Control

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and AMD Radeon 880M combo delivers playable performance in Control only at 1080p with Low settings, where it achieves 55 FPS. At any higher preset or resolution, the frame rate falls below 42 FPS, indicating a system that is strictly limited by its integrated graphics rather than its powerful processor. The data positions this configuration near the bottom of the tested combos, ranking 2817th out of 2888, which underscores that this is a hardware pairing for esports and light titles, not demanding action-adventure games like Control.

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

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of 55 W. The chip features 64 MB of shared L3 cache, with 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core. This is a high-end mobile processor, as evidenced by its 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 77,740.

In synthetic tests, the CPU shows strong multi-threaded capabilities, scoring 35,314 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 20,992 in Geekbench multi-core. Single-thread performance is also robust, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,044 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2,464. The processor’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (1.6% higher average score), the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (1.6% higher), and the Intel Core i9-14900K (1.7% higher). The Ryzen 9 8945HX trails by 2%.

Despite this computational strength, the CPU’s role in Control is largely secondary. The measured frame rates at 1080p Low (55 FPS) versus 1080p Ultra (30 FPS) show a 45% drop, which is a pattern driven by graphics load, not CPU throughput. The processor’s high single-thread score of 4,147 in Passmark suggests it can handle the game’s physics and AI logic without bottlenecking. However, the data does not show any scenario where the CPU becomes the limiting factor, as even the lowest resolution and settings yield a frame rate that is modest for a processor of this caliber.

The 64 MB L3 cache and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth (quad-channel LPDDR5X) provide ample headroom for game data streaming. The CPU’s memory controller is shared with the integrated GPU, meaning the same bandwidth is used for both CPU and GPU operations. In Control, this shared resource allocation becomes critical, as the GPU’s demand for memory bandwidth at higher resolutions directly impacts the CPU’s available throughput. This is a qualitative observation; the data suggests the CPU is never the bottleneck, but the shared memory architecture means it cannot fully compensate for GPU limitations.

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

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated GPU based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It features 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with 12 ray tracing cores. The GPU clock runs from a base of 400 MHz to a boost of 2900 MHz. Its FP32 performance is rated at 4.454 TFLOPS. The GPU has no dedicated VRAM; it uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent.

In the broader GPU landscape, the 880M ranks in the 43rd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 8,436. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (0.1% higher average score), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (0.3% lower), and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (0.3% lower). This places the 880M in the territory of older discrete mobile GPUs, which is telling for its performance in a game like Control.

The GPU’s benchmark results show a mixed profile. In Passmark, it scores 7,615 in G3D and 3,719 in GPU compute. DirectX 11 performance is relatively strong at 73, but DirectX 12 drops to 32, and DirectX 10 is only 31. This suggests the architecture handles older APIs better, which aligns with Control’s release era. In 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12), the GPU scores 535, indicating limited modern API performance.

In Control, the GPU is the clear bottleneck across all measured settings. At 1080p, the frame rate scales from 55 FPS (Low) down to 30 FPS (Ultra), a 45% reduction. At 1440p, the range is 42 FPS (Low) to 23 FPS (Ultra), and at 4K, it falls to 28 FPS (Low) and 15 FPS (Ultra). The GPU’s 16 ROPs and 4.454 TFLOPS are insufficient for the game’s demanding rendering at higher resolutions. The shared memory architecture means the GPU must compete with the CPU for bandwidth, further limiting performance at 4K where memory pressure is highest.

The lack of dedicated VRAM is a qualitative disadvantage; the data shows that at 4K Ultra, the system only manages 15 FPS, which is unplayable. The GPU’s performance in Control is consistent with its low percentile ranking, and the measured FPS confirms that this is not a configuration for high-fidelity gaming.

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

The only measured settings that approach a playable experience are at 1080p with Low settings, where the average FPS is 55. This is the sole configuration above 45 FPS in the entire dataset. The next best option is 1080p Medium with 39 FPS, followed by 1080p High at 35 FPS. At 1080p Ultra, the frame rate drops to 30 FPS, which is borderline for action games but not recommended.

At 1440p, the best result is 42 FPS on Low settings, which is still below the 1080p Medium result. The 1440p Medium preset yields 30 FPS, and High yields 26 FPS. At 4K, all settings are below 30 FPS, with Low at 28 FPS and Medium at 20 FPS. The 4K Ultra preset is effectively unplayable at 15 FPS.

The data indicates a clear recommendation: use 1080p Low for the best balance of performance and visual fidelity. The 55 FPS average at this setting is 41% higher than 1080p Medium (39 FPS) and 83% higher than 1080p Ultra (30 FPS). The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 16 FPS, which is a significant loss for a modest visual upgrade. Similarly, at 1440p, the Low preset is the only one above 40 FPS, but it still falls short of 1080p Medium.

For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, 1080p Medium at 39 FPS is the maximum acceptable preset, but it risks drops below 33 FPS (the measured minimum). The 1080p High preset at 35 FPS is not recommended, as the 4 FPS gain from Medium is marginal, and the minimum FPS is not recorded, suggesting instability. In all cases, the Ultra preset is the worst choice, as it provides no benefit in Control given the GPU’s limitations.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and AMD Radeon 880M ranks 2817th out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 2.5% of all configurations, which is a stark contrast to the CPU’s individual 95th percentile ranking. The discrepancy highlights the GPU’s dominance as a limiting factor.

The combo’s rank is consistent with the GPU’s lowly 43rd percentile. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i9-14900K, would likely achieve much higher frame rates when paired with a discrete GPU, but in this case, the integrated graphics hold the entire system back. The data shows that the 880M’s average benchmark score of 8,436 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427), which is a GPU from a previous generation.

The fact that this combo ranks 2817th means that 2,871 other combinations produce better results in Control. This is a decisive verdict: the CPU is overkill for the GPU, and the system’s gaming performance is entirely dictated by the 880M. The rank also suggests that users would be better served by a lower-tier CPU paired with a mid-range discrete GPU, but such comparisons are outside the scope of the data provided.

The measured FPS at various settings corroborates the low rank. The best result (1080p Low at 55 FPS) is still below the 60 FPS target that most modern games aim for, and the system cannot maintain that frame rate at any other setting. This is a combo that is unsuitable for Control at higher fidelity, and the rank reflects that.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear scaling pattern across resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 55 at 1080p to 42 at 1440p (a 23.6% decrease) and then to 28 at 4K (a 33.3% decrease from 1440p). At Medium settings, the drop is from 39 at 1080p to 30 at 1440p (23.1% decrease) and then to 20 at 4K (33.3% decrease). At High settings, the numbers are 35 to 26 (25.7% decrease) and then to 18 (30.8% decrease). At Ultra, the drop is from 30 to 23 (23.3% decrease) and then to 15 (34.8% decrease).

The percentage drops from 1080p to 1440p are relatively consistent across settings, ranging from 23.1% to 25.7%. This consistency indicates a pixel-bound workload, where the GPU’s fill rate is the primary constraint. The drops from 1440p to 4K are larger, ranging from 30.8% to 34.8%, which is expected given the 4K resolution has 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p.

The scaling pattern suggests the GPU is the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rate to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU’s workload does not change with resolution. Instead, the consistent percentage drops show that the GPU’s rendering capacity is being exhausted. The 16 ROPs on the 880M are particularly strained at 4K, where pixel throughput becomes critical.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference is 25 FPS (55 vs 30). At 1440p, it is 19 FPS (42 vs 23), and at 4K, it is 13 FPS (28 vs 15). This narrowing gap indicates that at 4K, even the Low preset is heavily GPU-bound, and the settings have diminishing returns.

This resolution scaling analysis confirms that the AMD Radeon 880M is the definitive bottleneck. The CPU’s high performance cannot compensate for the GPU’s lack of fill rate and memory bandwidth. Users seeking higher resolutions would need a more powerful discrete GPU, but the data suggests that this combo is best used at 1080p with reduced settings.

FAQ

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

A: The best measured setting is 1080p with Low quality, which achieves 55 FPS on average. This is the only configuration above 45 FPS in the entire dataset.

*Q: Can this combo run Control at 4K?*

A: At 4K, the highest average FPS is 28 on Low settings, which falls to 15 FPS on Ultra. These results are below playable thresholds, making 4K unsuitable for this game.

Q: How does the CPU performance compare to its rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average benchmark score of 77,740, which is 1.6% higher than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, and 2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX. The Intel Core i9-14900K is 1.7% higher.

Q: How does the GPU performance compare to its rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M has an average benchmark score of 8,436, which is 0.1% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX and 0.3% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce MX330. The AMD Radeon HD 8870M is 0.3% higher.

*Q: What does the combo rank in Control indicate?*

A: The combo ranks 2817th out of 2888 tested configurations, placing it in the bottom 2.5%. This rank is primarily due to the GPU’s low performance, as the CPU ranks in the 95th percentile individually.

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

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The FPS drops consistently as resolution increases, which is a GPU-bound pattern. The CPU’s high benchmark scores (e.g., 35,314 in Cinebench R23 multi-core) are not reflected in the game’s performance, confirming the GPU bottleneck.