Control

FAQ

Q: What is the combo rank of the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X with the RTX 3050 4 GB in Control?

A: This combination ranks 1479 out of 1636 tested combos, placing it in the lower tier of all hardware pairings measured for this game.

Q: How does the Ryzen 9 5950X compare to its closest rivals in CPU benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 9 5950X sits 0.2% behind the Intel Core i5-14600K and 0.6% behind the i5-14600KF, while leading the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H by 0.7% and trailing the AMD EPYC 4345P by 1.1%.

Q: What is the best average FPS achieved by this combo at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system reaches 80.5 FPS average, which is the highest measured result across all resolutions and settings in the data.

Q: Does the RTX 3050 4 GB support ray tracing in Control?

A: The GPU features 16 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), indicating ray tracing capability, though the measured FPS data does not include ray tracing-specific rows.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 23.8, which is the weakest measured performance point in the dataset.

Q: How much VRAM does the RTX 3050 4 GB have and what is its memory bandwidth?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, with a base clock of 1545 MHz and boost clock of 1740 MHz.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is the clear performance bottleneck in this pairing. Its Ampere architecture, built on Samsung's 8 nm process, packs 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GPU's FP32 performance stands at 7.127 TFLOPS, which is modest for modern action-adventure titles. With 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, the card is technically capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing and DLSS, but the 4 GB VRAM capacity severely limits texture quality and resolution headroom.

Memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s, achieved via 12 Gbps effective GDDR6 on a 128-bit interface, becomes a critical constraint in Control. The game's dense environments and particle effects demand substantial texture streaming, and the 4 GB frame buffer fills quickly at higher resolutions. The 90 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU rating indicate this is a power-efficient card, but efficiency does not compensate for raw throughput limitations.

The CPU side, the Ryzen 9 5950X, is a 16-core, 32-thread Zen 3 part with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost up to 4.90 GHz. Its 64 MB L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support provide ample headroom for gaming workloads. The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 49062, confirms it is not the limiting factor here. In 3DMark max-thread tests, the CPU scores 11597, while Cinebench R23 multicore reaches 38607, showing exceptional multi-threaded capability.

The imbalance is stark: the CPU can feed frames far faster than the GPU can render them. This is evident in the measured FPS scaling — at 1080p Low, the system hits 80.5 FPS, but at 1440p Ultra, it falls to 36.7 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, just 23.8 FPS. The GPU's 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs underscores its mid-range positioning, making it the primary constraint on performance in Control.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data reveals a clear pattern: Low settings provide the only consistently playable experience across all resolutions. At 1920x1080, Low yields 80.5 FPS average, which is smooth for action gameplay. Medium drops to 62.1 FPS, still acceptable, while High falls to 54.7 FPS and Ultra to 45.2 FPS. For 1080p users, Low or Medium settings offer the best balance, with Medium providing a 42.8% improvement over Low's 80.5 FPS baseline.

At 2560x1440, the situation tightens. Low settings hit 60.4 FPS, which is borderline playable, but Medium drops to 47.4 FPS and High to 40.7 FPS. Ultra bottoms out at 36.7 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold most players prefer. The data suggests that 1440p users should stick to Low settings for a consistent experience, as the step from Low to Medium costs 21.5% performance.

At 3840x2160, no setting achieves a playable frame rate. Low reaches 41.5 FPS, Medium 28.2 FPS, High 27.5 FPS, and Ultra 23.8 FPS. Even the best 4K result is below 45 FPS, indicating this combo is not suited for 4K gaming in Control. The VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth constraints become insurmountable at this resolution.

The optimal recommendation is 1080p with Medium settings, yielding 62.1 FPS average. This provides a meaningful visual upgrade over Low while maintaining playability. For users prioritizing frame rate, 1080p Low at 80.5 FPS is the safest choice. Avoid Ultra settings at any resolution, as the performance penalty — 43.8% lower than Medium at 1080p — is not justified by the visual gains in this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce 80.5 FPS average, the highest measurement in the entire dataset. Medium achieves 62.1 FPS, High reaches 54.7 FPS, and Ultra falls to 45.2 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra represents a 43.8% performance drop, highlighting the GPU's limited headroom for quality increases.

At 2560x1440, performance degrades predictably. Low yields 60.4 FPS, which is the only 1440p result above 60 FPS. Medium drops to 47.4 FPS, High to 40.7 FPS, and Ultra to 36.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 39.2%, slightly less steep than at 1080p, suggesting the GPU is already becoming resolution-bound.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low manages 41.5 FPS, but Medium falls to 28.2 FPS, High to 27.5 FPS, and Ultra to 23.8 FPS. The difference between Medium and High at 4K is negligible at just 0.7 FPS, indicating the GPU is saturated and quality settings have minimal impact beyond Low.

The resolution scaling is steep: moving from 1080p Low to 1440p Low costs 25.0% performance (80.5 to 60.4 FPS), while 1440p Low to 4K Low costs 31.3% (60.4 to 41.5 FPS). This nonlinear degradation reflects the combined pressure on the 4 GB frame buffer and 128-bit memory interface.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1479 out of 1636 places this pairing in the bottom 9.6% of all tested combinations for Control. This poor standing is directly attributable to the RTX 3050 4 GB's limitations, not the Ryzen 9 5950X's capabilities. The CPU's performance profile — scoring 10810 in 3DMark 16-thread tests and 1856 in 2-thread tests — shows it can handle the game's physics and AI workloads without breaking a sweat.

The CPU's nearest rivals reinforce this analysis. The Intel Core i5-14600K scores 49166 on average, just 0.2% ahead of the Ryzen 9 5950X's 49062. The i5-14600KF is 0.6% ahead, while the Xeon Gold 5318H trails by 0.7%. These margins are negligible in real-world gaming, confirming that CPU selection is not driving the combo's low rank.

Instead, the GPU's 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, combined with its mid-range specs (2048 shading units, 7.127 TFLOPS FP32), explains the outcome. The 4 GB VRAM is particularly problematic for Control, which features large, detailed environments that strain memory capacity. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (23.8 FPS) and even 1440p Ultra (36.7 FPS) demonstrates that the GPU cannot sustain high-quality settings at higher resolutions.

In the context of all 1636 tested combos, this pairing sits in the bottom decile. The data indicates that users with this hardware should target 1080p with conservative settings to achieve playable frame rates. The CPU has years of headroom, but the GPU will need an upgrade to unlock the system's full potential in Control. The rank reflects a fundamental mismatch: a top-tier CPU paired with an entry-level GPU creates a system that is CPU-rich but GPU-poor, and Control's demands expose this imbalance clearly.