Control

Control, the 2019 action-adventure title, presents an extreme challenge for the combination of an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D processor and an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 graphics card. The measured frame rates reveal a system that is almost entirely constrained by its graphics processor, resulting in a gaming experience that is playable only at the lowest settings and resolutions. The data indicates a profound imbalance between the CPU's immense processing capabilities and the GPU's limited rendering throughput.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 clearly demonstrates that the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the definitive bottleneck in this pairing. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the system produces an average of 36 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, the average drops to 27 FPS, a 25% reduction. At 3840x2160, the average falls to 18 FPS, which is exactly half the performance seen at 1080p. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU that is running out of pixel-pushing capability, as the workload increases quadratically with resolution.

The impact of resolution is even more pronounced at the Ultra preset. The system manages 31 FPS at 1080p, but this plummets to 23 FPS at 1440p and further to 16 FPS at 4K. These figures are all below the threshold for smooth gameplay, and the 4K result of 16 FPS is essentially a slideshow. The data suggests that the GTX 1650's memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s and its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory are insufficient for the demands of higher resolutions in this title.

Interestingly, the scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings shows a less severe drop, from 56 FPS to 43 FPS. However, the jump to 4K Low still results in a significant fall to 29 FPS. This indicates that even when the graphical load is minimized, the GPU cannot maintain playable frame rates at 4K. The consistent pattern across all settings confirms that the limiting component is always the GPU; the CPU, with its 16 cores and 32 threads, is never the bottleneck in this scenario.

How This Combo Ranks

The benchmark data places this specific CPU and GPU combination at rank 3588 out of 3720 tested combos for Control. This places it in the bottom 4% of all systems tested, a position that reflects the severe performance mismatch between the two components. The GTX 1650's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 40, meaning it performs better than only 40% of the GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 7472 is closely matched by rivals such as the Intel Arc A310, which scores 7550, and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, which scores 7447.

This ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's limitations. While the CPU is a top-tier part, the combo's overall performance is dragged down by the GPU's inability to render frames quickly enough. The data shows that the system is not competitive with other combos, primarily because the GTX 1650 was an entry-level card at its launch and is now considered end-of-life. The 40th percentile GPU ranking underscores that this is a low-tier graphics solution, and its pairing with a high-end CPU does not change the fundamental limitation.

The combination's position in the bottom 4% of all tested configurations for this game highlights that users with this setup will have a subpar experience in Control. The benchmark results show that the system's performance is dominated by the GPU's constraints, and no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for the graphics card's lack of raw throughput.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable configuration for a playable experience is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which yields an average of 56 FPS. This is the only tested setting that consistently stays above the 60 FPS target, and even then, it does not quite reach it. The next best option is 1080p Medium, which produces an average of 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS. This is playable but may feel less smooth in action-heavy scenes.

At 2560x1440, the user must accept a significant performance hit. The Low preset delivers an average of 43 FPS, which is borderline. However, the Medium preset at this resolution drops to 30 FPS, and the High preset falls to 27 FPS. These figures suggest that 1440p gaming is not a good experience with this hardware. At 3840x2160, no settings preset provides a playable frame rate, with the highest average being 29 FPS at Low settings.

The data indicates that the "High" and "Ultra" presets are not suitable for this hardware at any resolution. Even at 1080p, the High preset only manages 36 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 31 FPS. The minimum FPS recorded for the Medium preset at 1080p is 34 FPS, which could lead to noticeable stuttering. For a consistent experience, the 1080p Low setting is the only recommendation. Users seeking better visual fidelity would need to accept a frame rate in the 30-40 FPS range, which is often considered the minimum for playable, though not ideal, gaming.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest playable frame rate achievable with this combo?

A: The highest average frame rate measured is 56 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K resolution?

A: No. The best 4K result is 29 FPS at Low settings, which is not a playable frame rate. High, Medium, and Ultra settings at 4K produce averages of 18, 20, and 16 FPS, respectively.

Q: How does the GTX 1650's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. It is 1% faster than the Intel Arc A310, which scores 7550, and 0.3% faster than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, which scores 7447.

Q: What is the most demanding setting preset for this system?

A: The Ultra preset at 3840x2160 is the most demanding, producing an average of only 16 FPS. This is the lowest performance recorded in the dataset.

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

A: The GPU is the clear limiting factor. The frame rates scale directly with resolution, and even the powerful Ryzen 9 9950X3D cannot overcome the GTX 1650's rendering limits.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 56 FPS, while the Ultra preset achieves 31 FPS. This is a difference of 25 FPS, or approximately 45% lower performance for the Ultra preset.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the primary determinant of this system's gaming performance in Control. Its specifications reveal why it struggles: it has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The card's base clock is 1485 MHz, which boosts to 1665 MHz. Its compute capabilities are limited, with 896 shading units and a FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS. These specifications place it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, confirming its entry-level status.

The 4 GB VRAM is a critical limitation. While the measured FPS data does not explicitly cite VRAM capacity as a cause, the severe performance drop at higher resolutions and settings is consistent with a GPU running out of memory or bandwidth. The card's pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are simply too low to handle the demands of a modern action-adventure game at high detail levels.

The GTX 1650's benchmark scores paint a clear picture of its capabilities. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 305, and its Passmark G3D score is 7880. These are low figures that correlate with the poor gaming performance observed. The card's nearest rivals, such as the Intel UHD Graphics 750 with a score of 7441, are also integrated or low-end solutions, further underscoring the GTX 1650's position in the market. The data shows that this GPU is not designed for demanding titles like Control at high resolutions.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is a top-tier processor that is completely underutilized in this configuration. With 16 cores and 32 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture, it has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. Its benchmark scores are exceptional, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42018 and a single-core score of 2259. The CPU's average benchmark score is 75779, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs.

In this game, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with data, but the GTX 1650 is so slow that the CPU is never the bottleneck. The measured FPS data shows that the system's performance is entirely dependent on the GPU's rendering speed. The CPU's massive 128 MB of L3 cache and high clock speeds do not translate to higher frame rates because the GPU cannot process frames fast enough to utilize the CPU's output.

The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285, which have nearly identical average scores. This indicates that the 9950X3D is at the very top of the CPU performance hierarchy. However, this performance is irrelevant in this specific pairing, as the gaming experience is capped by the GPU's limitations. The data suggests that this CPU would be better suited to a much more powerful graphics card to achieve a balanced system.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset for this combination shows a clear pattern of decreasing performance with increasing resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset yields the highest average at 56 FPS. The Medium preset follows at 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS. The High preset produces 36 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 31 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only one that approaches playability, with an average of 43 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 30 FPS, with a minimum of 26 FPS and a maximum of 35 FPS. The High preset averages 27 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 23 FPS.

At 3840x2160, all results are below playable thresholds. The Low preset averages 29 FPS. The Medium preset averages 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 FPS and a maximum of 24 FPS. The High preset averages 18 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 16 FPS. The data shows that only the 1080p Low setting provides a reasonably smooth experience, while all other configurations result in frame rates that are either borderline or unplayable.