Control

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 paired with the AMD Radeon 8060S integrated graphics delivers a playable, though not dominant, experience in Control, with the combo ranking in the 1632nd position out of 2888 tested combinations. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the database, indicating that while it can run the game, it will not be pushing high refresh rates at demanding settings. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy tied to resolution and preset, with 1080p Low delivering the only truly high frame rates, while 4K Ultra falls below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 1632 out of 2888 tested CPU-GPU pairs places it in the 43rd percentile of all tested systems for Control. This is a mid-pack result, meaning the experience will be acceptable for casual play but far from the top tier. The processor itself, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395, is a high-end mobile part that sits in the 95th percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 77740. Its nearest rivals in the CPU database include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (avg score 76513, delta 1.6%), the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (avg score 76492, delta 1.6%), and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (avg score 76212, delta 2%). The Intel Core i9-14900K is slightly ahead with an average score of 79097, a -1.7% delta from the Ryzen AI Max+ 395. These numbers indicate the CPU is not the limiting factor here; it has ample compute headroom for Control.

The graphics side tells a different story. The AMD Radeon 8060S is an integrated GPU with an average benchmark score of 55757, placing it in the 87th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (avg score 55698, delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 (avg score 56083, delta -0.6%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (avg score 54828, delta 1.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 (avg score 54247, delta 2.8%). The tiny deltaPct values against these discrete cards are surprising, but the measured FPS in Control tells the real story: the 8060S is a capable iGPU, yet it cannot match the sustained performance of a dedicated high-end card in a real game workload. The combo rank reflects this; the CPU’s strength does not fully compensate for the GPU’s limits in this title.

Benchmark results indicate that the pairing is balanced for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but it falls short at 4K Ultra. The 1632nd rank out of 2888 combos means roughly 56% of tested systems outperform it in Control. That is not a condemnation, but it sets expectations: this is a mainstream-performance combo, not an enthusiast one. The processor’s 95th percentile CPU rank versus the GPU’s 87th percentile rank suggests the GPU is the weaker link, and the measured FPS data confirms this, as frame rates scale predictably with resolution and settings changes.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 8060S is the decisive component for Control performance, and its specifications explain the measured frame rates. It is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture with a 4 nm process from TSMC, featuring 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operations pipelines. The GPU has 40 ray tracing cores, which is relevant for Control’s optional ray tracing effects, though the measured data does not include ray tracing tests. Its clock speeds are relatively high for an integrated part, with a base of 1295 MHz and a boost of 2900 MHz. This boost clock allows for bursts of performance, but the thermal and power constraints of a 55 W TDP, shared with the CPU, limit sustained output.

The memory configuration is system shared, meaning the GPU draws from the same LPDDR5X pool as the CPU. The memory bus is quad-channel with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. This is a substantial amount of bandwidth for an iGPU, and it helps in a game like Control that relies on streaming assets. However, the lack of dedicated VRAM means the system must allocate memory dynamically, which can impact performance at higher resolutions where texture data exceeds what can be efficiently cached. The pixel rate is 185.6 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 464.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance at 14.85 TFLOPS. These numbers are respectable, but they are not in the same league as dedicated high-end cards, which is why the GPU’s nearest rivals include the RTX 5080 and RTX 4080 in synthetic benchmarks, yet the real-world Control results show a different picture.

In Control, the GPU’s role is clear from the measured FPS scaling. At 1920x1080 Low, the average FPS is 130, which is excellent. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average drops to 36 FPS. This 72.3% reduction in performance from 1080p Low to 4K Ultra is typical of a GPU with limited fill rate and memory bandwidth. The boost clock of 2900 MHz helps at lower resolutions where the GPU is not bottlenecked by memory, but at 4K, the system-shared memory bandwidth becomes a limiting factor. The GPU’s average benchmark score of 55757 and its 87th percentile rank against all GPUs suggest it is a top-tier integrated solution, but the measured data shows it is only suitable for Control at lower settings for high frame rates, or at higher settings if the user accepts sub-60 FPS.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 provides the highest frame rates, with an average of 130 FPS at Low settings and 82 FPS at High settings. 2560x1440 is also playable, with 62 FPS at High, but 3840x2160 only reaches 42 FPS at High, which is below the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-14900K?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average benchmark score of 77740, while the Intel Core i9-14900K scores 79097. The delta is -1.7%, meaning the Intel chip is about 1.7% faster in aggregate CPU benchmarks, but the difference is minor and unlikely to affect Control performance given the GPU bottleneck.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon 8060S a discrete GPU or integrated?

A: It is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a slot width of "IGP" and no power connectors. It shares system memory (LPDDR5X) and its memory bandwidth is system dependent, which is a key reason why performance drops sharply at higher resolutions.

*Q: Can this combo handle Control at Ultra settings?*

A: At 1920x1080 Ultra, the average FPS is 71, which is playable. At 2560x1440 Ultra, it drops to 54 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Ultra, it falls to 36 FPS. So Ultra is only recommended at 1080p.

Q: What is the GPU’s boost clock and how does it affect performance?

A: The GPU has a boost clock of 2900 MHz. This high boost helps at lower resolutions, as seen in the 130 FPS average at 1080p Low, but it cannot overcome the memory bandwidth limits at higher resolutions.

*Q: How does this combo rank against all tested combos in Control?*

A: It ranks 1632 out of 2888 combos, placing it in the lower-middle tier. This means it outperforms about 43% of tested systems but lags behind the majority, which is consistent with its mid-range GPU performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Control covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a comprehensive view of the combo’s capabilities. At 1920x1080, the performance is strong across all settings. Low averages 130 FPS, Medium averages 92 FPS with a minimum of 78 and maximum of 106, High averages 82 FPS, and Ultra averages 71 FPS. This resolution is the sweet spot for this combo, as even Ultra maintains a frame rate above 60 FPS, which is suitable for a smooth experience in an action-adventure game. The jump from Low to Ultra is a 45.4% reduction in average FPS, which is a significant but expected cost for higher visual fidelity.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. Low averages 98 FPS, which is still excellent. Medium averages 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 and maximum of 80, putting it right at the edge of the 60 FPS threshold. High averages 62 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced combat. Ultra averages 54 FPS, which dips below the 60 FPS target and may result in occasional stutter. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings shows a reduction of about 24.6% for Low (130 to 98), 23.9% for Medium (92 to 70), 24.4% for High (82 to 62), and 23.9% for Ultra (71 to 54). This consistent reduction indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as the resolution increase directly impacts fill rate and memory bandwidth demands.

At 3840x2160, the performance is marginal. Low averages 66 FPS, which is the only preset at 4K that reaches the 60 FPS mark. Medium averages 47 FPS with a minimum of 40 and maximum of 54, High averages 42 FPS, and Ultra averages 36 FPS. These numbers are below the ideal playable threshold, and the minimum FPS of 40 at Medium suggests there will be noticeable frame drops during intense scenes. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is severe: Low drops from 98 to 66 (32.7% reduction), Medium from 70 to 47 (32.9%), High from 62 to 42 (32.3%), and Ultra from 54 to 36 (33.3%). This steep drop is due to the system-shared memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s being insufficient for 4K texture loads, despite the GPU’s high boost clock.

The data shows a clear pattern: the combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can handle even Ultra settings with ease. At 1440p, High and Low are the best options, with Medium being borderline. At 4K, only Low is viable for a smooth experience, and even then, the 66 FPS average is close to the edge. The lack of min/max FPS data for most rows (only Medium presets have min/max) means we cannot assess frame time consistency across all settings, but the available data for Medium shows a spread of 14 FPS at 1080p (78-106), 21 FPS at 1440p (59-80), and 14 FPS at 4K (40-54). These spreads are moderate, indicating some frame pacing variability but not severe stuttering.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a powerful mobile processor that provides ample headroom for Control, ensuring the GPU is the limiting factor in this combo. It has 16 cores and 32 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. This is a high-end CPU for its market segment, with a 95th percentile ranking against all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 77740. Its nearest rivals in synthetic tests include the Threadripper PRO 9945WX (1.6% slower), EPYC Embedded 8224P (1.6% slower), and Ryzen 9 8945HX (2% slower), while the i9-14900K is 1.7% faster. These small deltas show that the CPU is competitive with top desktop and workstation parts, despite being a mobile component with a 55 W TDP.

In Control, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls, physics calculations, and game logic. The game is an action-adventure title with physics-heavy environments and destructible objects, so it can be CPU-intensive in certain scenes. However, the measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck at all resolutions. For example, at 1080p Low, the average FPS is 130, which is far below what the CPU could theoretically handle, given its 5.10 GHz boost clock and 16 cores. The CPU’s cache hierarchy, with 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3, ensures low-latency access to game data, which helps maintain consistent frame pacing. The 4 nm process node from TSMC also contributes to efficiency, allowing the CPU to sustain boost clocks without excessive power draw.

The CPU’s memory support for LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is shared with the GPU. This dual-role memory is a critical factor in Control’s performance at higher resolutions. The CPU does not need all that bandwidth for gaming, but the GPU does, and the contention can lead to reduced performance. In CPU-bound scenarios, such as large particle effects or complex AI routines, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395’s 16 cores and 32 threads will shine, but the measured data does not show such scenarios being the limiting factor. The CPU’s single-thread performance, as evidenced by a Geekbench single-core score of 2464 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2044, is strong enough for Control’s main thread, which typically handles game logic and input.

The CPU’s multi-threaded capabilities, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35314 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 20992, are more than sufficient for background tasks and any multi-threaded game features. The PassMark multithread score of 54934 and a 95th percentile CPU rank confirm that this is a top-tier processor. In Control, the CPU’s role is to ensure that the GPU is never starved of data, and the data suggests this is the case, as frame rates scale consistently with resolution changes, which is a GPU-bound signature. The lack of a launch MSRP for the CPU means we cannot comment on cost, but its performance profile places it in the high-end mobile segment.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user’s resolution and frame rate priorities. At 1920x1080, the best experience is achieved at High settings, which produces an average FPS of 82. This is well above the 60 FPS target and offers a good balance of visual quality and performance. Ultra at 1080p averages 71 FPS, which is also playable, and the 13.4% FPS cost from High to Ultra may be worth it for users who prioritize visual fidelity. Low at 1080p averages 130 FPS, but this is unnecessary unless the user has a high refresh rate display (e.g., 144Hz) and wants to maximize frame rates. Medium at 1080p averages 92 FPS, but it does not offer a significant visual improvement over High to justify the 10 FPS drop.

At 2560x1440, the best experience is at Low settings, which averages 98 FPS, providing a smooth and responsive experience. High at 1440p averages 62 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS threshold, but the margin is thin, and any demanding scene could push it below. For a more stable experience, Medium at 1440p averages 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS, which is borderline. The data suggests that High is viable for 1440p if the user can tolerate occasional dips below 60 FPS, but Low is the safest choice for consistent performance. Ultra at 1440p averages 54 FPS, which is below the target and not recommended unless the user prioritizes visuals over smoothness.

At 3840x2160, the only viable setting is Low, which averages 66 FPS. This is barely above 60 FPS, and the minimum FPS is not recorded, so there is a risk of dips. Medium at 4K averages 47 FPS with a minimum of 40 FPS, which is too low for a game like Control that requires precise timing and awareness of the environment. High and Ultra at 4K average 42 FPS and 36 FPS respectively, making them unplayable for most users. For 4K users, the recommendation is to stick with Low settings and accept the reduced visual quality, or drop to 1440p for a better experience.

Overall, the best experience per the measured rows is at 1920x1080 with High settings, offering an 82 FPS average that balances visual quality and performance. For users with 1440p displays, Low settings at 98 FPS provide the smoothest experience, while High at 62 FPS is acceptable for those who prefer better graphics. The combo is not recommended for 4K gaming beyond Low settings, as the system-shared memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s and the GPU’s 14.85 TFLOPS FP32 performance are insufficient for higher presets. The data indicates that this combo is best treated as a 1080p machine for Control, with 1440p as a secondary option at lower settings.