Control

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT delivers a solid but not spectacular experience in Control, landing in the 812th position out of 1636 tested combinations. This mid-pack ranking reflects a pairing where the CPU’s immense compute potential is heavily restrained by the GPU’s mid-range throughput, particularly at higher resolutions. The measured data shows this combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can push high refresh rates, while 4K remains a challenge unless settings are dialed back.

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), with a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. It features a substantial 128 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, delivering 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU is exceptionally strong: it scores 59,712 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 8,430 in single-core, with a Geekbench multi-core score of 22,515 and single-core of 3,401. Its Passmark multithread score of 70,255 places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs.

However, in Control, this CPU's power is largely underutilized. The game is not particularly CPU-intensive, and the bottleneck shifts almost entirely to the GPU. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 149.3 FPS, which suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU well over 150 frames per second in this title. Yet, this is the only setting where the frame rate approaches the CPU’s theoretical ceiling. The delta between the CPU's massive multi-threaded capability and the game's actual frame output indicates that Control relies more on single-thread performance and GPU rasterization than on the 9950X3D's 32 threads. The processor’s 16 cores and 32 threads are effectively idle in most scenes, as evidenced by the fact that dropping from 1080p Low to 4K Ultra only reduces the CPU’s workload impact, with the frame rate collapsing from 149.3 to 42.5 FPS due to GPU limits.

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

*Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo in Control?*

A: The data indicates 1080p is the sweet spot, with average FPS ranging from 80.5 at Ultra to 149.3 at Low. At 1440p, the combo still delivers playable results, from 59.6 at Ultra to 113.4 at Low, but 4K performance drops significantly, with no settings achieving above 73.8 FPS.

Q: How does the Ryzen 9 9950X3D compare to its closest rival in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 9 9950X3D has an average benchmark score of 71,660, which is 1.8% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X (70,420) and 2.2% higher than the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70,104). It trails the Intel Xeon 6517P (73,050) by 1.9%.

Q: Is the RX 6750 XT a bottleneck for the 9950X3D in this game?

A: Yes, the benchmark results strongly suggest the GPU is the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 149.3 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 42.5 FPS. The CPU’s high single-thread score (8,430 in Cinebench R23) is not the constraint; the GPU’s rendering power is.

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

A: At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops from 113.4 on Low settings to 59.6 on Ultra settings, a reduction of 53.8 FPS. This highlights the significant performance cost of higher graphical fidelity.

Q: How does the GPU’s benchmark percentile translate to its in-game performance?

A: The RX 6750 XT sits in the 79th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 35,327. In Control, this translates to playable 1080p and 1440p performance, but it struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 4K, even on High settings (47 FPS).

Q: Does the combo rank change between different settings at the same resolution?

A: The provided data shows the combo’s overall rank in the game is 812 out of 1636, but this rank is static. The measured FPS varies wildly by settings; for example, at 4K, the difference between Low (73.8 FPS) and Ultra (42.5 FPS) is 31.3 FPS, showing that settings have a massive impact on playability.

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

The resolution scaling data is a clear indicator of the GPU being the primary bottleneck. Moving from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 at the same settings shows a dramatic decline in average FPS. At High settings, the frame rate falls from 94.4 FPS at 1080p to 71.6 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 47.0 FPS at 4K — a total drop of 47.4 FPS (50.2%) from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the drop is even steeper in absolute terms: from 149.3 FPS at 1080p to 113.4 FPS at 1440p, and then to 73.8 FPS at 4K, representing a 75.5 FPS (50.6%) decline.

This pattern indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor. If the CPU were the constraint, the FPS would remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU’s work per frame is largely resolution-independent. Instead, the FPS drops proportionally with the pixel count, which is the hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario. The RX 6750 XT’s 12 GB of VRAM and 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are sufficient for the data, but its raw compute power (13.31 TFLOPS FP32) is simply not enough to maintain high frame rates at 4K. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is less severe (a ~24% drop at High settings), but the jump to 4K exposes the GPU’s limits. This data suggests that for a smoother 4K experience, users would need to lower settings to Low (73.8 FPS), which still does not reach the 80 FPS achieved at 1080p Medium.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo ranks 812th out of 1636 tested combinations in Control, placing it in the 50.3rd percentile of all combos. This is a middling result, suggesting that while the setup is common, it does not stand out for this particular game. The rank is likely dragged down by the GPU, as the CPU alone sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The data implies that many other combinations—likely those with higher-end GPUs—achieve better frame rates.

To contextualize this, the GPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (average score 35,264, 0.2% lower) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (average score 35,787, 1.3% higher). The performance gap between these GPUs is narrow, meaning the combo’s rank is not an outlier but rather a typical result for a GPU in this performance class. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 (average score 71,056, 0.9% lower) and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X (average score 70,420, 1.8% lower), show that the 9950X3D is a top-tier CPU, yet it cannot boost this combo’s rank beyond the mid-pack due to the GPU’s constraints. In essence, the 812th rank reflects a GPU-bound system where CPU headroom is vast but unused.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture (Navi 22 chip) with a 7 nm process. It features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. The GPU has a base clock of 2150 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz, with a game clock of 2495 MHz. It contains 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 40 ray tracing cores. Its theoretical performance is rated at 13.31 TFLOPS FP32 and a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s.

In Control, these specs translate to a GPU that can handle 1080p and 1440p comfortably but struggles at 4K. The 12 GB VRAM is not a limiting factor, as even at 4K Ultra, the game does not appear to exceed this capacity, given the frame rates are still dictated by compute rather than memory overflow. The boost clock of 2600 MHz is relatively high, but the 13.31 TFLOPS compute is modest by modern standards. This is evident in the 4K results: 47 FPS at High and 42.5 FPS at Ultra. The GPU’s Passmark G3D score of 20,700 and its 79th percentile ranking among all GPUs corroborate the in-game data, showing it as a mid-range performer. The gap between the RX 6750 XT and the RTX 3080 (1.3% higher average score) is small, but the in-game results suggest the RTX 3080 would be significantly faster in Control due to its higher bandwidth, though that is outside the provided data scope.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the combo’s capabilities. At 1920x1080, the average FPS is as follows: Low settings yield 149.3 FPS, Medium yields 103.8 FPS, High yields 94.4 FPS, and Ultra yields 80.5 FPS. This shows a clear progression, with Ultra being 46.1% slower than Low.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops: Low settings average 113.4 FPS, Medium 80.6 FPS, High 71.6 FPS, and Ultra 59.6 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 24% at High settings (from 94.4 to 71.6 FPS) and 24% at Low settings (from 149.3 to 113.4 FPS).

At 3840x2160, the frame rates are significantly lower: Low settings average 73.8 FPS, Medium 52.2 FPS, High 47.0 FPS, and Ultra 42.5 FPS. The jump from 1440p to 4K represents a 34% reduction at High settings (71.6 to 47.0 FPS) and a 35% reduction at Low settings (113.4 to 73.8 FPS). Notably, the minimum FPS values are not provided, but the average FPS alone shows that 4K Ultra (42.5 FPS) is the only configuration that dips below the 45 FPS threshold, making it borderline playable. The data shows that at 4K, even Low settings (73.8 FPS) cannot match the 1080p Ultra performance (80.5 FPS), reinforcing the GPU bottleneck.

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

Based on the measured FPS, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1080p, the High preset (94.4 FPS) offers a balanced experience, providing a significant visual upgrade over Medium (103.8 FPS) with only a 9.4 FPS loss, while Ultra (80.5 FPS) sacrifices an additional 13.9 FPS for marginal gains. The Low preset (149.3 FPS) is overkill for most displays and suggests the CPU is waiting on the GPU.

For 1440p, the High preset (71.6 FPS) is the recommended choice, as it sits just above the 70 FPS mark, offering smooth gameplay. The Medium preset (80.6 FPS) is a viable alternative if a higher frame rate is preferred, but the visual difference between Medium and High is typically noticeable. Ultra (59.6 FPS) is playable but risky for 60 Hz displays, as any scene complexity could push it below 60 FPS.

For 4K, the data is clear: only the Low preset (73.8 FPS) provides a comfortable experience. Medium (52.2 FPS) and High (47.0 FPS) are borderline, and Ultra (42.5 FPS) is not recommended for a smooth experience. Given the GPU’s constraints, 4K gaming should be limited to Low settings, or the resolution should be reduced to 1440p for better quality. The 4K High setting (47.0 FPS) is the only configuration that falls below 50 FPS, meaning users with 60 Hz 4K monitors should stick to Low or drop to 1440p High for a better balance of fidelity and smoothness.