Control

# Control with AMD Ryzen 9 9900X + AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT

The pairing of AMD's 12-core Ryzen 9 9900X with the Radeon RX 6650 XT presents a fascinating study in bottleneck dynamics within Control, a 2019 action-adventure title. The measured FPS data reveals a configuration where the GPU consistently dictates performance ceilings, while the CPU's substantial headroom remains largely untapped. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 124.8 FPS, but this drops to 42.5 FPS at 4K High — a 66% reduction that clearly implicates the graphics card as the primary limiting factor. The combo ranks 1036th out of 1636 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database, which aligns with expectations for a mid-range GPU paired with a high-end processor.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS degradation from 1080p to 4K follows a steep curve that strongly indicates GPU-bound behavior. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 124.8 FPS at 1920x1080 to 94.9 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 60.1 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 51.8% drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. The scaling is even more pronounced at Ultra settings, where the 65.3 FPS at 1080p collapses to 52.9 FPS at 1440p and finally to 36.7 FPS at 4K — a 43.8% reduction from 1080p to 4K.

The pattern reveals that pixel count is the dominant variable. Between 1080p and 1440p, the performance penalty at High settings is 22.7% (78.2 to 60.4 FPS). Moving from 1440p to 4K at High settings costs another 29.6% (60.4 to 42.5 FPS). These diminishing returns per added pixel suggest the RX 6650 XT's 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 280.3 GB/s bandwidth are being saturated at higher resolutions. The 128-bit memory bus becomes a bottleneck as resolution increases, with the GPU's compute resources — 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs — struggling to maintain throughput at 4K.

Interestingly, the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution decreases. At 1080p, the difference is 59.5 FPS (124.8 vs 65.3), but at 4K it narrows to 23.4 FPS (60.1 vs 36.7). This compression at 4K suggests that raw pixel throughput, rather than shading complexity, is the limiting factor. The data implies that owners of this combo should not expect 4K Ultra to be viable; even 4K Medium only reaches 42.6 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of 1636 tested CPU-GPU combinations for Control, this pairing sits at rank 1036. This places it in the 63rd percentile of tested combos, meaning roughly 63% of configurations outperform it. The ranking reflects the GPU's mid-range positioning: the RX 6650 XT holds a 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the Ryzen 9 9900X sits in the 94th percentile among all CPUs. The substantial gap between CPU and GPU percentiles (22 points) confirms that the graphics card is the performance ceiling.

When examining the GPU's nearest rivals, the RX 6650 XT's average benchmark score of 29024 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (29011, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996, 0.1% delta). The Intel Arc A370M is 0.5% slower, and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH is 0.6% slower. These tight margins indicate that the RX 6650 XT sits in a crowded performance band where minor architectural differences don't translate to meaningful gaming advantages in Control.

The CPU's nearest rivals tell a similar story of clustering. The Ryzen 9 9900X's average score of 54450 is within 1.8% of four competitors: the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D (54681, -0.4% delta), Intel Core i7-14700F (54097, 0.7% delta), Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (55304, -1.5% delta), and Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF (55421, -1.8% delta). This grouping suggests that CPU choice among these models would have negligible impact on Control's frame rates, given the GPU-bound nature of this combo.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimal settings at each resolution. At 1920x1080, High settings deliver 78.2 FPS, which comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS standard for smooth gameplay. Medium settings push this to 89.6 FPS, while Low reaches 124.8 FPS. The Ultra preset's 65.3 FPS is still playable but offers diminishing returns over High given the 12.9 FPS penalty. For 1080p users, High represents the sweet spot — it maintains 78.2 FPS while providing superior visual fidelity compared to Medium's 89.6 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts. High settings produce 60.4 FPS, which is borderline for fast-paced action. Medium settings at 63.8 FPS offer a marginal improvement, while Low jumps to 94.9 FPS. Given that High and Medium are within 3.4 FPS of each other, High is the preferred choice if the user can tolerate occasional dips below 60 FPS. Ultra at 52.9 FPS should be avoided due to the sub-60 experience.

For 3840x2160, the options are constrained. Low settings achieve 60.1 FPS, barely crossing the playability threshold. Medium (42.6 FPS), High (42.5 FPS), and Ultra (36.7 FPS) all fall below 60 FPS. The data suggests that 4K gaming with this combo requires Low settings or a willingness to accept frame rates in the 37-43 FPS range. Interestingly, High and Medium are effectively identical at 4K (42.5 vs 42.6 FPS), indicating that the GPU is fully saturated regardless of these settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings spectrum shows: Low at 124.8 FPS, Medium at 89.6 FPS, High at 78.2 FPS, and Ultra at 65.3 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 35.2 FPS, while Medium to High costs 11.4 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 12.9 FPS. This non-linear scaling suggests that Low settings unlock significant headroom, but the transition from Medium upward yields increasingly smaller returns.

At 2560x1440, the values are: Low at 94.9 FPS, Medium at 63.8 FPS, High at 60.4 FPS, and Ultra at 52.9 FPS. The Low-to-Medium drop is 31.1 FPS, while Medium-to-High is just 3.4 FPS, and High-to-Ultra is 7.5 FPS. The compression between Medium and High at 1440p indicates that these presets impose similar GPU workloads at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the numbers cluster tightly: Low at 60.1 FPS, Medium at 42.6 FPS, High at 42.5 FPS, and Ultra at 36.7 FPS. The Medium and High results are virtually identical, differing by only 0.1 FPS. The gap between Low and the next tier is 17.5 FPS, suggesting that Low settings at 4K represent a fundamentally different rendering path that avoids certain GPU bottlenecks.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 6650 XT's specifications directly explain the observed performance patterns. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which becomes increasingly strained as resolution climbs. The GPU's boost clock of 2635 MHz and game clock of 2410 MHz represent the peak and sustained operational frequencies, respectively, and the data shows these are insufficient for 4K Ultra in Control.

The GPU's 32 ray tracing cores support DirectX 12 Ultimate, but the measured results don't indicate any ray tracing workload. The 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs handle the game's rasterization demands, with a pixel rate of 168.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 337.3 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput of 10.79 TFLOPS places this GPU firmly in the mid-range segment, which aligns with its 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce its mid-range positioning. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1859, Geekbench Vulkan score of 93769, and Passmark G3D score of 17166 all indicate consistent performance across different workloads. The nearest rival comparison shows the RX 6650 XT is nearly identical to the RX 6800M (0% delta), suggesting that in Control, the desktop and mobile variants deliver comparable frame rates despite different power envelopes.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 9 9900X brings substantial computational resources that remain largely underutilized in Control. Its 12 cores and 24 threads, based on Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), operate at a base clock of 4.40 GHz and boost to 5.60 GHz. The 64 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth provide ample data throughput for game logic and physics calculations.

The CPU's benchmark results demonstrate its high-end nature: Cinebench R23 multicore score of 46438, single-core score of 6555, and Geekbench multicore of 19827. The 3DMark single-thread score of 1286 and 16-thread score of 12552 indicate strong per-core performance. The 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms that this processor is near the top of the performance hierarchy.

However, the measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU bottlenecking. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 124.8 FPS, but the 9900X's capabilities suggest it could drive far higher frame rates if paired with a more powerful GPU. The 0.4% delta between the 9900X and 9900X3D in CPU benchmarks further confirms that CPU choice has minimal impact on Control's performance with this GPU. The CPU's 120W TDP and PCIe Gen 5 support provide future upgrade headroom, but for this specific game, the processor is essentially waiting for the GPU to catch up.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 4K 60 FPS?

A: No. At 4K Low, the average FPS is 60.1, which barely reaches 60 but may not hold consistently. All other settings at 4K fall below 60 FPS, with Medium at 42.6, High at 42.5, and Ultra at 36.7.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1080p gaming?

A: High settings at 78.2 FPS provide the best balance of visual quality and performance. Ultra achieves 65.3 FPS but costs 12.9 FPS over High, while Medium at 89.6 FPS sacrifices visual fidelity for a 11.4 FPS gain.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested configurations?

A: It ranks 1036th out of 1636 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle tier. The GPU's 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs is the limiting factor, while the CPU's 94th percentile ranking exceeds the GPU's capabilities.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU is definitively the bottleneck. Evidence includes the steep FPS drops as resolution increases (124.8 FPS at 1080p Low vs 60.1 FPS at 4K Low) and the CPU's 94th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 72nd percentile.

Q: Why are Medium and High settings nearly identical at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, Medium produces 42.6 FPS and High produces 42.5 FPS, a difference of only 0.1 FPS. This indicates the GPU is fully saturated at both presets, with pixel throughput being the limiting factor rather than shading complexity.

Q: What upgrade path would improve performance in Control?

A: Replacing the RX 6650 XT with a more powerful GPU would yield significant gains, as the Ryzen 9 9900X has ample headroom. The CPU's nearest rivals show minimal performance deltas (within 1.8%), confirming the processor is not the constraint.