Control

The pairing of AMD's 12-core Ryzen 9 7900X with NVIDIA's entry-level GTX 1650 creates one of the most lopsided configurations in the Control benchmark database. The data shows a processor capable of top-tier compute performance shackled to a GPU whose 4 GB of VRAM and modest shader count place it in the 43rd percentile of all tested graphics cards. This imbalance dominates every measured frame rate, producing a profile where the CPU is never the limiting factor and the GPU is almost always overwhelmed.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals a system that is purely GPU-bound. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 57.9 FPS, but moving to 1440p Low drops that to 44.2 FPS, a 23.7% reduction. The climb to 4K Low is even more punishing, falling to 28.9 FPS — exactly half the 1080p Low figure. This near-linear scaling with pixel count is the signature of a graphics card that has hit its architectural ceiling; the GTX 1650's 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are simply not enough to feed the render pipeline at higher resolutions.

The pattern holds across all settings. At High, the 1080p result of 34.5 FPS sinks to 24.6 FPS at 1440p and then to 18 FPS at 4K. The delta between 1440p and 4K (6.6 FPS) is smaller than between 1080p and 1440p (9.9 FPS), suggesting that at 4K the GPU is so saturated that additional pixel workload yields diminishing absolute losses. Interestingly, the Ultra preset shows a similar trend — 31.4 FPS at 1080p, 25.8 FPS at 1440p, and 18.3 FPS at 4K — indicating that the resolution penalty is consistent regardless of visual complexity.

What this scaling tells us is that the Ryzen 9 7900X, with its 12 cores and 5.60 GHz boost clock, is never the bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect the FPS gap between 1080p and 1440p to shrink dramatically, as lower resolutions put more relative strain on the processor. Instead, every resolution step produces a proportional FPS decline, pointing squarely at the GTX 1650 as the sole constraint.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650's specifications explain its struggles. With 896 shading units and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, it delivers 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute — a figure that places it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is marginal for a 2019 title like Control that features destructible environments and physics-heavy combat.

The VRAM capacity is particularly telling. At 1080p Ultra, the combo averages 31.4 FPS, only 2.9 FPS below the High preset's 34.5 FPS. This small gap suggests that Ultra settings are not just taxing the shaders but likely exceeding the 4 GB frame buffer, causing texture thrashing. The 4K results reinforce this: Ultra at 4K (18.3 FPS) is actually higher than Medium at 4K (17.6 FPS), an anomaly that hints at inconsistent memory allocation rather than a true performance hierarchy. When the GPU runs out of VRAM, the driver must swap textures to system memory, and the resulting stutter can produce counterintuitive averages.

The card's 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors mean it runs within a strict power envelope, but that doesn't change the fact that its raw throughput is dwarfed by the CPU's capabilities. The nearest GPU rivals in the benchmark database — the RTX 3050 A Mobile (deltaPct -0.4%), Radeon 550X (deltaPct -0.4%), and Quadro P2200 (deltaPct 0.5%) — all sit within 1% of the GTX 1650's average score of 8713, confirming that this is a consistently low-tier performer.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1584th out of 1636 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the bottom 3.2% of all systems. This is a damning indictment of the pairing's gaming suitability. The Ryzen 9 7900X alone sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 43695 and a PassMark multithread score of 51406. Its nearest CPU rivals — the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 (deltaPct -0.1%), AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT (deltaPct -0.4%), and Intel Core i7-13850HX (deltaPct -0.5%) — are all within 1% in average benchmark score, indicating the 7900X is a top-tier processor.

Yet in Control, this CPU's potential is entirely wasted. The rank of 1584 places the combo alongside systems with far weaker processors, because the GTX 1650's PassMark G3D score of 7880 (43rd percentile) caps the entire experience. The data implies that for this specific game, the CPU contributes almost nothing to the final frame rate. If the 7900X were paired with a GPU in the 90th percentile, the combo rank would likely jump by hundreds of positions, but as configured, it's a textbook example of CPU overkill.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows offer a clear hierarchy. At 1080p, Low yields 57.9 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches playable smoothness. Medium drops to 39.1 FPS, High to 34.5 FPS, and Ultra to 31.4 FPS. For a game like Control, which rewards fast camera movement and precise aiming, the difference between 57.9 and 39.1 FPS is substantial. The recommendation is to run Low at 1080p if frame rate is the priority.

At 1440p, no setting reaches 45 FPS. Low provides 44.2 FPS, while Medium (28.7 FPS), High (24.6 FPS), and Ultra (25.8 FPS) all fall below 30 FPS, which is generally considered the minimum for acceptable action gameplay. The 4K results are uniformly poor, with the best case being Low at 28.9 FPS and the worst being Medium at 17.6 FPS. The data suggests that 4K is not a viable option for this combo, and even 1440p requires Low settings for a barely playable experience.

The most interesting data point is the 1080p Low result of 57.9 FPS, which shows that the GTX 1650 can still deliver playable performance when the visual load is minimized. This is the only configuration that exceeds 60% of the theoretical 60 FPS target, and it's the recommended starting point for any user.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo produces its best results. Low averages 57.9 FPS, Medium 39.1 FPS, High 34.5 FPS, and Ultra 31.4 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 26.5 FPS, demonstrating that settings have a massive impact at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the numbers compress. Low delivers 44.2 FPS, Medium 28.7 FPS, High 24.6 FPS, and Ultra 25.8 FPS. Note that Ultra (25.8 FPS) outperforms High (24.6 FPS) by 1.2 FPS, an anomaly that suggests either measurement variability or a quirk in how the game handles specific settings toggles.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly low. Low averages 28.9 FPS, High 18 FPS, Medium 17.6 FPS, and Ultra 18.3 FPS. Here, Ultra (18.3 FPS) again beats High (18 FPS) by 0.3 FPS, and Medium is the worst performer at 17.6 FPS. This inversion of the expected settings hierarchy at 4K is a strong indicator that the GPU is memory-constrained rather than compute-constrained. When VRAM is exhausted, the game's rendering engine may offload certain effects to system memory, leading to unpredictable performance swings.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 1080p with playable frame rates?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, where it averages 57.9 FPS. Medium (39.1 FPS), High (34.5 FPS), and Ultra (31.4 FPS) all fall below 40 FPS, which may feel sluggish in combat.

Q: Why does Ultra outperform High at 1440p and 4K?

A: The data shows Ultra at 25.8 FPS (1440p) and 18.3 FPS (4K) versus High at 24.6 FPS and 18 FPS respectively. This likely stems from the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM being exhausted at these resolutions, causing the driver to make inconsistent memory allocation decisions.

Q: Is the Ryzen 9 7900X the bottleneck in this system?

A: No. The CPU's benchmarks (Cinebench R23 multicore score of 43695, PassMark multithread 51406) place it in the 93rd percentile, while the GPU is in the 43rd percentile. The FPS scaling with resolution confirms the GTX 1650 is the limiting component.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: 1080p with Low settings is the only configuration that exceeds 50 FPS (57.9 FPS). At 1440p, the best case is Low at 44.2 FPS, and at 4K, the best case is Low at 28.9 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested systems?

A: It ranks 1584th out of 1636 combos, placing it in the bottom 3.2% of all tested configurations in Control.

Q: Does the GTX 1650's VRAM size affect performance?

A: The 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is likely exhausted at higher settings and resolutions. The fact that Ultra sometimes outscores High at 1440p and 4K suggests memory-related performance anomalies.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 9 7900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on Zen 4 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, with 64 MB of shared L3 cache. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 43695 and single-core score of 6168 place it firmly among the fastest consumer CPUs available, and its PassMark single-thread score of 4238 confirms excellent per-core performance.

In Control, however, the CPU's role is almost entirely passive. The game's engine is not heavily multithreaded, and with a GPU this weak, the processor rarely has to work hard. The 3DMark results for the 7900X — 10972 for 16 threads and 1093 for single thread — show strong scaling, but the GTX 1650's maximum output of 57.9 FPS at 1080p Low is far below what the CPU could feed if given a faster graphics card.

The data implies that in this pairing, the CPU is operating at a fraction of its capacity. Control's physics and AI systems could theoretically benefit from the 7900X's 12 cores, but the GPU's rendering bottleneck masks any such advantage. The benchmark results show no evidence of CPU-induced frame pacing issues or minimum frame rate drops, which would be the typical symptoms of a processor struggling to keep up. Instead, the consistent FPS averages across all settings point to a system where the CPU is waiting idle for the GPU to finish its work. For users considering this combo, the 7900X's potential is entirely future-proofing — should the GPU be upgraded later, the CPU would not need replacing.