Control

Control, Remedy’s 2019 action-adventure, presents an extreme stress test for the combination of an AMD Ryzen 9 9900X processor and an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti graphics card. The benchmark data shows a system heavily constrained by its graphics subsystem, with the CPU’s substantial multi-threading capabilities largely left idle. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and presets place this configuration at rank 1608 out of 1636 tested combos, indicating that while the processor is a top-tier part, the GPU fundamentally limits the experience to sub-30 FPS in nearly every scenario.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals a purely GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 45.1 FPS. Moving to 1440p at the same Low preset, the average falls to 36.5 FPS, a reduction of 8.6 FPS. Scaling further to 2160p yields just 24.2 FPS, which is a 46% decrease from the 1080p result. This steep decline is typical of a graphics card operating beyond its memory bandwidth and pixel throughput limits, especially considering the GTX 1050 Ti’s 112.1 GB/s bandwidth and 44.54 GPixel/s pixel rate.

The pattern persists across all quality presets, though the absolute numbers shrink. At High settings, the transition from 1080p (31.7 FPS) to 1440p (23.4 FPS) costs 8.3 FPS, and then to 4K (16.4 FPS) costs another 7.0 FPS. The Ultra preset shows the most severe scaling: 25.8 FPS at 1080p, 19.0 FPS at 1440p, and only 12.9 FPS at 4K. The data indicates that the limiting component is unambiguously the GPU. A more capable graphics card would flatten this curve; instead, the 4K results are all below 25 FPS, regardless of whether Low or High settings are selected.

Notably, the gap between Low and Medium settings is minimal at every resolution. At 1080p, Low yields 45.1 FPS while Medium yields 30.6 FPS, a 14.5 FPS difference. However, at 4K, Low (24.2 FPS) and Medium (16.7 FPS) are only 7.5 FPS apart. This compression suggests that the GPU’s raw compute resources, specifically its 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, are saturated even at lower graphical loads. The pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s becomes the bottleneck as resolution increases, confirming that the Ryzen 9 9900X’s processing power is not the constraint here.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows show a clear trade-off between visual fidelity and playability, but none of the presets achieve a comfortable 60 FPS target. For users prioritizing smoothness, the Low preset at 1080p provides the best measured average of 45.1 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches playable territory, though it still falls short of the standard 60 FPS threshold. The data suggests that even at Low settings, the GTX 1050 Ti’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory is sufficient for texture storage, but the shading units (768) are overwhelmed by Control’s particle and physics effects.

At Medium settings, the 1080p result drops to 30.6 FPS, which is a 32% performance penalty compared to Low. The jump from Medium to High at 1080p offers a marginal gain of 1.1 FPS (30.6 to 31.7 FPS), which is counterintuitive but likely reflects inconsistent frame pacing rather than a true performance improvement. The Ultra preset at 1080p produces 25.8 FPS, which is 19.3 FPS slower than Low. Given these numbers, the optimal experience per the measured data is Low at 1080p, as it delivers the highest frame rate while still rendering the game’s core geometry.

For 1440p users, the situation is worse. The Low preset averages 36.5 FPS, which is 8.6 FPS lower than the same preset at 1080p. Medium and High at 1440p are nearly identical (23.9 and 23.4 FPS respectively), indicating that the GPU is already saturated. The 4K results are uniformly poor, with the best being Low at 24.2 FPS. Benchmark results indicate that no preset at 4K is viable for sustained gameplay, and even 1440p requires Low settings to stay above 30 FPS. The recommendation is clear: stick to 1080p Low for the only semi-fluid experience this combination can muster.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Its benchmark scores are exceptional, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 46438 and a single-core score of 6555. The processor also boasts a 64 MB shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. In synthetic tests, the 9900X outperforms its nearest rivals: it is 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i7-14700F and 1.5% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K, while trailing the Ryzen 9 9900X3D by only 0.4%.

However, in Control, the CPU’s role is almost entirely passive. The game’s frame rates are so low that the processor never becomes a limiting factor. At 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the 45.1 FPS average still leaves the 9900X with ample headroom. The data shows no scenario where increasing resolution or settings causes a CPU bottleneck; instead, the GPU’s utilization must be at 100% given the consistent FPS drops. The 9900X’s single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6555) is more than adequate for Control’s game logic, but it is irrelevant when the graphics card cannot render frames fast enough.

The processor’s 24 threads are also underutilized. Control’s engine may use a handful of cores, but the 9900X’s multi-core might (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 46438) does not translate into higher FPS because the GPU is the bottleneck. Even the processor’s 3DMark 16-thread score of 12552, which is 41% higher than its 2-thread score, indicates strong scaling that the game cannot exploit. In this configuration, the CPU is effectively a bystander, waiting for the GTX 1050 Ti to deliver a frame. The percentile rank of 94 for all CPUs confirms its top-tier status, but that ranking is meaningless when paired with a GPU in the 30th percentile.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combination can achieve in Control?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 45.1, achieved at 1080p with Low settings. No other resolution or preset combination exceeds 36.5 FPS.

Q: Does the Ryzen 9 9900X help improve frame rates in this game?

A: No. The benchmark data shows that frame rates are consistently low across all settings, indicating the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU’s high single-thread and multi-thread scores do not influence the results because the graphics card cannot keep up.

Q: How does this GPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has an average benchmark score of 5316, placing it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs. It is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (deltaPct 0) and 0.4% ahead of the GeForce 940M, while being 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M445.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this setup?

A: No. The best 4K result is 24.2 FPS at Low settings. All other 4K presets fall below 17 FPS, making the game unplayable at that resolution.

Q: Why is there almost no difference between Medium and High settings at 1440p?

A: At 1440p, Medium yields 23.9 FPS and High yields 23.4 FPS. This 0.5 FPS difference is negligible and suggests that the GPU’s compute resources are fully saturated, so additional graphical features have minimal impact on performance.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the CPU and GPU in this combo?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X had a launch MSRP of $499, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti had a launch MSRP of 139 USD.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the definitive bottleneck in this pairing. Based on the Pascal architecture and fabricated on a 14 nm process, this GPU has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its memory configuration is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1291 MHz and a boost clock of 1392 MHz, with a pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 66.82 GTexel/s. These specifications place it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5316, nearly identical to the GeForce 930A.

In Control, the GPU’s limitations are stark. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (45.1) is the only result above 40 FPS, and even that is below the 60 FPS target. The 4 GB memory capacity is likely a factor at higher resolutions, as the game’s textures may exceed this amount, causing thrashing. However, the data shows that even at 1080p Medium (30.6 FPS), performance drops by 32%, indicating that the shading units and ROPs are the primary constraint rather than memory capacity. The GPU’s FP32 throughput of 2.138 TFLOPS is insufficient for Control’s complex lighting and particle effects.

The GPU’s rival comparisons are telling: it is 0.4% faster than the GeForce 940M but 0.8% slower than the Radeon R7 M445. These are all low-end or mobile parts, confirming that the GTX 1050 Ti is not suited for modern AAA titles at playable settings. The DirectX 12 benchmark score of 26 out of 100 further underscores its weakness, as Control leverages DX12 features. The data suggests that even a modest GPU upgrade would yield substantial FPS gains, as the CPU would finally have room to stretch its legs. Until then, the GTX 1050 Ti keeps the Ryzen 9 9900X firmly anchored to sub-30 FPS territory in Control.