Control

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti pairing delivers a very capable 4K experience in Control, with the data showing a clear trade-off between visual fidelity and frame rate. The benchmark results indicate that this combo sits in the 75.8th percentile of all tested configurations for this game, ranking 700 out of 2888 combos, which places it firmly in the upper tier for performance.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of performance across four settings presets at three resolutions. For players prioritizing a locked 60 FPS experience at 4K, the "High" preset is the optimal choice, delivering an average of 62 FPS. This is the only 4K preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold, making it the default recommendation for high-refresh-rate 4K displays.

Pushing to "Ultra" at 4K drops the average to 54 FPS, a 12.9% reduction from High that may not justify the marginal visual gains in a fast-paced action game. The "Medium" preset at 4K offers a safer margin above 60 FPS with an average of 70 FPS and a recorded minimum of 59 FPS, making it a solid fallback if you encounter demanding scenes. The "Low" preset at 4K produces 98 FPS, but the visual downgrade is typically too severe for a game like Control that relies heavily on atmosphere and environmental detail.

At 1440p, the situation improves significantly. The "High" preset averages 92 FPS, while "Ultra" still manages 80 FPS, both excellent for smooth gameplay on 144Hz monitors. The "Medium" preset provides a comfortable 103 FPS average with a minimum of 88 FPS, making it the best balance for competitive play or high-refresh displays. The "Low" preset reaches 145 FPS, but this is largely unnecessary given the headroom available at higher settings.

At 1080p, all presets are highly playable. The "Ultra" preset averages 105 FPS, which is the best choice for maximum visual quality without sacrificing smoothness. The "Medium" preset hits 136 FPS with a minimum of 116 FPS, and "High" sits at 121 FPS. The "Low" preset achieves 192 FPS, which is only relevant for extremely high refresh rate displays (240Hz+). The data strongly suggests that this combo is not CPU-bound at 1080p, as the scaling from Low to Ultra is consistent and GPU-driven.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 700 out of 2888 tested configurations places this pairing in the top quarter of all systems tested in Control. This is a strong result, but not a top-tier one, reflecting the balance of a high-end CPU with a previous-generation high-end GPU. The percentile ranking indicates that this combo outperforms roughly 75.8% of all tested systems, which is impressive given the game's age and the wide variety of hardware tested.

The data shows that the RTX 3080 Ti is the primary driver of the ranking here. The CPU's benchmark scores are exceptional, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 47737 and a single-core score of 6739, but Control is not a CPU-intensive title at these resolutions. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 26896 and its 83rd percentile ranking among all GPUs are more indicative of the in-game performance. The combo's performance aligns closely with the GPU's capabilities, suggesting that the 9900X3D is providing sufficient headroom to avoid bottlenecking the 3080 Ti, even at 1080p where CPU load is typically highest.

Compared to the CPU's nearest rivals, the 9900X3D's average benchmark score of 54762 is only 0.6% behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF and 1.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K. These margins are negligible in gaming workloads, confirming that the CPU choice is not the limiting factor in this pairing. The GPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (0.8% higher average score) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (2% lower average score), but these are workstation and newer-generation parts respectively, so direct gaming comparisons are limited by the available data.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti is the workhorse of this configuration for Control. Its 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus provides 912.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than sufficient for the game's texture and geometry demands at 4K Ultra. The 10240 shading units and 80 RT cores are fully utilized in Control's physics-heavy environments and optional ray tracing effects, though the measured data does not specify whether ray tracing is enabled.

The GPU's boost clock of 1665 MHz and base clock of 1365 MHz are modest by modern standards, but the architecture's efficiency and the sheer number of cores compensate. The FP32 performance of 34.10 TFLOPS is the theoretical peak, and the measured frame rates suggest the card is operating near its expected efficiency envelope. The 350 W TDP and dual-slot cooler are substantial, and the suggested 750 W PSU is a reasonable recommendation for system stability.

The GPU's benchmark percentile of 83% versus all GPUs indicates it is a well-above-average part, but the data shows it is not the absolute top tier. In Control, the scaling from 1080p to 4K at the same settings reveals the GPU's limits. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 121 at 1080p to 92 at 1440p (a 24% reduction) and then to 62 at 4K (a 48.8% reduction from 1440p). This scaling pattern is classic GPU-bound behavior, where the rendering resolution directly impacts the frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of performance across all settings and resolutions. At 1080p, the combo delivers exceptional frame rates across the board. The Low preset averages 192 FPS, Medium averages 136 FPS with a minimum of 116 FPS, High averages 121 FPS, and Ultra averages 105 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 87 FPS, indicating that the GPU has significant headroom at this resolution, and the CPU is not a limiting factor.

At 1440p, the performance scales predictably. The Low preset averages 145 FPS, Medium averages 103 FPS with a minimum of 88 FPS, High averages 92 FPS, and Ultra averages 80 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 65 FPS, showing the GPU is beginning to feel the load. The Medium preset's minimum of 88 FPS is particularly notable, as it ensures a smooth experience even in demanding scenes.

At 4K, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck. The Low preset averages 98 FPS, Medium averages 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS, High averages 62 FPS, and Ultra averages 54 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is just 44 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls below the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset's minimum of 59 FPS is the only sub-60 reading in the entire dataset, indicating that even the Medium preset can occasionally dip below the smoothness threshold at 4K.

The data reveals that the step from Medium to High at 4K costs 8 FPS (from 70 to 62), while the step from High to Ultra costs another 8 FPS (from 62 to 54). This suggests that the Ultra preset is the most demanding, and the High preset is the sweet spot for 4K gaming. At 1440p and 1080p, the step from High to Ultra costs 12 FPS and 16 FPS respectively, making Ultra a reasonable choice at those resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K clearly demonstrates that this combo is GPU-limited at higher resolutions. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 121 at 1080p to 92 at 1440p, a 24% reduction, and then to 62 at 4K, a 48.8% reduction from 1440p. This is a classic resolution scaling curve for a GPU-bound scenario, where the frame rate is inversely proportional to the number of pixels rendered.

At Low settings, the scaling is even more pronounced. The average FPS drops from 192 at 1080p to 145 at 1440p (a 24.5% reduction) and then to 98 at 4K (a 32.4% reduction from 1440p). The larger absolute drop from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings suggests that the CPU is still able to feed the GPU adequately, but the GPU is hitting its limits as the resolution increases.

The Medium preset shows a similar pattern, with averages of 136 FPS at 1080p, 103 FPS at 1440p (a 24.3% reduction), and 70 FPS at 4K (a 32% reduction from 1440p). The Ultra preset follows suit, with averages of 105 FPS at 1080p, 80 FPS at 1440p (a 23.8% reduction), and 54 FPS at 4K (a 32.5% reduction from 1440p).

The consistent percentage reductions across all settings indicate that the GPU is the limiting component in every scenario. The CPU's high single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6739) and multi-thread capabilities (47737) are more than sufficient to keep the GPU fed, even at 1080p where CPU load is typically highest. This is further evidenced by the fact that the FPS drops are directly proportional to the pixel count increase, with no sudden cliff or plateau that would indicate a CPU bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 60 FPS experience at 4K?

A: The High preset is the only 4K option that averages above 60 FPS, with a measured average of 62 FPS. The Medium preset averages 70 FPS but has a minimum of 59 FPS, making it a viable alternative if you want more headroom, while Ultra dips to 54 FPS and is not recommended for 60 FPS targets.

Q: How does this combo perform at 1440p for high-refresh-rate monitors?

A: At 1440p, the combo delivers excellent frame rates, with the High preset averaging 92 FPS and Ultra averaging 80 FPS. The Medium preset offers the best balance with an average of 103 FPS and a minimum of 88 FPS, making it suitable for 144Hz displays without sacrificing visual quality.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data clearly shows the GPU is the limiting component at all resolutions. The FPS drops from 1080p to 4K are directly proportional to the pixel count increase, and the CPU's benchmark scores (47737 multi-core, 6739 single-core in Cinebench R23) are far above what Control requires. The 9900X3D is not bottlenecking the 3080 Ti.

*Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems in Control?*

A: The combo ranks 700 out of 2888 tested configurations, placing it in the 75.8th percentile. This means it outperforms roughly three-quarters of all systems tested in this game, which is a strong result for a high-end CPU with a previous-generation high-end GPU.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the Low preset averages 192 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 105 FPS, a difference of 87 FPS. This large gap indicates the GPU has significant headroom at 1080p, making Ultra the recommended choice for maximum visual quality without compromising smoothness.

Q: Can this combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K with the Ultra preset?

A: No, the Ultra preset at 4K averages 54 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The High preset is the highest quality setting that achieves a 60 FPS average at 4K, while the Medium preset provides a safer margin with a minimum above 59 FPS.