Control

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT delivers a playable but not flawless experience in Control, with performance heavily dependent on resolution and settings. The data shows a clear ceiling at higher presets, where the GPU becomes the primary constraint, while the 12-core CPU provides ample headroom for the game's physics and logic. This combination ranks in the 29th percentile of tested combos for this title, indicating that while it is far from the weakest setup, a significant portion of the tested hardware pool outperforms it.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control?*

A: The data indicates that 1920x1080 is the most suitable resolution, as it is the only one where all four settings presets can achieve an average frame rate above 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset reaches an average of 89 FPS, while higher settings fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Can this setup handle Ultra settings?

A: Yes, but with caveats. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset averages 65 FPS, which is playable. However, at 2560x1440, the average drops to 49 FPS, and at 3840x2160, it falls to 33 FPS. The benchmark results suggest that Ultra settings are only viable at 1080p.

Q: How does the CPU affect performance in this game?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 12 cores and 24 threads, is not the bottleneck in this configuration. Even at the lowest resolution and settings, where the GPU is most stressed, the CPU's high single-thread score of 3010 in Geekbench ensures that frame pacing remains stable, as evidenced by the consistent average FPS figures across different resolutions.

Q: Is the 8 GB VRAM of the RX 6600 XT a limitation?

A: The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory appears sufficient for the tested settings. The performance drop from Medium to High and Ultra at 4K (from 43 to 38 to 33 FPS) suggests a compute or bandwidth limit rather than a VRAM capacity issue, as the memory bus width is 128-bit with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s.

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

A: The difference is substantial. The average frame rate at Low settings is 89 FPS, while at Ultra it drops to 49 FPS. This represents a decrease of 40 FPS, or roughly 45%, when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

Q: How does this combo compare to the average tested setup?

A: The combo rank is 2650 out of 3720 tested combinations. This places it in the 29th percentile, meaning that 71% of tested combos perform better in Control. The GPU's average benchmark score of 24442 and its 70th percentile ranking among all GPUs suggest the CPU is not the limiting factor.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is the determining factor for frame rates in this configuration. The GPU's performance characteristics, including a boost clock of 2589 MHz and a game clock of 2359 MHz, directly correlate with the measured FPS. The data shows a clear scaling pattern: at 3840x2160, the average frame rate drops from 60 FPS at Low settings to 33 FPS at Ultra, a 45% reduction. This indicates that the GPU's rendering workload at higher presets is the primary constraint.

The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, is a key specification. The measured results show that the GPU's compute capabilities, rated at 10.60 TFLOPS for FP32, are sufficient for 1080p gaming but struggle at higher resolutions. For instance, at 2560x1440, the average FPS at High settings is 56, which is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. The GPU's percentile rank of 70 among all GPUs, and its proximity to rivals like the Intel Arc A350M (0.8% slower) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (0.7% faster), positions it as a mid-range performer in the current landscape.

The RX 6600 XT's architectural features, such as 2048 shading units and 32 ray accelerators, do not translate into high performance in Control at 4K. The 4K results are consistently below 45 FPS for all settings except Low, which achieves exactly 60 FPS. This suggests that the GPU is not designed for 4K gaming in demanding titles, and the data confirms that 1080p and 1440p are the intended use cases. The memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) is a fixed specification that does not change across the measured rows, implying that the variance in FPS is due to shader and texture workload scaling, not memory bandwidth constraints.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X provides a robust foundation for Control, but its impact on the measured FPS is secondary to the GPU. The CPU's specifications—12 cores, 24 threads, with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz—ensure that it does not bottleneck the RX 6600 XT in most scenarios. The benchmark data supports this: the average FPS at 1920x1080 Low is 118, which is more than double the 4K Ultra average of 33 FPS, indicating that the GPU is the limiting factor rather than the CPU.

The CPU's performance in synthetic benchmarks is strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32172 and a single-core score of 2253. This single-core strength is relevant for Control, as the game's physics and AI logic often rely on a few threads. The 3DMark single-thread score of 1286 further confirms the CPU's capability to handle the game's computational demands without introducing frame drops. The CPU's percentile rank of 92 among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 57498, places it near the top of the hierarchy, far ahead of rivals like the Intel Core i9-14900, which is 1.1% faster, and the AMD EPYC 9015, which is 0.1% slower.

In practical terms, the CPU's 64 MB of L3 cache and 24 threads allow for smooth multitasking and background processes during gameplay. However, the measured FPS differences across resolutions—from 118 FPS at 1080p Low to 38 FPS at 4K High—show that the CPU is not the bottleneck. The CPU's role is to feed the GPU with data, and with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s for DDR5, it does so efficiently. For this game, the CPU's performance is more than adequate, and the data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield far greater FPS gains than upgrading the CPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern across all resolutions: higher settings result in lower average frame rates, with the most significant drops occurring at 4K. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 118 at Low to 65 at Ultra. The Medium preset provides a balanced experience with an average of 84 FPS and a minimum of 71 FPS, indicating good frame pacing. The High preset at 74 FPS is also viable for smooth gameplay on a 60 Hz display.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops notably. The Low preset averages 89 FPS, which is excellent, but the High preset falls to 56 FPS, and Ultra drops to 49 FPS. The Medium preset averages 63 FPS, with a minimum of 54 FPS and a maximum of 73 FPS. These numbers suggest that 1440p gaming is only comfortable at Low settings, as the higher presets dip below the 60 FPS threshold. The data shows a 33 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution, highlighting the GPU's struggle with increased pixel count and texture detail.

At 3840x2160, the results are marginal. The Low preset is the only one that achieves an average of 60 FPS, while Medium averages 43 FPS (min 36, max 49), High averages 38 FPS, and Ultra averages 33 FPS. The 4K data is clear: this combo is not suited for high-fidelity gaming at this resolution. The frame rate drops from Low to Ultra by 27 FPS, or 45%, which is the largest relative decrease across all resolutions. This indicates that the RX 6600 XT's 10.60 TFLOPS of compute power is insufficient for the demands of 4K Ultra settings in Control.

The data also shows a consistent relationship between settings. For every resolution, the difference between Medium and High is smaller than the difference between Low and Medium. For example, at 1080p, the drop from Low to Medium is 34 FPS (118 to 84), while the drop from Medium to High is 10 FPS (84 to 74). This suggests that the most significant performance cost comes from enabling the Medium preset's features, while High and Ultra add progressively smaller incremental loads.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2650 out of 3720 tested combinations places this setup in the 29th percentile for Control. This means that 71% of all tested CPU-GPU pairings deliver higher average frame rates. The ranking is more reflective of the GPU's limitations than the CPU's capabilities, as the CPU ranks in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 70th percentile among all GPUs.

Comparing the GPU to its nearest rivals provides context for this ranking. The RX 6600 XT has an average benchmark score of 24442, which is 0.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 and 1.1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER. This indicates that in synthetic benchmarks, the RX 6600 XT is competitive with older high-end GPUs and newer low-end ones. However, the game-specific results show that this performance does not translate to high frame rates at 4K, where the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus become limiting factors.

The CPU's ranking among its peers is more favorable. With an average benchmark score of 57498, the Ryzen 9 9900X is 0.2% faster than the AMD EPYC 7313 and 1.1% slower than the Intel Core i9-14900. This places the CPU in a high-performance tier, but the game data shows that this extra CPU headroom does not improve FPS in Control when the GPU is the bottleneck. The combo rank is therefore a direct reflection of the GPU's mid-range positioning, and the data suggests that pairing this CPU with a more powerful GPU would result in a significantly higher rank.

The 29th percentile ranking is not a negative verdict for all use cases. At 1080p, the combo performs well, with the Low preset achieving 118 FPS and Ultra achieving 65 FPS. This means that for gamers targeting 1080p, the setup is more than adequate. The ranking is dragged down by the poor 4K performance, where the average FPS for all settings except Low is below 45. For a game like Control with high graphical fidelity, the 4K results are a significant drawback.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset is the best choice for a balanced experience, as it provides an average of 84 FPS with a minimum of 71 FPS. This ensures smooth gameplay without sacrificing too much visual quality. The High preset at 74 FPS is also acceptable, but the 10 FPS drop from Medium is not justified by the visual improvements, given that the minimum FPS is not recorded.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only one that guarantees a comfortable experience, averaging 89 FPS. The Medium preset averages 63 FPS, which is playable but may exhibit stutter in demanding scenes, as indicated by the 54 FPS minimum. The High and Ultra presets, with averages of 56 and 49 FPS respectively, are not recommended for a smooth experience, as they fall below the 60 FPS threshold. For 1440p, the data strongly suggests that Low settings are the default choice, and Medium is only viable if the user tolerates occasional dips.

At 3840x2160, the results are unequivocal: only the Low preset is viable, with an average of exactly 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 43 FPS and High at 38 FPS are not playable for a fast-paced action-adventure game, and Ultra at 33 FPS is a slideshow. The data indicates that 4K gaming is not a realistic option for this combo, and users should either lower the resolution to 1440p or accept Low settings at 4K.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is at 1920x1080 with the Medium preset. This configuration delivers an average FPS of 84, with a minimum of 71, ensuring that the game remains fluid during combat and exploration. The High preset at 74 FPS is a close second, but the Medium preset offers a larger margin for error. For users with a 144 Hz monitor, the Low preset at 1080p, which averages 118 FPS, is the only way to fully utilize the display's refresh rate, but this comes at the cost of significant visual fidelity.