Control

Control on the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile shows a system that is overwhelmingly GPU-limited at every tested setting and resolution. The benchmark data indicates that the RTX 4080 Mobile is the primary constraint, with the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 providing ample headroom. This combo ranks in the 67th percentile of all tested configurations for this game, placing it in the upper third of the database, though it is not at the absolute top tier. Across the board, frame rates are playable at 1440p and 4K, but the scaling patterns reveal that the GPU's 12 GB memory and 192-bit bus are the deciding factors.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, confirming that the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile is the limiting component in this pairing. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 112 at 1920x1080 to 84 at 2560x1440, a 25% reduction, and then to 57 at 3840x2160, a further 32% drop from 1440p. This pattern—where each resolution step costs roughly a quarter to a third of performance—is characteristic of a GPU that is saturated at the higher pixel counts. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395, with its 16 cores and 32 threads, is not the bottleneck here; if it were, the scaling from 1440p to 4K would be more gradual, as the CPU load would remain constant while the GPU work increased.

At Low settings, the same trend holds but with higher absolute numbers. The 1080p Low average is 177 FPS, dropping to 134 FPS at 1440p (a 24% reduction) and then to 90 FPS at 4K (a 33% reduction from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across different settings presets is telling. It suggests that even when the graphical load is reduced, the GPU's memory bandwidth and rasterization throughput are still the ceiling. The RTX 4080 Mobile's 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 80 ROPs are hard limits that no CPU can overcome.

Looking at the Medium settings with the only recorded minimum and maximum FPS values, the data provides additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the average is 126 FPS with a minimum of 107 and a maximum of 144. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 95 FPS with a minimum of 81 and a maximum of 109. At 4K Medium, the average is 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 and a maximum of 74. The spread between minimum and maximum FPS widens as resolution increases, from 37 FPS at 1080p to 28 FPS at 1440p to 19 FPS at 4K. This narrowing spread at higher resolutions is another sign of GPU saturation—at 4K, the GPU is working near its limit every frame, leaving less room for variation.

The 4K Ultra setting produces an average of 50 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth play. The step from High to Ultra at 4K costs 7 FPS (from 57 to 50), while the step from Medium to High at 4K costs 7 FPS as well (from 64 to 57). This linear degradation in the high-resolution range indicates that each additional graphics feature or texture quality level has a measurable, predictable cost. In contrast, at 1080p, the drop from Medium to High is 14 FPS (from 126 to 112), and from High to Ultra is 15 FPS (from 112 to 97), showing that at lower resolutions, the CPU has more influence, though still not enough to become the primary constraint.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience per the measured rows, the Medium preset at 1440p is the sweet spot. It delivers an average of 95 FPS with a minimum of 81 FPS, which ensures that even in demanding scenes, the frame rate stays well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The 1440p Medium setting offers 11 FPS more average performance than 4K High (95 vs. 84) and does so with a narrower minimum-to-maximum spread, indicating more consistent frame pacing. The visual quality difference between Medium and High at 1440p is likely modest, but the performance headroom is substantial.

If the user prioritizes maximum visual fidelity and has a 4K display, the High preset at 4K is the recommended choice. The 57 FPS average is close to 60 FPS, and the absence of recorded minimum FPS data for this setting suggests that the frame rate is generally stable. Dropping to Medium at 4K yields 64 FPS, which provides more safety margin, but the jump from Medium to High at 4K only costs 7 FPS, making High the better value in terms of visual return per frame lost. Ultra at 4K is not recommended, as the 50 FPS average falls below the smoothness threshold and the performance cost over High is significant.

At 1080p, the Ultra preset is viable with a 97 FPS average, which is high enough for competitive play. However, the data shows that the step from High to Ultra at 1080p costs 15 FPS, which is a larger penalty than at other resolutions. For most users, High at 1080p with its 112 FPS average offers a better balance, especially if they have a high-refresh-rate monitor. The Low preset at any resolution is unnecessary for this hardware, as even the most demanding settings produce playable frame rates; the 177 FPS at 1080p Low is overkill for any display.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS achievable with this combo?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 177 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At more practical settings like High, the average is 112 FPS at 1080p.

Q: Is this system capable of 4K gaming in Control?

A: Yes, but with compromises. At 4K High, the average FPS is 57, and at 4K Medium, it is 64. The 4K Ultra setting averages 50 FPS, which may be too low for some players.

Q: How does the CPU affect performance in this game?

A: The benchmark data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads, and the frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K is consistent with GPU saturation, not CPU limitation.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The only recorded minimum FPS values are for Medium settings: 107 FPS at 1080p, 81 FPS at 1440p, and 55 FPS at 4K. Other settings do not have min FPS data in the measurements.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested configurations?

A: It ranks 1234 out of 3720 tested combos in Control, placing it in the 67th percentile. This means it outperforms roughly two-thirds of all tested systems.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The CPU supports LPDDR5X memory with quad-channel access.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile ranks 1234 out of 3720 tested combinations in Control, which puts it in the 67th percentile. This is a solid performance tier, but not exceptional. To contextualize this, the CPU alone has a percentile rank of 95 among all CPUs, while the GPU has a percentile rank of 81 among all GPUs. The combo's in-game rank is lower than either component's standalone percentile, which suggests that the pairing does not extract the full potential of the CPU in this particular game.

The nearest rival CPUs by average benchmark score provide insight into the CPU's headroom. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average benchmark score of 77740, which is 1.6% higher than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (76513) and 1.6% higher than the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (76492). It is 2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (76212) but 1.7% lower than the Intel Core i9-14900K (79097). Despite this strong CPU showing, the in-game rank of 1234 out of 3720 suggests that many other combinations with less powerful CPUs but similarly capable GPUs achieve better results in Control.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals show a tight cluster. The RTX 4080 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 38135, which is 0.4% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 (38299) and 0.6% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38349). It is 1.3% higher than both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37648) and the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37628). This indicates that the RTX 4080 Mobile is a mid-pack performer in the GPU hierarchy, not a top-tier card. The in-game rank reflects this: the combo is solidly in the upper third, but there are 1233 other configurations that perform better, likely those with higher-end GPUs like the RTX 5090 Mobile or desktop-class cards.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo. It has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of 55 watts. The CPU's 64 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core provide substantial data storage for game logic and physics. In Control, which is an action-adventure game with heavy particle effects and physics simulations, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and process game state.

The benchmark data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck in this pairing. At 1080p, where CPU load is typically higher relative to GPU load, the frame rates scale from 97 FPS at Ultra to 177 FPS at Low. This large spread indicates that the GPU is still the limiting factor—if the CPU were the constraint, the FPS would not change as dramatically with graphics settings. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35314 and Geekbench multicore score of 20992 place it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, confirming its capability.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395's memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s (quad-channel LPDDR5X) is more than sufficient for this game, especially given that the GPU has its own dedicated 12 GB GDDR6 memory. The CPU's integrated Radeon 8060S graphics are present but not used in this configuration, as the discrete RTX 4080 Mobile handles all rendering. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i9-14900K, have slightly higher average benchmark scores, but the in-game performance difference is negligible because the GPU is the bottleneck. In short, the CPU provides a strong foundation that does not hold back the RTX 4080 Mobile in Control.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the average FPS across settings is as follows: Low 177, Medium 126 (min 107, max 144), High 112, and Ultra 97. The Medium setting has the only recorded min/max values, showing a 37 FPS spread. The progression from Low to Ultra costs 80 FPS in total, with the largest single drop between Low and Medium at 51 FPS, and the smallest between High and Ultra at 15 FPS. This suggests that the Medium preset is where the most significant visual quality improvements occur relative to performance cost.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 134, Medium 95 (min 81, max 109), High 84, and Ultra 73. The Medium min/max spread is 28 FPS, narrower than at 1080p. The total drop from Low to Ultra is 61 FPS, less than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming more dominant. The step from Medium to High costs 11 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 11 FPS as well, showing a consistent cost per quality tier.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 90, Medium 64 (min 55, max 74), High 57, and Ultra 50. The Medium min/max spread is 19 FPS, the narrowest of all resolutions. The total drop from Low to Ultra is 40 FPS, the smallest absolute difference, but the percentage drop is similar to other resolutions. The step from Medium to High costs 7 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 7 FPS, showing a flattening of the performance curve as the GPU reaches its limits.

Comparing across resolutions, the 1080p High average of 112 FPS is 33% higher than the 1440p High average of 84 FPS, and the 1440p High is 47% higher than the 4K High of 57 FPS. For Low settings, the ratios are 177/134 = 1.32 for 1080p to 1440p, and 134/90 = 1.49 for 1440p to 4K. These ratios are all above 1.0, confirming that resolution has a significant impact on performance. The data also shows that at every resolution, the Low preset provides more than double the FPS of the Ultra preset, which is a substantial range for users to tune their experience.