Control

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT delivers a playable experience in Control, but the data clearly indicates that the graphics card is the primary constraint. The combination ranks in the 35th percentile of tested configurations, and the performance scaling across resolutions shows a classic GPU-bound scenario.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data shows a clear hierarchy across the four settings presets, with the sweet spot for this combo being the Medium preset. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers an average of 87 FPS with a minimum of 74 FPS, which provides the smoothest balance between visual fidelity and frame pacing. While the Low preset achieves a higher average of 122 FPS, the jump to Medium only costs 35 FPS while providing substantially better image quality. The High preset at 77 FPS is still playable, but the drop to 67 FPS at Ultra represents a 23% reduction from High with diminishing visual returns.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset again proves to be the optimal choice, delivering 66 FPS average with a minimum of 56 FPS. This remains fluid enough for the game's action sequences. The Low preset at 93 FPS is noticeably smoother, but the visual degradation becomes more apparent at this resolution. High at 58 FPS is borderline, and Ultra at 51 FPS dips into territory where fast-paced combat may feel less responsive.

The situation changes at 3840x2160, where the data suggests that even Medium is a compromise. The Medium preset produces a 44 FPS average with a minimum of 38 FPS, which is marginally playable but not ideal for a game that demands precise timing. For 4K, the Low preset at 63 FPS is the only configuration that provides a consistently smooth experience. The High preset at 39 FPS and Ultra at 34 FPS fall below the threshold for comfortable play.

The measured frame time data for Medium at all resolutions shows a consistent pattern: the gap between average and minimum FPS narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the spread is 13 FPS (87 average, 74 minimum). At 1440p, it is 10 FPS (66 average, 56 minimum). At 4K, it is 6 FPS (44 average, 38 minimum). This tightening indicates that as the GPU becomes fully saturated, frame pacing becomes more consistent, but the overall performance drops accordingly.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 9 9900X3D brings substantial processing power to this pairing, with 12 cores and 24 threads running at a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The processor's 128 MB of L3 cache and Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process provide ample headroom for Control's physics and AI systems. However, the benchmark results indicate that the CPU is rarely the limiting factor in this configuration.

The CPU's synthetic benchmarks place it in the 91st percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 54762. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, scores 55093, a difference of only -0.6%. This puts the 9900X3D squarely in the top tier of desktop processors. The single-thread performance of 6739 in Cinebench R23 and 3041 in Geekbench single-core demonstrate strong per-core capability, which matters for Control's main game thread.

The multi-threaded results are equally impressive. A Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 47737 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 22884 show that the CPU can handle any task the game throws at it. The PassMark multithread score of 56154, with a physics score of 5340, further confirms that CPU-bound scenarios are unlikely to emerge in this title.

Evidence of the CPU's non-limiting role comes from the resolution scaling data. When moving from 1080p to 1440p at Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 87 to 66, a 24% reduction. From 1440p to 4K, it drops from 66 to 44, another 33% reduction. This consistent scaling with resolution is the hallmark of a GPU-bound workload. If the CPU were the constraint, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions. The data shows no such plateau, confirming that the 9900X3D has significant headroom even at 1080p.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 6650 XT is the definitive bottleneck in this combination. With 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivering 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth, the card has enough memory capacity for Control at 1080p and 1440p, but the 4K results suggest that both memory bandwidth and raw compute are stretched thin.

The GPU's clock speeds are respectable for its class: a base clock of 2055 MHz, a game clock of 2410 MHz, and a boost clock of 2635 MHz. The 2048 shading units and 32 ray tracing cores provide the architectural foundation for the game's rendering demands. The card's 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19765, places it in the mid-range tier. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla K40m, scores 19885, a delta of -0.6%, while the AMD FirePro D300 is 0.7% behind at 19637.

The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 17166 and DirectX 12 score of 62 illustrate its mid-range positioning. In Control, this translates to playable but not exceptional performance. The 10.79 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 168.6 GPixel/s pixel rate are adequate for the game's effects, but they run out of steam at higher resolutions and settings.

The VRAM situation deserves attention. At 8 GB, the card meets the game's requirements at 1080p and 1440p, but the 4K Ultra result of 34 FPS suggests that memory pressure may be contributing to the performance collapse. The transition from High to Ultra at 1080p costs 10 FPS (77 to 67), while at 1440p it costs 7 FPS (58 to 51), and at 4K it costs 5 FPS (39 to 34). The diminishing absolute cost of Ultra at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is already overwhelmed before the extra settings take effect.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 9 9900X3D and Radeon RX 6650 XT ranks 1875 out of 2888 tested configurations in Control. This places the combo in the bottom 35% of all pairings, which is a direct reflection of the GPU's mid-range positioning. The CPU's 91st percentile ranking cannot compensate for the GPU's 65th percentile standing; the overall combo ranking is dragged down by the graphics card.

The delta between the CPU and GPU performance tiers is stark. The 9900X3D outperforms 91% of all CPUs, while the 6650 XT outperforms only 65% of all GPUs. In a game like Control that scales heavily with GPU load, the weaker component dictates the experience. This ranking indicates that users who prioritize CPU-heavy workloads would see better results with a stronger GPU, while those who already own this GPU would benefit from a less powerful CPU without sacrificing frame rates in this specific title.

The rank also suggests that the combo is not well balanced for this game. A more evenly matched pairing, such as a mid-range CPU with this GPU, would likely produce similar FPS numbers at a lower overall cost. Conversely, pairing this CPU with a top-tier GPU would unlock the CPU's full potential in Control. As configured, the data shows a significant amount of wasted CPU headroom.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K confirms the GPU-bound nature of this configuration. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 122 at 1080p to 93 at 1440p (a 24% reduction) and then to 63 at 4K (a 48% reduction from 1440p). At Medium settings, the progression is 87 to 66 to 44, representing 24% and 33% reductions respectively. High settings show 77 to 58 to 39, with 25% and 33% reductions. Ultra settings produce 67 to 51 to 34, with 24% and 33% reductions.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings levels is revealing. Regardless of whether the game runs at Low or Ultra, the FPS scales almost identically with resolution. This uniformity indicates that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, not any specific setting. If the CPU were involved, the scaling patterns would diverge between low and high settings.

The 4K results are particularly telling. At 4K, the GPU must process four times the pixels of 1080p, and the data shows that the 6650 XT cannot maintain playable frame rates at High or Ultra settings. The 39 FPS at High and 34 FPS at Ultra fall below the 40 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for a smooth experience. Even Medium at 44 FPS is marginal, leaving Low at 63 FPS as the only viable 4K option.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings is playable. Low delivers an average of 122 FPS, providing a high-refresh experience. Medium produces 87 FPS average with a minimum of 74 FPS and maximum of 100 FPS. High achieves 77 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 67 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 55 FPS, representing a 45% performance penalty for maximum visual quality.

At 2560x1440, performance remains respectable but begins to show strain. Low averages 93 FPS, still smooth for most displays. Medium delivers 66 FPS average with a minimum of 56 FPS and maximum of 76 FPS, which is the recommended preset at this resolution. High drops to 58 FPS, and Ultra falls to 51 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 42 FPS, a 45% reduction.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations become pronounced. Low is the only setting that maintains a comfortable frame rate at 63 FPS average. Medium produces 44 FPS average with a minimum of 38 FPS and maximum of 51 FPS, which is borderline playable. High drops to 39 FPS, and Ultra falls to 34 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 29 FPS, representing a 46% performance hit. The minimum FPS at Medium (38) is below the average FPS at High (39), indicating that the Medium preset's frame pacing is more consistent than the higher settings.

The data across all resolutions shows a consistent pattern: the 6650 XT provides the best experience at Medium settings for 1080p and 1440p, with Low being the only sensible choice for 4K. The CPU's considerable power goes largely unused in this title, as the GPU reaches its limits well before the processor becomes a factor. Users seeking higher frame rates at 4K or Ultra settings would need to upgrade the GPU, while the CPU can comfortably handle any future GPU upgrade without becoming a bottleneck.