Control

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT paired with the Intel Core i7-12700KF delivers a firmly playable experience in Control, though the data shows that the GPU is the primary constraint at higher resolutions. The combination ranks in the 62nd percentile for this game (1019 out of 1636 tested combos), placing it in the upper-middle tier of systems. At 1080p, the setup is exceptionally capable, with even the demanding Ultra preset maintaining an average above 60 FPS. However, the transition to 4K reveals the Radeon card's limits, as average frame rates drop below the 60 FPS threshold on every preset. The benchmark results indicate a system that excels at 1080p and 1440p gaming but struggles to deliver high-refresh-rate 4K performance in this title.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling behavior across resolutions is telling. At 1080p with Low settings, the system produces an average of 124.6 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 94.4 FPS, a reduction of roughly 24%. At 4K Low, the average falls further to 62.4 FPS, which is a 50% drop from the 1080p result. This pattern strongly indicates that the RX 6650 XT is the limiting component; as pixel count increases, the GPU's workload scales proportionally, and the CPU (which ranks in the 89th percentile among all CPUs) has ample headroom to feed the graphics card.

The gap between Low and High settings widens dramatically at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low (124.6 FPS) and High (79.3 FPS) is 45.3 FPS. At 1440p, that gap shrinks to 33.9 FPS (94.4 vs. 60.5). At 4K, the difference is only 20 FPS (62.4 vs. 42.4). This compression of the settings gap at 4K confirms that the GPU is fully saturated; when the pixel shader workload dominates, the relative cost of higher-quality textures and effects diminishes because the raw fill rate is exhausted. The CPU's massive multithreaded score (3dmark_max_threads of 9983) suggests it is not the bottleneck in any scenario, as even at 1080p Low, the frame rate is high but not absurdly so, indicating the GPU still determines the ceiling.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p displays, the data supports using the Ultra preset. The measured average of 66.5 FPS is above the 60 FPS playability threshold, and the jump from High (79.3 FPS) to Ultra (66.5 FPS) costs only 12.8 FPS while providing the maximum visual fidelity the game offers. At 1440p, the High preset appears to be the sweet spot. It delivers 60.5 FPS average, which is just barely playable, while the Medium preset (66.2 FPS) offers a modest 5.7 FPS gain but a noticeable visual downgrade. The Ultra preset at 1440p (51.9 FPS) falls below the 60 FPS target, making it a poor trade-off for the extra visual effects.

At 4K, no preset achieves a 60 FPS average. The Low preset comes closest at 62.4 FPS, which is technically playable but requires significant visual compromises. The Medium preset (43.3 FPS) and High preset (42.4 FPS) are nearly identical in performance, suggesting a hard GPU limit around that range for higher-quality settings. For 4K users, the recommendation is to stick with Low settings if playability is the priority, or accept a sub-60 FPS experience with High settings for better image quality. The Ultra preset at 4K (37.1 FPS) is the worst option, offering the lowest frame rate with diminishing visual returns over High.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Control at 1080p with maximum settings?*

A: Yes. The Ultra preset at 1920x1080 produces an average of 66.5 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. The system ranks in the 62nd percentile for this game, indicating it outperforms 62% of tested configurations.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo?

A: The data shows 1440p is the optimal balance. At 2560x1440 with High settings, the system achieves 60.5 FPS average, while 1080p offers higher frame rates (up to 124.6 FPS on Low) and 4K struggles to maintain 60 FPS even on Low settings (62.4 FPS average).

Q: How much performance is lost going from 1080p to 4K?

A: At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 79.3 FPS at 1080p to 60.5 FPS at 1440p and 42.4 FPS at 4K. That is a 46.5% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the drop is from 124.6 FPS to 62.4 FPS, a 50% reduction.

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

A: The GPU is clearly the bottleneck. The Intel Core i7-12700KF ranks in the 89th percentile among all CPUs, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 28979. The RX 6650 XT ranks in the 72nd percentile among GPUs, and the shrinking performance gap between settings at 4K confirms the GPU is fully saturated.

Q: What settings should I use for a 1440p monitor?

A: The High preset is recommended, providing 60.5 FPS average. The Medium preset (66.2 FPS) is marginally faster but the visual quality reduction is not worth the 5.7 FPS gain. The Ultra preset (51.9 FPS) drops below the 60 FPS target.

Q: Does the Ultra preset provide a significant improvement over High?

A: At 1080p, the difference is 12.8 FPS (79.3 vs. 66.5). At 1440p, the difference is 8.6 FPS (60.5 vs. 51.9). At 4K, the difference is only 5.3 FPS (42.4 vs. 37.1). The benefit of Ultra diminishes as resolution increases.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: 124.6 FPS average. This is the highest frame rate measured for this combo, indicating a CPU-light scenario where the GPU still caps performance.
• Medium: 88 FPS average. A substantial 36.6 FPS drop from Low, showing the cost of enabling medium-quality textures and effects.
• High: 79.3 FPS average. A further 8.7 FPS drop from Medium, bringing the system closer to the 60 FPS threshold.
• Ultra: 66.5 FPS average. Still playable, but only 6.5 FPS above the 60 FPS target.

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: 94.4 FPS average. This is a 30.2 FPS drop from the 1080p Low result, highlighting the pixel count sensitivity.
• Medium: 66.2 FPS average. A 21.8 FPS drop from Low, which is a smaller absolute reduction than at 1080p.
• High: 60.5 FPS average. This is just above the 60 FPS threshold, making it the boundary for smooth gameplay.
• Ultra: 51.9 FPS average. The first preset to fall below 60 FPS, indicating the GPU's limits at this resolution.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: 62.4 FPS average. The only 4K preset that stays above 60 FPS, and by a slim margin of 2.4 FPS.
• Medium: 43.3 FPS average. A sharp 19.1 FPS drop from Low, showing the cost of medium settings at 4K.
• High: 42.4 FPS average. Nearly identical to Medium, suggesting a performance plateau around 42-43 FPS.
• Ultra: 37.1 FPS average. The lowest measured result, 5.3 FPS below High, and 25.3 FPS below the 4K Low result.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the decisive component in this pairing. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for 1080p and 1440p but becomes a limiting factor at 4K where the larger frame buffer demands more memory throughput. The GPU's boost clock of 2635 MHz and game clock of 2410 MHz are high for the RDNA 2 architecture, and the 2048 shading units provide a raw FP32 throughput of 10.79 TFLOPS. These specifications place the card in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29024, nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (deltaPct of 0) and slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 470 (deltaPct of 0.1).

The RX 6650 XT's 32 ray accelerators are relevant for Control, which features ray-traced reflections and indirect lighting. However, the measured FPS data without ray tracing shows that the card's traditional rasterization performance is the primary driver. The 64 ROPs and 128 TMUs dictate the pixel fill rate of 168.6 GPixel/s, which explains why the 4K results collapse: driving 8.3 million pixels per frame requires substantial fill rate, and the card's 280.3 GB/s memory bandwidth is insufficient to sustain high-quality textures at that resolution.

The GPU's 176 W TDP and dual-slot design are standard for this class, but the PCIe 4.0 x8 interface (half the lanes of the x16 slot) could theoretically limit data transfer in some scenarios. In practice, the benchmark results show no signs of PCIe bandwidth throttling, as the 1080p Low result of 124.6 FPS indicates the card is not starved for data. The GPU's production status is end-of-life, but its performance profile remains competitive for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with the measured data confirming it is the bottleneck in this system for Control at resolutions above 1440p.