Control

Control is an action-adventure title from 2019 that remains demanding on modern hardware, particularly for lower-end GPUs. This analysis examines the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB, using measured frame rate data to determine how this specific combination handles the game across different resolutions and settings. The data shows a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics card, with the powerful 12-core processor left largely underutilized in this title.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and dramatic performance drop as resolution increases, which strongly indicates that the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is the primary limiting component in this configuration. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system delivers an average of 83 FPS, which is a very playable frame rate. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same Low settings, the average FPS falls to 63, a reduction of 20 FPS. Scaling further to 3840x2160 at Low settings, the average drops to 43 FPS, showing a consistent and significant penalty at each higher resolution step.

The trend becomes even more pronounced when examining the High and Ultra presets. At 1920x1080 High, the average is 53 FPS. This falls to 40 FPS at 2560x1440 High, and then plummets to 27 FPS at 3840x2160 High. The Ultra preset shows the most aggressive scaling, with the average FPS dropping from 46 at 1080p to 35 at 1440p, and finally to a nearly unplayable 23 FPS at 4K. This pattern of roughly 20-30% performance degradation for each resolution tier is a classic signature of GPU-bound rendering, where the RTX 3050's 4 GB memory capacity and bandwidth become bottlenecks.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings at 4K is particularly telling. At 3840x2160, Low produces 43 FPS while Ultra only manages 23 FPS, a difference of 20 FPS. This indicates that the GPU's shading units and memory bus are saturated at this resolution, and increasing the visual fidelity through higher presets directly taxes the already strained resources. The 1920x1080 resolution appears to be the only viable option for achieving consistently smooth frame rates across all settings, with the Low preset being the only configuration that gets close to a 90 FPS experience.

Interestingly, the scaling between Medium and High at 1440p shows a smaller gap (45 vs 40 FPS) than between Low and Medium (63 vs 45 FPS). This suggests that the Medium preset strikes a better balance at this resolution, as the GPU is not overwhelmed by the transition from Low to Medium as much as it is from Medium to High. The data overall points to a system where the CPU's substantial capabilities—evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 47737—are completely irrelevant to the performance ceiling set by the RTX 3050.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this combination depends heavily on the user's display resolution and tolerance for frame rate dips. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers an average of 53 FPS, which is a solid target for most players. However, the Medium preset at 59 FPS offers a better balance, providing a higher average while also maintaining a minimum of 50 FPS, ensuring smoother frame pacing. The Low preset at 83 FPS is the only way to fully utilize high-refresh-rate 1080p monitors, but it sacrifices visual quality in a game known for its atmospheric details.

For 2560x1440 users, the data suggests that the Medium preset is the sweet spot. It achieves an average of 45 FPS with a minimum of 38 FPS, which is on the edge of playability but represents the best compromise between visual fidelity and performance. The High preset at 40 FPS is marginally worse, and the Ultra preset at 35 FPS risks dropping into the low 30s during intense combat sequences. The Low preset at 63 FPS is technically smooth, but the visual downgrade is substantial. It is clear that 1440p is a stretch for this GPU, and users should be prepared to accept Medium settings as the ceiling for a playable experience.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets provide a consistently playable frame rate. The Low preset averages 43 FPS, which may be acceptable for slower-paced exploration, but the Medium preset at 30 FPS and High at 27 FPS will struggle in action scenes. The Ultra preset at 23 FPS is essentially unplayable. The data indicates that 4K is not a realistic target for this combination, and users with 4K displays would need to rely on resolution scaling or external upscaling techniques, which are not accounted for in these measured rows.

The Medium preset appears to be the most consistent option across all resolutions. It offers a predictable performance profile, and its minimum FPS values (50 at 1080p, 38 at 1440p, 26 at 4K) are more stable than the gaps seen in other presets. For the best overall experience, the 1920x1080 Medium setting is recommended, as it provides a 59 FPS average with a minimum of 50 FPS, which is the closest to a locked 60 FPS experience in the entire data set.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB plays the definitive role in this game's performance, acting as the sole bottleneck. The GPU features a GA107 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, with a base clock of 1545 MHz and a boost clock of 1740 MHz. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s. These specifications are modest by modern standards, and Control's detailed environments and physics effects quickly exhaust the available resources.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is likely the most critical constraint. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the game requires texture memory that this GPU cannot supply, leading to the observed 23 FPS average. Even at 1080p, the Ultra preset only manages 46 FPS, suggesting that the 4 GB memory pool is already being taxed at the lowest tested resolution. The measured data implies that the GPU's memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s is insufficient for the texture streaming demands at higher resolutions, causing the significant frame rate drops.

The GPU's 2048 shading units and 32 ROPs are also working at their limits. The pixel rate of 55.68 GPixel/s is quickly saturated at 4K, which explains why even the Low preset at 43 FPS cannot achieve a smooth 60 FPS. The FP32 performance of 7.127 TFLOPS is adequate for 1080p gaming but falls short for higher resolutions. The RTX 3050's 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores do not appear to provide any measurable benefit in this data, as the game's ray tracing features would likely reduce performance further, though those settings are not isolated in the measured rows.

In contrast, the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D is vastly overqualified for this pairing. With 12 cores and 24 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture, this CPU can handle far more demanding workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 47737 and single-core score of 6739 place it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. However, in Control, the GPU is so weak that the CPU's performance headroom is never utilized. The data shows no evidence of CPU limitation, as frame rates scale linearly with resolution and settings, which is the opposite of what would happen if the CPU were the bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB ranks at position 2522 out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 12% of all configurations, which is a surprisingly low ranking given the high-end CPU. This ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's limitations, as the combo's performance is entirely dictated by the graphics card's capabilities.

The CPU itself is far more capable than its rivals. The Ryzen 9 9900X3D has an average benchmark score of 54762, which is 0.6% behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF (55093) and 1.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (54053). It also leads the Intel Xeon 6505P by 2% and the Intel Core i7-14700F by 2.1% in average score. This places the CPU in the 91st percentile of all processors, indicating that it is one of the strongest chips available. However, this strength is irrelevant when paired with a GPU that ranks in the 50th percentile of all graphics cards.

The ranking of 2522 out of 2888 combos suggests that users would get a far better experience by pairing the RTX 3050 with a much weaker CPU, as the frame rates would be identical but the system cost would be lower. The data implies that this specific combo is a poor match for Control, as the CPU's potential is completely wasted. The ranking also indicates that most other tested combinations, including those with mid-range CPUs and slightly better GPUs, outperform this setup. The 4 GB VRAM limit is the primary factor dragging the combo down to this low position.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the average FPS exceeds 60 in any preset. At 2560x1440, the highest average is 63 FPS on Low, but Medium and above dip below 45 FPS. At 3840x2160, all presets average below 43 FPS.

Q: Can this system play Control at 4K?

A: Technically yes, but not well. The best 4K result is 43 FPS on Low settings, while Medium averages 30 FPS, High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. None of these are ideal for smooth gameplay.

Q: Which preset offers the highest average FPS at 1080p?

A: The Low preset delivers the highest average at 83 FPS. The Medium preset follows at 59 FPS, High at 53 FPS, and Ultra at 46 FPS.

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

A: The benchmark results clearly indicate the GPU is the bottleneck. Frame rates scale heavily with resolution and settings, which is characteristic of GPU limitation. The CPU has a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 47737, but this does not influence the measured FPS.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the Medium preset at 1440p?

A: The minimum FPS for 2560x1440 Medium is 38 FPS, with a maximum of 51 FPS and an average of 45 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X3D has an average benchmark score of 54762. It is 0.6% behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, 1.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K, 2% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6505P, and 2.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-14700F.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table provides the exact measured average FPS for each resolution and settings combination.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Minimum FPS | Maximum FPS |

|---|---|---|---|---|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 83 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 59 | 50 | 68 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 53 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 46 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 63 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 45 | 38 | 51 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 40 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 35 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 43 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 30 | 26 | 35 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 27 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 23 | - | - |

The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p is playable across all presets, 1440p is marginal except on Low, and 4K is not recommended. The Medium preset provides the most consistent frame times, as evidenced by the available minimum FPS data. The performance delta between Low and Ultra is 37 FPS at 1080p, 28 FPS at 1440p, and 20 FPS at 4K, demonstrating how the GPU's limitations compress the performance range as resolution increases.