Control

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT pairing delivers a robust 1080p and 1440p experience in Control, but the data reveals a clear shift in bottleneck behavior as resolution climbs. At 1080p, the combination produces frame rates well above 100 FPS across all tested presets, while at 4K, the average drops below 60 FPS on the highest settings. The benchmark results indicate that this system is well-balanced for high-refresh-rate gaming at mainstream resolutions, yet it falls short of a consistently smooth 4K experience without adjusting presets.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Granite Ridge, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, with a 120 W TDP. The CPU’s cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a substantial 128 MB of L3 cache, which is a defining feature of the X3D lineup. This large L3 cache is particularly relevant for gaming workloads, as it reduces memory latency and improves data reuse, which can directly benefit frame pacing and average FPS in CPU-bound scenarios.

In Control, a title that relies heavily on physics interactions and complex AI routines, the CPU’s multi-threaded capabilities are put to the test. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 12,490 and max-thread score of 13,795 show strong scaling across the 12 cores, while the single-thread score of 1,269 indicates solid per-core performance. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 47,737 further underscores the processor’s high throughput, which is beneficial for maintaining consistent frame times when multiple game systems are active simultaneously. The PassMark multi-thread score of 56,154 and physics score of 5,340 suggest that the CPU is more than capable of feeding the GPU with data, especially at lower resolutions where the graphics card is not the limiting factor.

The processor’s 91st percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database reinforces its position as a high-end part. Compared to its nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has an average benchmark score that is 0.6% lower, while the Intel Core i7-14700F is 2.1% lower. This places the Ryzen 9 9900X3D at the top of its immediate competitive tier, with a slight edge over the Intel alternatives. For Control, this means that the CPU is unlikely to be the primary constraint at 1080p or 1440p, allowing the RX 7800 XT to operate near its full potential.

The CPU’s memory support for DDR5 and dual-channel configuration, with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, further complements its gaming performance. While the game itself is not memory-bandwidth sensitive in the same way as some strategy titles, the combination of high cache capacity and fast memory ensures that data is readily available to the cores. The benchmark data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 174 FPS, which is 58% higher than the 110 FPS at High settings, indicating that the CPU can sustain very high frame rates when the GPU workload is light. This pattern confirms that the CPU is not a bottleneck, as the frame rate scales significantly with GPU load reduction.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the maximum average frame rate this combo achieves in Control, and at which settings?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 174 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only preset where the system exceeds 170 FPS, indicating that the GPU is not fully stressed at this configuration.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra settings in terms of playability?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate drops to 49 FPS. This is below the 60 FPS threshold commonly associated with smooth gameplay, suggesting that users will need to lower settings to achieve a more fluid experience at this resolution.

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

A: At 2560x1440, the average frame rate at Low settings is 132 FPS, while at Ultra settings it is 72 FPS. This represents a 45% reduction in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary limiter at 1080p, as the average frame rate scales from 96 FPS at Ultra to 174 FPS at Low. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would remain relatively flat regardless of graphics settings, which is not the case.

Q: How does the combo’s overall rank in this game compare to other tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 899th out of 2,888 tested combinations, placing it in the 69th percentile of all tested systems. This indicates it performs better than the majority of combos but does not sit among the top-tier configurations.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the Medium preset at 4K, and how does it compare to the average?

A: At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the minimum FPS is 54, while the average is 63 FPS. The minimum is 14% lower than the average, showing some frame time variance but still maintaining a playable experience.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with High settings, the average frame rate is 110 FPS. Moving to 1440p at the same settings, the average drops to 83 FPS, a reduction of 24.5%. At 4K, the average falls to 56 FPS, which is a further 32.5% decrease from 1440p. This scaling behavior indicates that the RX 7800 XT is the dominant constraint at higher resolutions, as the pixel count increases, the GPU’s rendering workload grows proportionally, and the CPU’s headroom remains largely untapped.

The same trend is visible across all settings. For the Ultra preset, the average frame rate drops from 96 FPS at 1080p to 72 FPS at 1440p (a 25% decrease), and then to 49 FPS at 4K (a 32% decrease from 1440p). Low settings show the most dramatic absolute drops: 174 FPS at 1080p falls to 132 FPS at 1440p (a 24% reduction), and then to 89 FPS at 4K (a 33% reduction). The consistency of these percentage drops across different presets strongly suggests that the GPU is the limiting component, as the CPU’s performance is sufficient to maintain high frame rates even at the lowest resolution and settings.

The frame rate differences between resolutions also highlight the GPU’s memory bandwidth and compute capabilities. The RX 7800 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. At 4K, the increased memory pressure and fill rate requirements push the GPU to its limits, as evidenced by the 49 FPS average at Ultra settings. The pixel rate of 233.3 GPixel/s and texture rate of 583.2 GTexel/s are the likely bottlenecks at this resolution, as the GPU must process four times the pixels of 1080p.

Interestingly, the frame rate drops from 1080p to 1440p and from 1440p to 4K are nearly identical in relative terms, hovering around 25% and 32% respectively. This linear scaling is a hallmark of a GPU-bound workload, where the CPU is not introducing any additional latency or frame time penalties. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would plateau or drop more steeply at lower resolutions, which is not observed. Therefore, the data conclusively shows that the Ryzen 9 9900X3D provides more than enough processing power for Control, and the RX 7800 XT is the deciding factor in overall performance.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT ranks 899th out of 2,888 tested combos in Control. This places the system in the top 31% of all configurations tested, which is a respectable position given the breadth of hardware combinations in the database. The rank reflects a balance between the CPU’s strong multi-threaded performance and the GPU’s mid-range to upper-mid-range capabilities.

To contextualize this rank, consider the CPU’s benchmark position relative to its rivals. The Ryzen 9 9900X3D has an average benchmark score of 54,762, which is 0.6% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF (55,093) and 1.3% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (54,053). It also outperforms the Intel Xeon 6505P by 2% and the Intel Core i7-14700F by 2.1%. This suggests that the CPU is among the stronger processors in the database, and its pairing with the RX 7800 XT is not introducing a significant CPU-side limitation.

On the GPU side, the RX 7800 XT has an average benchmark score of 11,627, which is remarkably close to its nearest rivals. It is 0.5% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680), 0.9% faster than the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11,528), and 1.3% faster than the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (11,479). The RX 7800 XT also trails the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT by 1.8% (11,842). These tight margins indicate that the GPU is positioned in a very competitive segment, where small performance differences can shift the overall ranking.

The combo’s rank of 899 out of 2,888 suggests that while the CPU is a high-end part, the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing. Many of the combos ranked above this one likely feature more powerful GPUs, such as higher-tier Radeon or GeForce cards, which would push the average frame rates higher, especially at 4K. The data shows that the system achieves 49 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is below the 60 FPS target, and this is a direct consequence of the GPU’s performance ceiling.

In summary, the combo ranks in the upper third of all tested configurations, driven by the CPU’s strong showing and the GPU’s competitive but not class-leading performance. For users prioritizing high refresh rates at 1080p or 1440p, this setup is well-suited, but for 4K gaming, it falls short of the top-tier combos in the database.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured FPS data provides a clear basis for recommending optimal settings based on resolution and target frame rates. At 1080p, the system is capable of exceeding 100 FPS on all presets, making it suitable for high-refresh-rate monitors. The Ultra preset delivers 96 FPS, which is within the range of smooth gameplay for most users. However, the Medium preset offers 124 FPS, which is a 29% improvement over Ultra, and the Low preset reaches 174 FPS. For competitive play or maximum smoothness, the Low preset is the best choice, but for visual fidelity with acceptable performance, High at 110 FPS or Ultra at 96 FPS are both viable options.

At 1440p, the frame rates remain playable across all settings, but the margin for high refresh rates narrows. The Ultra preset averages 72 FPS, which is suitable for 60 Hz displays but may not fully utilize a 144 Hz monitor. The High preset at 83 FPS offers a better balance, providing a 15% performance boost over Ultra with minimal visual difference. The Medium preset at 94 FPS is the best option for users seeking smooth gameplay on a 144 Hz display, as it approaches the refresh rate while maintaining reasonable visual quality. The Low preset at 132 FPS is ideal for esports-style play, but it sacrifices most graphical effects.

At 4K, the system struggles to maintain high frame rates, and settings must be chosen carefully. The Ultra preset averages 49 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold and may result in noticeable stuttering on some displays. The High preset at 56 FPS is an improvement but still falls short of 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 63 FPS finally crosses the 60 FPS line, with a minimum of 54 FPS and a maximum of 73 FPS, indicating some frame time variance but generally playable performance. The Low preset at 89 FPS is the only 4K option that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, though it significantly reduces visual quality.

For the best overall experience, the data suggests that Medium settings at 1440p provide the optimal balance of visual fidelity and performance, with an average of 94 FPS and a minimum of 80 FPS. This preset ensures that the frame rate remains consistently above 75 FPS, which is smooth for most gaming scenarios. At 4K, Medium is the recommended preset, as it is the only one that consistently exceeds 60 FPS on average, albeit with a minimum of 54 FPS. For users with 120 Hz or higher refresh rate displays at 1080p, the Low preset at 174 FPS is the best choice to fully leverage the display’s capabilities.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following breakdown provides the exact average FPS figures for each resolution and settings preset, as measured in the database. All values are average FPS unless otherwise noted, and where available, minimum and maximum FPS are included for the Medium preset.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 174 FPS
• Medium: 124 FPS (minimum 105 FPS, maximum 142 FPS)
• High: 110 FPS
• Ultra: 96 FPS

At 1080p, the system delivers excellent performance across the board. The Low preset achieves 174 FPS, which is 40% higher than the Medium preset’s 124 FPS. Moving from Medium to High results in an 11% drop to 110 FPS, and from High to Ultra another 13% drop to 96 FPS. The frame rate scaling is consistent, with each step up in settings costing roughly 10-14% performance. The Medium preset’s minimum of 105 FPS indicates that even in demanding scenes, the system stays well above 100 FPS.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 132 FPS
• Medium: 94 FPS (minimum 80 FPS, maximum 108 FPS)
• High: 83 FPS
• Ultra: 72 FPS

At 1440p, the performance remains strong but shows a more pronounced impact from settings changes. The Low preset delivers 132 FPS, which is 40% higher than Medium’s 94 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 80 FPS is still playable, but the gap between minimum and maximum (28 FPS) suggests some variability in frame times. High settings at 83 FPS represent a 12% drop from Medium, while Ultra at 72 FPS is another 13% reduction. The system comfortably exceeds 60 FPS on all presets, making 1440p a sweet spot for this combo.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 89 FPS
• Medium: 63 FPS (minimum 54 FPS, maximum 73 FPS)
• High: 56 FPS
• Ultra: 49 FPS

At 4K, the system’s performance drops significantly, and the settings choices become critical. The Low preset achieves 89 FPS, which is the only 4K configuration that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 63 FPS is playable, but the minimum of 54 FPS indicates that the system can dip below the 60 FPS threshold in intense scenes. High settings at 56 FPS and Ultra at 49 FPS both fall short of 60 FPS, making them less desirable for a smooth experience. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 29% drop, while Medium to High is an 11% drop, and High to Ultra is a 12.5% drop.

The data across all resolutions shows a clear pattern: the system is well-suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with ample headroom for high refresh rates. At 4K, users must compromise on settings to achieve playable frame rates, with Medium being the highest preset that maintains an average above 60 FPS.