Control

Control pairs a 16-core Zen 5 APU with a compact RDNA 3 integrated GPU, and the measured frames in this Action Adventure title reveal a system that is decisively constrained by its graphics solution. The data shows a component combination that ranks near the very bottom of all tested configurations for this game, with performance characteristics that shift predictably as resolution and settings change, but never escape the fundamental limits imposed by the integrated graphics.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep and consistent performance cliff as resolution increases, which strongly indicates that the AMD Radeon 760M is the limiting component in this combination. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system produces 40 FPS, but stepping up to 2560x1440 at the same quality preset drops the average to 30 FPS, a 25% reduction. Pushing further to 3840x2160 at Low settings yields just 21 FPS, which represents a 47.5% decline from the 1080p result. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU that is saturated with pixel output work, as the CPU has ample headroom at these frame rates.

The scaling trend becomes even more pronounced when examining the High settings preset across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the average is 25 FPS; at 2560x1440, it falls to 19 FPS (a 24% drop); and at 3840x2160, it plummets to 13 FPS (a 48% drop from 1080p). The fact that the percentage loss from 1080p to 4K is nearly identical for both Low and High settings (47.5% vs. 48%) suggests that the rendering workload is scaling almost purely with pixel count, rather than being influenced by CPU-side game logic. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller FPS gap between resolutions, as the processor would struggle to feed even the lower-resolution frames.

Interestingly, the gap between 1440p and 4K is smaller than the gap between 1080p and 1440p in absolute terms. For Low settings, the difference from 1440p to 4K is 9 FPS, while from 1080p to 1440p it is 10 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is so heavily loaded at 1440p that adding more pixels has diminishing marginal returns in terms of frame time impact. The data implies that the Radeon 760M's render output units and shading units are the primary constraint, as the system cannot maintain playable frame rates at any resolution above 1080p, regardless of the quality preset selected.

How This Combo Ranks

The overall standing of this CPU-GPU pairing in Control is remarkably low, with a combo rank of 2878 out of 2888 tested combinations. This places the system in the bottom 0.35% of all configurations in the database for this specific game, which is a striking result given that the CPU itself is a high-end mobile processor. The percentile positioning highlights a severe imbalance: the processor is capable of far more work than the integrated graphics can keep up with, creating a situation where the GPU becomes an absolute ceiling on performance.

The CPU's own benchmark percentile versus all CPUs is 95, meaning it outperforms 95% of all processors in general computing tasks. In contrast, the GPU's percentile versus all GPUs is 35, placing it in the bottom third of graphics hardware. This 60-point gap between the two components' relative standings explains why the combination ranks so poorly in a game like Control, which relies heavily on sustained GPU throughput. The nearest rivals for the CPU in terms of average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX, which scores 1.6% higher, and the Intel Core i9-14900K, which scores 1.7% higher. These comparisons show that the CPU is competitive with top-tier desktop processors in raw compute, making the gaming performance deficit entirely attributable to the graphics solution.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (0.3% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (0.3% higher), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (0.5% lower). These comparisons contextualize the Radeon 760M as a part that sits at the entry level of dedicated graphics performance from several generations ago. When paired with a processor that ranks alongside the Ryzen 9 8945HX (which scores 2% higher in average benchmarks), the mismatch becomes clear: this is a workstation-class CPU paired with an entry-level IGP, and Control's rendering demands expose the weakness of the latter.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 brings substantial processing resources to this pairing, including 16 cores and 32 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture. The processor operates with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, which are strong figures for a mobile part. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB of L3 cache, providing a large pool of fast memory for game logic and physics calculations. The CPU's benchmarks reflect its capability, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35314 and a single-core score of 2044, alongside a Geekbench multi-core score of 20992.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is largely underutilized because the frame rates are so low. At 1080p Low, where the system achieves 40 FPS, the CPU is likely not breaking a sweat, as the game's draw calls and physics updates can be handled by far fewer than 16 cores. The PassMark physics score of 3481 and the floating point math score of 128682 indicate that the processor has ample headroom for complex game simulations. However, the data shows that even at the lowest resolution and settings, the system cannot exceed 40 FPS, which is a clear indicator that the GPU is the limiting factor rather than the CPU.

The processor's memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, delivered via a quad-channel LPDDR5X interface, is a notable asset for an integrated graphics setup, as the GPU shares this memory pool. This configuration provides more bandwidth than typical dual-channel IGP systems, which could theoretically help the Radeon 760M perform better than it would with a narrower memory bus. Yet despite this advantage, the measured FPS remains low, suggesting that the GPU's raw compute throughput, rather than memory bandwidth, is the primary bottleneck. The CPU's 55 W TDP and 4 nm process node also speak to its efficiency, but in this gaming workload, those characteristics are irrelevant to the final frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Examining the measured FPS data in detail shows a clear hierarchy across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 40 FPS average, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. The Medium preset at 1080p produces 29 FPS with a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 33, showing a moderate frame time variance. High settings at 1080p reduce the average to 25 FPS, and Ultra settings bring it down to 22 FPS. This progression from Low to Ultra at 1080p represents a 45% performance penalty, which is substantial but expected for a game with scalable visual effects.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset drops to 30 FPS, still technically playable but noticeably less smooth. Medium at 1440p yields 22 FPS with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 25, while High settings produce 19 FPS and Ultra drops to 17 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 13 FPS, or 43%, which is similar to the percentage drop seen at 1080p. This consistency suggests that the relative cost of each settings tier is independent of resolution, which is typical for a GPU-bound scenario where each preset adds a fixed amount of shader work.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes marginal across the board. Low settings average 21 FPS, Medium averages 15 FPS with a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 17, High averages 13 FPS, and Ultra averages 11 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is 10 FPS, representing a 47.6% reduction. The minimum FPS values captured for Medium settings at each resolution (24 at 1080p, 18 at 1440p, 12 at 4K) indicate that frame pacing becomes more erratic as resolution increases, with the 4K minimum being only 80% of the average. This data pattern points to a GPU that is overwhelmed at higher resolutions, struggling to maintain consistent frame delivery.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Control with this hardware?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where any settings preset achieves an average above 30 FPS. At 2560x1440, the highest average is 30 FPS on Low settings, which is borderline, while 3840x2160 never exceeds 21 FPS on any preset.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average benchmark score of 77740, which is 1.6% lower than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and 1.7% lower than the Intel Core i9-14900K, but 2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX.

Q: Is the Radeon 760M faster than a dedicated graphics card?

A: The Radeon 760M's average benchmark score is 6019, which is 0.3% lower than the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and 0.3% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, but 0.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P2000.

Q: What is the highest average FPS achievable at 1080p?

A: The highest average FPS at 1920x1080 is 40, achieved with the Low settings preset. The Medium preset yields 29 FPS, High yields 25 FPS, and Ultra yields 22 FPS.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at Low settings?

A: At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 40 at 1920x1080 to 21 at 3840x2160, representing a 47.5% reduction in performance.

Q: Does the system ever deliver a playable 60 FPS experience in Control?

A: No. The maximum average FPS across all measured resolutions and settings is 40, which occurs only at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No configuration in the data reaches 60 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the Low settings preset at 1920x1080 is the only configuration that provides a reasonably playable experience, with an average of 40 FPS. This is the clear recommendation for any user seeking smooth gameplay, as it offers a 37.9% improvement over the next best option, which is Low at 2560x1440 at 30 FPS. The data suggests that sacrificing visual quality is mandatory, as even Medium settings at 1080p drop to 29 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable action gameplay.

If visual fidelity is prioritized over frame rate, the Ultra preset at 1080p yields 22 FPS, which is technically playable but subject to noticeable stutter. The Medium preset at 1080p provides a middle ground at 29 FPS with a minimum of 24 FPS, which might be acceptable for slower-paced exploration segments. However, the frame time variance at Medium (ranging from 24 to 33 FPS) indicates that the experience will not be consistent. For users who must play at 1440p, Low settings at 30 FPS is the only viable option, while 4K gaming should be avoided entirely, as the best case of 21 FPS at Low settings is below the threshold for responsive gameplay.

The data implies that the system is best suited for 1080p gaming with reduced settings, and that any attempt to increase resolution or quality will result in a significant degradation of the experience. The measured rows show no scenario where both high resolution and high settings are feasible, so users must make a clear trade-off. The recommendation is to lock the game to 1080p and use the Low preset, accepting the visual compromises in exchange for the highest possible frame rate.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is the decisive factor in this combination's gaming performance, and its specifications explain why the measured FPS is so limited. The GPU is based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture and features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. It operates with a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, which are respectable figures for an integrated processor. The chip has 8 ray tracing cores, though their impact on this game's performance is likely minimal given the overall frame rate constraints. The GPU's FP32 performance is rated at 5.323 TFLOPS, which places it in the entry-level category for modern graphics hardware.

The memory configuration is system shared, meaning the GPU draws from the same LPDDR5X pool as the CPU. The system's quad-channel memory interface provides 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a key enabler for the GPU to function at all. However, the shared nature of this memory means that the GPU must compete with the CPU for bandwidth, and in a game like Control that streams textures and geometry, this could exacerbate performance issues. The GPU's benchmark scores reflect its modest capabilities: a PassMark G3D score of 5310 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 20255. These numbers place the GPU at the 35th percentile of all graphics cards, and its nearest rivals in average score include the Radeon RX 6400 and GTX 770M, which are both several generations old.

The measured FPS data aligns perfectly with the GPU's theoretical performance. At 1080p Low, the 40 FPS result is consistent with what a 5.3 TFLOPS GPU with 512 shaders can deliver for a game released in 2019 with demanding visual effects. The GPU's 16 ROPs are particularly limiting at higher resolutions, as the pixel fill rate of 41.58 GPixel/s is insufficient for 1440p or 4K at any meaningful quality level. The data shows that the GPU is the sole bottleneck, as the CPU's 95th percentile ranking cannot compensate for the graphics solution's 35th percentile standing. Ultimately, the Radeon 760M defines this system's gaming ceiling, and for Control, that ceiling is firmly at 1080p with reduced settings.