Control

Control pairs a 16-core, 32-thread AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 with the AMD Radeon 890M integrated graphics, and the measured frame rates reveal a system that is heavily constrained by its GPU in this Action Adventure title. The CPU, based on Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process, operates at a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boosts to 5.10 GHz, with a 64 MB shared L3 cache. This processor sits in the 95th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 77740, placing it just 1.7% behind the Intel Core i9-14900K and 1.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX. The Radeon 890M, on the other hand, is an RDNA 3.5 integrated part with 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, featuring a boost clock of 2900 MHz and a 15 W TDP. Its average benchmark score of 9210 places it in the 45th percentile among all GPUs, nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, which scores 9273 (a 0.7% difference). The data shows a clear bottleneck: the CPU has ample headroom while the GPU struggles to maintain playable frame rates even at 1080p.

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

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 brings substantial processing power to Control, but the benchmark results suggest this title does not heavily tax the CPU. With 16 cores and 32 threads based on Zen 5 architecture, the processor is built for high-throughput multi-threaded workloads, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35314 and Geekbench multicore score of 20992. The single-core performance is equally strong, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2044 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2464, which matters for game logic and physics calculations that often rely on fewer threads. The 64 MB of shared L3 cache and quad-channel LPDDR5X memory support with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth provide a robust foundation for feeding data to the integrated GPU.

However, the measured FPS in Control shows that even at the lowest settings and resolution, the system achieves 58 FPS at 1080p, which is far from the CPU's potential ceiling. The processor's Passmark multithread score of 54934 and floating point math score of 128682 indicate it could handle far more complex simulations than Control demands. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 outperforms the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX by 2% in average benchmark score, yet both would likely deliver identical frame rates in this game because the GPU becomes the limiting factor. The CPU's 95th percentile ranking versus all CPUs, contrasted with the GPU's 45th percentile, creates a lopsided pairing where the processor idles while the graphics unit works at full capacity. This is a classic case of CPU oversupply for the given workload, where the 3.00 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost clocks are more than sufficient to keep up with the game's demands at any settings preset.

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

The AMD Radeon 890M is the decisive component in this configuration, and its specifications explain the measured frame rates. This integrated GPU, built on RDNA 3.5 architecture with a 4 nm process, has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units, along with 16 ray tracing cores. The boost clock of 2900 MHz is high for an integrated part, but the 15 W TDP severely limits sustained performance. The memory situation is unique: the GPU uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it draws from the CPU's LPDDR5X pool, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This shared architecture introduces latency and bandwidth contention that dedicated GPUs avoid.

The GPU's benchmark scores tell a story of modest performance. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 590 and Passmark G3D score of 8076 place it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals are telling: the Radeon Vega 8 scores 9221 (0.1% higher), the GeForce GTX 960 scores 9273 (0.7% higher), and the GeForce GTX 850M scores 9302 (1% higher). These are all older, lower-tier discrete or integrated solutions, confirming the 890M's position as a budget-level graphics solution. In Control, this translates to an average of 19 FPS at 4K High settings and only 58 FPS at 1080p Low. The GPU's FP32 performance of 5.939 TFLOPS is adequate for light gaming, but Control's demanding visual effects and physics push it to its limits. The pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s are theoretical maximums that the 15 W power envelope prevents from being sustained. The ray tracing cores, while present, are unlikely to provide playable performance given the low overall throughput.

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

Examining the measured FPS across all resolution and settings combinations, the data suggests that players must make significant compromises to achieve acceptable frame rates. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 58 FPS, which is the only measured configuration that approaches smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 1080p drops to 41 FPS, with a minimum of 35 FPS and maximum of 47 FPS, which is borderline playable but with noticeable stutter in action sequences. High settings at 1080p reduce the average to 37 FPS, and Ultra drops further to 32 FPS. The pattern is consistent: each step up in quality costs roughly 5-7 FPS at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more challenging. Low settings yield 44 FPS, which is passable for slower-paced exploration but may feel sluggish during combat. Medium drops to 31 FPS (min 27, max 36), High to 28 FPS, and Ultra to 24 FPS. These numbers suggest that 1440p is only viable with the Low preset, and even then, the frame rate is not ideal. At 3840x2160, all presets are below playable thresholds: Low averages 30 FPS, Medium 21 FPS (min 18, max 24), High 19 FPS, and Ultra 16 FPS. The best experience per the measured rows is unequivocally 1080p Low, which provides the only 60 FPS-class result (58 FPS). For players who prioritize visual fidelity, 1080p Medium at 41 FPS is the highest quality setting that maintains a playable frame rate, though the minimum of 35 FPS indicates potential dips. The data implies that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming with reduced settings, and any attempt to push higher resolutions will result in a sub-30 FPS experience.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and Radeon 890M ranks 2728 out of 2888 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 6% of all configurations. This ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's limitations, as the CPU is a top-tier mobile processor. The rank indicates that the vast majority of tested systems, likely including those with older discrete GPUs, outperform this integrated solution in this particular game. The GPU's percentile of 45 and its near-tie with the GeForce GTX 960 (a GPU released years earlier) contextualize this poor ranking. While the CPU's percentile of 95 suggests it could pair well with a much stronger GPU, the current pairing bottlenecks the system's overall gaming performance.

The deltaPct values from the GPU's nearest rivals are telling: the 890M is within 1% of the Radeon Vega 8, GeForce GTX 960, and GeForce GTX 465, all of which are significantly older or lower-end parts. This means the combo's ranking is essentially determined by the GPU, and any of those rival GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Control. The 2728th rank out of 2888 combos represents a system that is at the fringes of playability for modern games, and Control's 2019 release date means it is not particularly demanding by today's standards, yet this combo still struggles. The data suggests that users of this system should expect to play older titles or esports games at low settings, not modern AAA releases at high quality.

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

The measured FPS scaling across resolutions provides clear evidence that the GPU is the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 58 at 1080p to 44 at 1440p (a 24% decrease) and then to 30 at 4K (a 48% decrease from 1080p). This scaling pattern is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, where increasing pixel count directly impacts frame rate. For a CPU-bound scenario, we would expect the FPS drop to be less severe at higher resolutions, but here the decline is nearly linear with pixel count. At Medium settings, the drop is from 41 FPS at 1080p to 31 FPS at 1440p (24% decrease) and then to 21 FPS at 4K (49% decrease from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings suggests the GPU is saturating its compute resources regardless of quality preset.

The High settings curve shows 37 FPS at 1080p, 28 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K, representing a 49% drop from 1080p to 4K. Ultra settings follow a similar pattern: 32 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 16 FPS at 4K, a 50% drop. These consistent ~50% reductions from 1080p to 4K across all quality presets are the hallmark of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU, with its 16 cores and high clocks, is not the constraint; if it were, we would see smaller FPS differences at higher resolutions where the GPU has more time per frame. The fact that 4K Ultra produces only 16 FPS, while 1080p Low produces 58 FPS, indicates that the Radeon 890M's 1024 shading units and shared memory bandwidth simply cannot handle the pixel throughput required at 4K. The system's memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, while high for integrated graphics, is shared between CPU and GPU, further limiting performance at higher resolutions where memory pressure increases.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest playable frame rate this combo can achieve in Control?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 58 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that approaches the 60 FPS target, and all other settings and resolutions produce lower averages.

Q: How does the Radeon 890M compare to its nearest GPU rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Radeon 890M has an average benchmark score of 9210, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9221), 0.7% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9273), and 1% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (9302). These differences are negligible in real-world gaming.

Q: Is the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 CPU or the Radeon 890M GPU the bottleneck in Control?

A: The GPU is clearly the bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 95th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 45th percentile. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows consistent ~50% drops, which is characteristic of GPU-bound performance.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p gaming on this system?

A: At 2560x1440, only the Low preset delivers a playable average FPS of 44. Medium settings drop to 31 FPS, High to 28 FPS, and Ultra to 24 FPS, all of which are below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Control?

A: This combo ranks 2728 out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 6% of all configurations. This poor ranking is primarily due to the GPU's limited performance relative to the CPU.

Q: Does the Radeon 890M support ray tracing in Control?

A: The GPU architecture includes 16 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). However, the measured FPS at all settings and resolutions indicates that ray tracing would likely produce unplayable frame rates, though no ray tracing-specific measurements are included in the data.

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

The complete measured FPS data for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 with AMD Radeon 890M in Control is as follows:

At 1920x1080:

• Low settings: 58 average FPS
• Medium settings: 41 average FPS, with a minimum of 35 and maximum of 47
• High settings: 37 average FPS
• Ultra settings: 32 average FPS

At 2560x1440:

• Low settings: 44 average FPS
• Medium settings: 31 average FPS, with a minimum of 27 and maximum of 36
• High settings: 28 average FPS
• Ultra settings: 24 average FPS

At 3840x2160:

• Low settings: 30 average FPS
• Medium settings: 21 average FPS, with a minimum of 18 and maximum of 24
• High settings: 19 average FPS
• Ultra settings: 16 average FPS

These numbers reveal a systematic pattern: at each resolution, the difference between Low and Medium is roughly 17 FPS at 1080p, 13 FPS at 1440p, and 9 FPS at 4K. The difference between Medium and High is 4 FPS at 1080p, 3 FPS at 1440p, and 2 FPS at 4K. The difference between High and Ultra is 5 FPS at 1080p, 4 FPS at 1440p, and 3 FPS at 4K. This narrowing of FPS gaps at higher resolutions further confirms the GPU limitation, as the absolute performance headroom shrinks. The only rows with min/max data are the Medium presets, showing that at 1080p the FPS ranges from 35 to 47, at 1440p from 27 to 36, and at 4K from 18 to 24. This variance of roughly 12 FPS at 1080p and 6 FPS at 4K indicates that the game's frame pacing becomes more stable as resolution increases, but only because the average FPS is so low that there is less room for fluctuation. The data shows no measured scenarios where the combo achieves 60 FPS or higher, and only one scenario (1080p Low) that exceeds 45 FPS.