Can I Run It?

Instant compatibility check with FPS benchmarks and optimization tips

Rust
Survival 2018

Rust

51%
Playable Your system meets minimum requirements.

Performance

1080p (Full HD)

Low 1080p Measured
151 FPS
Ultra 1080p Measured
70 FPS

1440p (2K / QHD)

Low 1440p Measured
114 FPS
Ultra 1440p Measured
49 FPS

4K (Ultra HD)

Low 4K Measured
66 FPS
Ultra 4K Measured
31 FPS
10.8ms Frame Time
16ms Input Latency
4K Best Resolution

Requirements Check

Processor
Required 37,463
Your CPU 17,035
Graphics Card
Required 28,194
Your GPU 17,639

Recommendations

Upgrade Needed

Your hardware doesn't meet minimum requirements for this game.

Ray Tracing Ready

Your GPU supports ray tracing.

Average FPS: resolution vs quality settings

UltraHighMediumLow
4K Ultra HD 31 36 48 66
1440p QHD 49 64 75 114
1080p Full HD 70 93 111 151

Cell color: green is 120+ FPS, teal is 60+, amber is 30+, red is below 30. Cards marked Estimated above have no measured row and are scaled from your GPU benchmark percentile.

Every measured configuration

1920x1080 High 93
1920x1080 Low 151
1920x1080 Medium 111
1920x1080 Ultra 70
2560x1440 High 64
2560x1440 Low 114
2560x1440 Medium 75
2560x1440 Ultra 49
3840x2160 High 36
3840x2160 Low 66
3840x2160 Medium 48
3840x2160 Ultra 31

Performance Analysis: Rust on Your System

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 combination delivers a playable Rust experience at all three tested resolutions, but the margin of safety narrows significantly as resolution climbs. At 1080p, this pairing has ample headroom for max settings, while 1440p requires a step down to High, and 4K demands Low settings to stay above the 60 FPS threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that holds at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 66.4 FPS. The next step up, Medium, drops to 47.9 FPS, which falls below the playable threshold. High and Ultra are not viable at this resolution, averaging 35.7 FPS and 30.9 FPS respectively.

At 2560x1440, High is the best playable preset, averaging 63.7 FPS. Medium runs slightly faster at 75 FPS, but High offers better visual quality while still clearing 60 FPS. Low runs at 114 FPS for those prioritizing frame rate over fidelity. Ultra sits at 48.8 FPS, which is not playable.

At 1920x1080, Ultra is the best preset and it averages 69.5 FPS, clearing the 60 FPS bar with room to spare. High runs at 93 FPS, Medium at 110.6 FPS, and Low at 150.5 FPS. Every preset at this resolution is playable, so the choice comes down to visual preference rather than performance necessity.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows a clear shift in workload balance across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the GPU is the primary constraint. The gap between Low (150.5 FPS) and Ultra (69.5 FPS) is 81 FPS, indicating that graphics settings strongly influence output. The CPU, a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 2 part with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15045, has enough headroom to feed the RTX 4060 at lower settings, but the GPU becomes the limiting factor as settings increase.

Moving to 2560x1440, the scaling pattern changes. Low drops to 114 FPS, a 24.2% reduction from 1080p Low. Medium drops to 75 FPS, a 32.2% reduction. High drops to 63.7 FPS, a 31.5% reduction. The consistent percentage drops across settings suggest that resolution scaling is now affecting both components, but the GPU is taking on more of the load. The RTX 4060, with its 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 272.0 GB/s bandwidth, is being pushed harder at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant factor. Low runs at 66.4 FPS, which is only 44.1% of the 1080p Low result. Medium runs at 47.9 FPS, High at 35.7 FPS, and Ultra at 30.9 FPS. The dramatic drop from Low to Medium at 4K (66.4 to 47.9 FPS) indicates that the GPU's memory bandwidth and compute resources are saturated. The CPU, which scores 71st percentile among all CPUs in the database, is no longer the bottleneck; the RTX 4060, which sits at the 61st percentile among GPUs, simply cannot maintain 60 FPS at higher 4K presets.

The scaling between 1080p Ultra (69.5 FPS) and 1440p Ultra (48.8 FPS) is particularly telling. A 29.8% drop in frame rate for a 77.8% increase in pixel count suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor at Ultra settings across all resolutions. Conversely, the relatively small drop from 1080p Low (150.5 FPS) to 1440p Low (114 FPS) indicates that the CPU can still push high frame rates when the GPU is not heavily loaded.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database are all within a 0.2% performance delta. The Intel Core i7-1260P scores 17007, which is 0.2% higher than the Ryzen 5 3600's 17035 average benchmark score. The Intel Core i5-11400 scores 17067, 0.2% lower. The AMD EPYC 7573X scores 17070, also 0.2% lower, and the AMD EPYC 7742 scores 16998, 0.2% higher. In practical terms, any of these processors would produce nearly identical frame rates in Rust, with differences well within measurement noise. The Ryzen 5 3600's 6-core, 12-thread configuration appears sufficient for this game, as the nearest rivals span both mobile and server parts without meaningful performance separation.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals show a wider spread but still remain close. The AMD Radeon HD 7790 scores 17666, which is 0.2% higher than the RTX 4060's 17639. The AMD Radeon 780M scores 17588, 0.3% lower. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 scores 17551, 0.5% lower, and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 scores 17509, 0.7% lower. These deltas are small enough that all four alternatives would deliver essentially the same Rust performance. However, it is importantly the RTX 4060 supports modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, which may affect real-world driver optimization beyond raw benchmark scores. The nearest rivals include both older discrete GPUs and an integrated solution, but the recorded data shows they cluster within a narrow performance band.

The Verdict

This PC can run Rust, but the playable envelope depends heavily on resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, every preset is playable, with Ultra averaging 69.5 FPS. This is the clear sweet spot for this combination. At 2560x1440, High is the best playable preset at 63.7 FPS, with Low and Medium also clearing 60 FPS. Ultra at 48.8 FPS is not playable. At 3840x2160, only Low is playable, averaging 66.4 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS, with 47.9, 35.7, and 30.9 FPS respectively.

The verdict by resolution is straightforward: 1080p and 1440p are viable for a smooth experience, while 4K requires significant settings compromises. The 60 FPS threshold, which is the playable threshold in the database, is met at 1080p Ultra, 1440p High, and 4K Low. Gamers who prioritize visual fidelity should run 1080p Ultra or 1440p High. Those who need maximum frame rates can run 1080p Low at 150.5 FPS or 1440p Low at 114 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded averages are as follows: Low runs at 150.5 FPS, Medium at 110.6 FPS, High at 93 FPS, and Ultra at 69.5 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 39.9 FPS, from Medium to High costs 17.6 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 23.5 FPS. The frame rate curve is not linear; the largest single drop occurs between Low and Medium.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 114 FPS, Medium 75 FPS, High 63.7 FPS, and Ultra 48.8 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 39 FPS, from Medium to High is 11.3 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 14.9 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is smaller here than at 1080p, suggesting that resolution scaling affects the higher presets more than the mid-range.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 66.4 FPS, Medium 47.9 FPS, High 35.7 FPS, and Ultra 30.9 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 18.5 FPS, from Medium to High is 12.2 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 4.8 FPS. At this resolution, the performance degradation from increasing settings becomes less steep at the top end, as the GPU is already heavily saturated at Medium.

The data does not include minimum or maximum frame time values, so the analysis relies on average FPS. The absence of min/max figures means stutter and frame pacing cannot be assessed directly, but the averages are consistent enough to indicate a stable experience at the playable presets.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database's ranking of tested CPU and GPU combinations for Rust, this pairing sits at rank 2058 out of 3723 combos. That places it in the 44.7th percentile, meaning roughly 55% of tested configurations perform better. This is a mid-pack result, which aligns with the component-level percentiles: the CPU ranks at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks at the 61st percentile among all GPUs.

The rank reflects the balanced but not exceptional nature of this pairing. The Ryzen 5 3600 is a strong mid-range processor, and the RTX 4060 is a capable entry-level 40-series card, but neither is top-tier. In Rust, which appears to scale well with both CPU and GPU resources, this combination lands in the middle of the field. The 1080p results are strong, but the 4K results drag the overall ranking down because the GPU lacks the raw throughput for high-resolution, high-settings play.

Compared to the nearest rival components, the performance differences are negligible. The CPU rivals are within 0.2% of the Ryzen 5 3600's average score, and the GPU rivals are within 0.7% of the RTX 4060's average score. A system built with any of these near-identical alternatives would likely land within a few positions of rank 2058 in the database. The practical takeaway is that this combo is a solid 1080p and 1440p machine for Rust, with 4K available only at Low settings, and its ranking reflects that trade-off.