Control

Control with AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 + AMD Radeon RX 7800M is a combination that lands in the middle of the pack for this title, ranking 1927th out of 2888 tested combos. The pairing of a 16-core Zen 5 processor with a 12 GB RDNA 3 mobile GPU produces playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but the experience degrades sharply at 4K, where only the Low preset clears 60 FPS. The data indicates that this system is heavily GPU-limited in Control, with the CPU's substantial thread count and high boost clock providing ample headroom that the graphics card cannot fully exploit at higher resolutions.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Control?

A: The best result comes from the 1920x1080 Low preset, where the system delivers an average of 120 FPS. This is the only measured configuration that reaches triple-digit frame rates, with the next closest being 91 FPS at 1440p Low.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to Low at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset produces an average of 66 FPS, which is 54 FPS lower than the Low preset's 120 FPS. This represents a 45% drop in performance, showing that Ultra settings impose a significant penalty on the GPU.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this hardware?

A: At 3840x2160, the system only achieves 39 FPS on High and 34 FPS on Ultra, both below the standard 60 FPS threshold. The Low preset at 4K reaches 61 FPS, indicating that only the most minimal settings are viable for smooth 4K play.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at Medium settings?

A: The Medium preset is the only one with min/max FPS data recorded. At 1080p, the range is 72 to 98 FPS, at 1440p it is 55 to 74 FPS, and at 4K it is 37 to 50 FPS. The spread suggests acceptable frame pacing at lower resolutions but tighter margins at 4K.

Q: How does the GPU's benchmark percentile reflect its gaming performance?

A: The Radeon RX 7800M sits in the 73rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27883. Its closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, which scores 27839, a difference of only 0.2%, indicating that the 7800M is positioned as a mid-to-upper tier mobile part.

Q: Does the CPU show any signs of bottlenecking in this game?

A: No. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 2044 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 35314 in multi-core, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. With a boost clock of 5.10 GHz and 32 threads, the processor is far ahead of what Control's engine requires, leaving the GPU as the clear limiting factor.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 7800M is the primary determinant of frame rates in Control, and the measured FPS data confirms this. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2335 MHz, with a game clock of 2145 MHz that represents sustained performance under load. It has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is sufficient for the game's textures at 1080p and 1440p, but the 4K results show that the GPU's raw compute power, not memory capacity, is the limiting factor.

The GPU's architecture is RDNA 3.0 with 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. It delivers 35.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which translates to a pixel rate of 224.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 560.4 GTexel/s. In Control, these specifications produce a clear hierarchy: at 1080p, the GPU manages 76 FPS on High, but this drops to 57 FPS at 1440p and 39 FPS at 4K. The scaling is roughly linear with pixel count, indicating that the GPU is fully saturated at each resolution and settings level.

The 73rd percentile ranking for the 7800M places it near the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (which scores 27973, a -0.3% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28020, -0.5% delta). These rivals are older desktop parts, yet they perform within 1% of the 7800M on average, highlighting that this mobile GPU offers performance comparable to previous-generation desktop flagships rather than current high-end parts. In Control specifically, this means the GPU can handle the game's physics and particle effects at moderate settings but struggles with the highest presets, particularly at 4K where the Ultra preset yields just 34 FPS.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p High, the system averages 76 FPS; at 1440p High, it drops to 57 FPS; and at 4K High, it falls to 39 FPS. This represents a 25% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a further 32% reduction from 1440p to 4K, closely matching the increase in pixel count. The consistency of these drops across all settings indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck at every resolution.

Looking at the Low preset, the scaling is similar: 120 FPS at 1080p, 91 FPS at 1440p, and 61 FPS at 4K. The 4K Low result is notable because it is the only 4K configuration that breaks the 60 FPS barrier, but the margin is slim. The Medium preset shows the same pattern with 85 FPS at 1080p, 64 FPS at 1440p, and 43 FPS at 4K. The fact that these drops are proportional to pixel count, rather than showing a plateau at lower resolutions, confirms that the CPU is not constraining performance.

The Ultra preset demonstrates the most severe scaling, with 66 FPS at 1080p dropping to 50 FPS at 1440p and then to 34 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is the lowest measured in the entire dataset, and it sits 32 FPS below the 4K Low result. This suggests that the Ultra preset's increased draw distances and shadow quality place an exponential load on the GPU, making it impractical for 4K gaming on this hardware. The data strongly indicates that users should target 1080p or 1440p for this title, with 4K reserved for Low settings only.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this combo is the High preset at 2560x1440, which delivers an average of 57 FPS. This is the highest settings level that remains near the 60 FPS target at a resolution above 1080p. The High preset at 1080p achieves 76 FPS, which is smoother but sacrifices resolution, while the Medium preset at 1440p hits 64 FPS with a slight visual downgrade compared to High.

For users prioritizing frame rate over visual fidelity, the Low preset at 1920x1080 offers 120 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate displays. The Low preset at 1440p also provides a strong 91 FPS, making it a viable option for those with 1440p monitors who want to stay well above 60 FPS. The Medium preset is the balanced choice, with 85 FPS at 1080p and 64 FPS at 1440p, though the 4K Medium result of 43 FPS is too low for comfortable play.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution. At 1080p it produces 66 FPS, which is playable but only 10 FPS better than High at 1440p while offering no resolution advantage. At 1440p, Ultra drops to 50 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 34 FPS, both below acceptable thresholds. The data shows that High at 1440p provides the best balance of visual quality and performance, while Ultra settings are best avoided unless the user is willing to accept sub-60 FPS frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best performance across all settings. The Low preset averages 120 FPS, followed by Medium at 85 FPS (with a range of 72 to 98 FPS), High at 76 FPS, and Ultra at 66 FPS. The 54 FPS gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution represents a 45% performance penalty for maximum settings, which is substantial but leaves the user with playable options across the board.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates take a noticeable hit. Low averages 91 FPS, Medium averages 64 FPS (range 55 to 74 FPS), High averages 57 FPS, and Ultra averages 50 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p is the only configuration in this resolution that combines a >60 FPS average with a minimum of 55 FPS, making it the safest choice for consistent gameplay. High and Ultra both fall below 60 FPS, with Ultra dipping to 50 FPS, which may cause noticeable stutter in action sequences.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles across the board. Low averages 61 FPS, just clearing the 60 FPS mark. Medium averages 43 FPS (range 37 to 50 FPS), High averages 39 FPS, and Ultra averages 34 FPS. The 4K results show a clear cliff: Low is marginally playable, but every other preset falls below 45 FPS, which is generally considered too low for a smooth experience in an action-adventure title like Control. The minimum FPS of 37 at 4K Medium reinforces that this resolution is not suitable for this GPU.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 plays a supporting role in Control, and the benchmark data shows it is more than adequate for the task. This processor 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. It features 64 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, providing ample memory hierarchy for game logic and physics calculations.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU scores 2044 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 35314 in multi-core, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900K, which scores 79097 on average (a -1.7% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX at 76212 (a 2% delta). The Ryzen AI Max+ 395's average benchmark score of 77740 sits between these two, indicating that it performs at the level of top-tier desktop processors from the previous generation.

In Control, the CPU's role is largely invisible because the GPU is the bottleneck. The game's engine is not particularly thread-hungry, and the 32 threads available here are far more than needed. The high single-core performance, evidenced by the 316 score in Cinebench R15 single-core and 2464 in Geekbench single-core, ensures that the game's main thread never stalls the render pipeline. The measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU limitation: if the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions, but instead the FPS scales predictably with resolution and settings, confirming the GPU is the sole constraint. The CPU's 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, provided by quad-channel LPDDR5X, also ensures that data can be fed to the GPU without starvation, further reinforcing that the processor is not a limiting factor in this title.