 1080p, the frame rate drops from 58 FPS on Low to 38.2 FPS on Medium, a 34% reduction. This suggests that the GTX 1650 struggles significantly with the additional rendering load of the Medium preset.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1589 out of 1636 tested combos for Control. This places it in the bottom 3% of all tested systems, which is a poor result for a CPU that is in the 93rd percentile for all processors. The data makes it clear that the CPU's high performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 38607 and its 16-core/32-thread configuration, is completely neutralized by the GPU's limitations.

The ranking reflects the reality of the system: it is a heavily imbalanced pairing for this game. The combo's position in the bottom percentile is a direct consequence of the GTX 1650's 43rd percentile GPU ranking. While the CPU is a top-tier performer, the overall experience is dragged down by the graphics card. The data indicates that this specific combination is among the worst for Control, and users would see a massive improvement in ranking and performance by upgrading the GPU to a more powerful model, even if it means pairing it with a less powerful CPU.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, with its 16 cores and 32 threads based on the Zen 3 architecture, is a powerhouse that is entirely underutilized in Control with this GPU. Its boost clock of 4.90 GHz and 64 MB of L3 cache provide ample single-thread performance, as shown by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5450. In any CPU-bound scenario, this processor would excel, but the benchmark results show that the GTX 1650 cannot feed the CPU enough frames to make use of its power.

The CPU's role in this configuration is simply to wait for the GPU. The measured FPS data shows no signs of CPU limitation, such as a plateau in performance across different resolutions. Instead, the FPS scales directly with the GPU load, confirming that the 5950X is not the limiting component. Its average benchmark score of 49062, which is nearly identical to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-14600K (49166, a -0.2% difference), shows that it is a top-tier CPU, but this makes the low ranking of the combo even more telling. The data suggests that in a balanced system, this CPU would deliver exceptional performance, but in this pairing, its role is reduced to that of a bystander.