Control

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 pairing delivers a robust Control experience, landing in the 458th spot out of 1636 tested hardware combinations. This places the setup in the upper third of all configurations, with benchmark results indicating the system is well-balanced for this title, though the specific bottleneck shifts depending on resolution and quality settings.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Ryzen 9 5950X brings 16 cores and 32 threads to the table, running at a 3.40 GHz base clock and boosting up to 4.90 GHz. This is a Zen 3 architecture part on the AMD Socket AM4 platform, manufactured on a 7 nm process. For a game like Control, which is an Action Adventure title from 2019, the sheer thread count is less critical than the strong single-core performance, but the 5950X handles both aspects admirably.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU shows a 3dmark_max_threads score of 11597 and a single-thread score of 944. The Cinebench R23 results are telling: a multicore score of 38607 versus a singlecore score of 5450. The 16-core design ensures that any background tasks or game engine threads that do scale will have plenty of headroom, but the 4.90 GHz boost clock is what keeps the game's primary rendering thread fed.

The CPU's average benchmark score of 49062 puts it at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-14600K, scores 49166, which is a mere 0.2% difference — essentially a statistical tie. The Intel Core i5-14600KF is 0.6% ahead, while the AMD EPYC 4345P is 1.1% ahead. This tells us that for Control, the 5950X offers compute performance that is entirely competitive with modern mid-range parts, meaning it is unlikely to be the limiting factor in this game's frame rates.

The CPU's 64 MB of L3 cache and DDR4 memory support with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for the game's level streaming and physics calculations. In practice, the data shows that the CPU can easily push high frame rates at lower resolutions, as evidenced by the 195.3 FPS average at 1080p Low settings. This suggests that at lower graphical loads, the GPU is the primary driver of performance, with the CPU having ample reserves to process game logic without creating a bottleneck.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 is the graphical workhorse here, featuring 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU runs at a base clock of 1920 MHz and boosts to 2475 MHz. With 5888 shading units and 46 RT cores, it is well-equipped for Control's demanding visual effects, which include ray-traced reflections and other modern rendering techniques.

The GPU's Passmark G3D score of 26927 places it at the 81st percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, scores 37507 in the average benchmark, which is 0.6% higher — a negligible difference. Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile is listed as a rival with an average score of 38135, putting it 2.2% ahead, while the AMD Radeon RX 5300M is 2.5% behind. This data indicates the RTX 4070 desktop part holds its own against a mobile flagship, which reflects its efficiency.

For Control, the 12 GB VRAM capacity is more than sufficient, even at 4K Ultra settings, as the game's textures and geometry fit comfortably within this allocation. The 504.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is a critical asset at higher resolutions, where data throughput becomes increasingly important. The frame rate data supports this: at 4K Ultra, the GPU manages 54.4 FPS, which is still playable, while at 4K High it reaches 59.4 FPS. The GPU's performance scales predictably with settings, showing that it is the dominant component in determining frame rates at higher resolutions and quality presets.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Benchmark results indicate that the Medium preset provides the best balance of visual fidelity and performance across all resolutions. At 1080p, Medium delivers 138.6 FPS, which is a substantial 32% improvement over High's 119.6 FPS while still looking noticeably better than Low's 195.3 FPS. The jump from High to Ultra at 1080p costs 13.1 FPS (from 119.6 to 106.5), which is a significant drop for visual gains that are often subtle in fast-paced action.

At 1440p, Medium shines even brighter. The 103.6 FPS average is comfortably above the 90.4 FPS seen at High, and it is more than adequate for smooth gameplay on high-refresh monitors. The Ultra preset at 1440p drops to 80.1 FPS, which is still playable but begins to show the GPU's limits. For 4K, Medium is the only sensible choice if you want to stay above 60 FPS, as it produces 68.1 FPS compared to High's 59.4 FPS and Ultra's 54.4 FPS.

The data shows that Low settings yield disproportionately high frame rates — 195.3 FPS at 1080p and 97.1 FPS at 4K — which indicates the GPU is not fully utilized at these settings. This suggests that Control is highly scalable, but the visual sacrifice at Low is substantial. Therefore, the Medium preset is the recommended starting point for most users, as it offers the best performance-per-quality ratio across the measured rows.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with a stable 60 FPS?

A: At 4K with Medium settings, the average frame rate is 68.1 FPS, which is above 60. However, at High settings, it drops to 59.4 FPS, and at Ultra, it falls to 54.4 FPS. So, stable 60 FPS at 4K is only achievable on Medium settings.

Q: How does the RTX 4070 compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RTX 4070 has an average benchmark score of 37283. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, scores 37507, which is 0.6% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile is 2.2% ahead, while the AMD Radeon RX 5300M is 2.5% behind.

Q: Is the Ryzen 9 5950X a bottleneck for this GPU in Control?

A: The data suggests no. At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 195.3 FPS, which indicates the CPU can feed the GPU adequately. The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking and its near-tie with the Intel Core i5-14600K (0.2% difference) suggest it has ample headroom.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between High and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset averages 90.4 FPS, while Ultra averages 80.1 FPS. This is a 10.3 FPS difference, or roughly 11% performance loss for the higher preset.

Q: How much performance is gained by dropping from High to Low at 1080p?

A: The High preset at 1920x1080 averages 119.6 FPS, while Low averages 195.3 FPS. This represents a 75.7 FPS increase, or approximately 63% more performance.

Q: What is the system's overall rank among all tested hardware combinations?

A: This CPU and GPU combo ranks 458th out of 1636 total combinations, placing it in the top 28% of all tested systems for Control.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 119.6 FPS at 1080p to 90.4 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 59.4 FPS at 4K. This represents a 50% performance drop from 1080p to 4K (from 119.6 to 59.4 FPS). The scaling is nearly linear with the pixel count increase, which is the expected behavior when the GPU is the primary limiting factor.

The Low settings data reinforces this conclusion. At 1080p Low, the system hits 195.3 FPS, but this falls to 144.8 FPS at 1440p and 97.1 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is 50.3% (from 195.3 to 97.1 FPS), which is nearly identical to the High settings drop. This consistency indicates that the CPU is not introducing a variable bottleneck at lower resolutions; instead, the GPU's rendering workload is dictating the frame rates.

The fact that 1080p Low yields 195.3 FPS while 4K Low yields 97.1 FPS shows that the RTX 4070 has to work roughly twice as hard at 4K, even with minimal graphical effects. This is a direct consequence of the increased pixel count and the 504.2 GB/s memory bandwidth being pushed to its limits. The data strongly suggests that for this pairing, the GPU is the definitive limiting component at all resolutions, with the CPU having sufficient performance to avoid constraining frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 195.3 FPS average
• Medium: 138.6 FPS average
• High: 119.6 FPS average
• Ultra: 106.5 FPS average

At 1080p, the system delivers excellent performance across all presets. The gap between Low and Medium is 56.7 FPS, which is substantial, but the gap between High and Ultra is a more modest 13.1 FPS. All presets are well above 100 FPS, making 1080p a non-issue for this hardware.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 144.8 FPS average
• Medium: 103.6 FPS average
• High: 90.4 FPS average
• Ultra: 80.1 FPS average

At 1440p, the performance remains strong. The Low preset still achieves 144.8 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh gaming. Medium is the sweet spot at 103.6 FPS, while Ultra drops to 80.1 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a 25.9% drop at High settings (119.6 to 90.4 FPS), which is moderate and expected.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 97.1 FPS average
• Medium: 68.1 FPS average
• High: 59.4 FPS average
• Ultra: 54.4 FPS average

At 4K, the GPU starts to show its limits. Only the Low preset maintains a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, with Medium just barely crossing the 60 FPS threshold at 68.1 FPS. High and Ultra presets fall below 60 FPS, with Ultra dipping to 54.4 FPS. The data shows that 4K gaming on this setup requires accepting Medium settings for a smooth experience, or making peace with lower frame rates at higher visual quality.