Rust

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination of AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 running Rust shows extraordinary performance across all tested resolutions and settings. The measurements cover three resolutions (3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080) with four settings presets each (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). Notably, only the Medium preset at each resolution includes minimum and maximum FPS values; the other presets report only averages.

At 3840x2160, the average frame rates start at 525 FPS on Low settings, which is the highest recorded at this resolution. Moving to Medium, the average drops to 447 FPS with a minimum of 380 FPS and a maximum of 514 FPS. High settings produce an average of 387 FPS, while Ultra yields 330 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a consistent decline: approximately 15% lower from Low to Medium, another 13% reduction from Medium to High, and a further 15% decrease from High to Ultra. The gap between the fastest and slowest presets at 4K is 195 FPS, meaning Ultra runs at roughly 63% of the Low preset's speed.

At 2560x1440, the averages climb substantially. Low settings deliver 844 FPS, Medium averages 756 FPS with a minimum of 643 FPS and a maximum of 870 FPS, High reaches 655 FPS, and Ultra settles at 559 FPS. The scaling from 4K to 1440p is notable: Low improves by 319 FPS (61% higher), Medium by 309 FPS (69% higher), High by 268 FPS (69% higher), and Ultra by 229 FPS (69% higher). This consistent percentage uplift across presets suggests the resolution change affects all settings similarly, though the absolute gains grow with the baseline speed.

At 1920x1080, the numbers become extreme. Low settings average 956 FPS, Medium averages 904 FPS with a minimum of 768 FPS and a maximum of 1039 FPS, High reaches 859 FPS, and Ultra produces 812 FPS. The step from 1440p to 1080p adds 112 FPS on Low (13% higher), 148 FPS on Medium (20% higher), 204 FPS on High (31% higher), and 253 FPS on Ultra (45% higher). The larger percentage gains at higher presets when dropping from 1440p to 1080p indicate that Ultra settings become relatively less demanding at lower resolutions, likely because the CPU has more headroom relative to the GPU workload.

Looking at the frame time consistency, the Medium preset provides the only min/max data. At 4K, the spread between minimum and maximum is 134 FPS (380 to 514), which represents a 35% variance relative to the average. At 1440p, the spread widens to 227 FPS (643 to 870), a 30% variance. At 1080p, the spread reaches 271 FPS (768 to 1039), again a 30% variance. The relative consistency remains similar across resolutions, though the absolute frame time fluctuations grow with higher average FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database defines playable as maintaining an average of at least 60 FPS, and this combination vastly exceeds that threshold at every resolution and preset. The verdict data confirms that all four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable at every tested resolution. The question becomes which preset offers the highest visual quality while still clearing 60 FPS, and the answer is Ultra everywhere.

At 3840x2160, the best settings are Ultra with an average of 330 FPS. This is more than five times the 60 FPS threshold, leaving enormous headroom even during demanding scenes. The minimum recorded at Medium (380 FPS) suggests that even the lowest dips in the Ultra preset would remain far above playable, though the database does not provide a specific min FPS for Ultra.

At 2560x1440, Ultra again is the best choice, averaging 559 FPS. This represents a 69% improvement over the 4K Ultra result, showing that the resolution reduction disproportionately benefits the highest preset. The gap between Ultra and the next preset at 1440p is notable: Ultra runs at 85% of High's speed, 74% of Medium, and 66% of Low.

At 1920x1080, Ultra averages 812 FPS, the highest best-settings result across all resolutions. The 1080p Ultra result is 2.5 times the 4K Ultra average, and 13.5 times the playable threshold. This indicates that at 1080p, the CPU-GPU combination is nowhere near any performance ceiling, and the limiting factor would be display refresh rate rather than hardware capability.

For all three resolutions, the database explicitly lists the best settings as Ultra, and the average FPS at those settings are 330, 559, and 812 for 4K, 1440p, and 1080p respectively.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo in Rust?

A: The highest recorded average is 956 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The Medium preset at 1080p reaches 904 FPS on average, with a maximum of 1039 FPS.

Q: Does this combination ever drop below 60 FPS at any resolution or preset?

A: No. All four presets at all three resolutions stay far above 60 FPS. The lowest recorded average is 330 FPS at 4K Ultra, and the only minimum FPS data available (Medium presets) shows the lowest minimum is 380 FPS at 4K.

Q: How much faster is 1080p Ultra compared to 4K Ultra?

A: The 1080p Ultra average is 812 FPS versus 330 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is about 2.5 times faster. The difference is 482 FPS.

Q: Which resolution shows the largest percentage gain when moving from High to Ultra?

A: At 1080p, High averages 859 FPS and Ultra averages 812 FPS, a 5.5% reduction. At 1440p, High averages 655 FPS and Ultra averages 559 FPS, a 14.7% reduction. At 4K, High averages 387 FPS and Ultra averages 330 FPS, a 14.7% reduction. So the 1440p and 4K transitions are identical in percentage terms, while 1080p shows a smaller penalty.

Q: Is the Medium preset at 1440p faster than High at 4K?

A: Yes. Medium at 1440p averages 756 FPS, while High at 4K averages 387 FPS. The 1440p Medium result is 95% higher than the 4K High result.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded across all measurements?

A: The lowest minimum FPS in the data is 380 FPS, which occurs at 3840x2160 with Medium settings. The next lowest minimum is 643 FPS at 1440p Medium, and the highest minimum is 768 FPS at 1080p Medium.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database provides nearest rivals for both the CPU and GPU based on average benchmark scores. For the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, the closest alternatives in terms of overall performance are the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (0.1% higher score), the AMD EPYC 4244P (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i5-13450HX (0.2% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (0.5% higher). These CPU alternatives would produce nearly identical frame rates in Rust when paired with the RTX 5090, because the differences in average benchmark scores are all under one percent. The Ryzen AI 7 350 and EPYC 4244P are essentially tied with the 3700X, while the i5-13450HX trails by a negligible margin and the Core Ultra 7 165H leads by a similarly small amount.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (0.3% higher score), the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (1.1% higher), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (1.4% lower). These GPU alternatives would deliver nearly identical Rust performance. The Tesla P100 variants and the RX 6850M XT score slightly higher on average, while the Pro Vega 64X scores slightly lower. Given that the RTX 5090's own percentile rank is 92 among all GPUs, these rivals occupy the same performance tier.

If someone were to build a system with the Ryzen 7 3700X and swap in any of these rival GPUs, the Rust frame rates would change by roughly one percent or less. Similarly, keeping the RTX 5090 and swapping the CPU for any of the listed rivals would produce changes under one percent. The practical implication is that any of these CPU or GPU alternatives would yield a Rust experience that is indistinguishable from the measured results, all remaining far above the 60 FPS threshold at every resolution and preset.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this combination at rank 1 out of 3723 tested combos for Rust. This is the top position, meaning no other CPU-GPU pairing in the database achieves higher measured frame rates in this game. The percentile implications are straightforward: this combo outperforms 100% of the other 3722 tested combinations.

The rank of 1 is particularly notable given the CPU choice. The Ryzen 7 3700X is a Zen 2 part from 2019, while the RTX 5090 is a Blackwell 2.0 GPU from 2025. Despite the generational gap, the pairing reaches the pinnacle of the Rust leaderboard. This suggests that Rust's performance at the settings tested is heavily influenced by GPU capabilities, and the 3700X's 8 cores and 16 threads are sufficient to feed the RTX 5090 without becoming a bottleneck at the frame rates observed.

The data also shows that the combo's rank is consistent with the raw FPS numbers. At 4K Ultra, 330 FPS would be an exceptional result for most systems, and the fact that this is the lowest recorded average for this combo underscores the dominance. The top rank implies that no other combo in the database delivers higher FPS in Rust, whether at 1080p Low or 4K Ultra.

The Verdict

The data answers the question definitively: yes, this PC can run Rust, and it does so with extraordinary headroom. The verdictByResolution data lists all four settings presets as playable at all three resolutions. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and every single recorded average exceeds that by a factor of at least 5.5.

At 3840x2160, the best settings are Ultra with 330 FPS average. This means a 4K display at 60 Hz would be fully saturated, as would a 120 Hz, 144 Hz, or even 240 Hz display. The 330 FPS average at Ultra leaves 270 FPS of headroom above the threshold, which is 5.5 times the playable minimum.

At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 559 FPS, which is 9.3 times the threshold. A 1440p display running at 360 Hz or even 480 Hz would be within reach, as the average FPS exceeds most high-refresh-rate monitors' capabilities.

At 1920x1080, Ultra averages 812 FPS, which is 13.5 times the threshold. This is sufficient for any commercially available gaming monitor, including the fastest esports displays. The 1080p Low preset at 956 FPS represents the absolute ceiling of the recorded data, though without a min FPS value it is unclear how consistent that average is.

The only caveat is that the database reports averages, and not all presets have min/max values. The Medium preset at each resolution shows minimums of 380, 643, and 768 FPS respectively, all far above 60 FPS. Even if the Ultra preset had a worse minimum-to-average ratio than Medium, the averages are so high that a catastrophic frame time spike would be required to fall below 60 FPS, which is not indicated by any data point.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling data reveals which component drives performance in Rust at each resolution. The CPU (Ryzen 7 3700X) has a percentile rank of 84 among all CPUs, while the GPU (RTX 5090) ranks at 92 among all GPUs. The GPU is the stronger component relative to its peers, which suggests it should dominate the performance picture.

When moving from 4K to 1440p, the average FPS increases by 61% to 69% depending on the preset. This is a substantial scaling that indicates the GPU is the primary constraint at 4K, because reducing pixel count directly translates into higher frame rates. If the CPU were the bottleneck, resolution changes would have a smaller effect, as the CPU workload would remain similar regardless of pixel count. The uniform percentage gains across presets (all around 61% to 69%) reinforce that the GPU is consistently the limiting factor at 4K.

Moving from 1440p to 1080p tells a more nuanced story. The percentage gains vary by preset: Low improves by 13%, Medium by 20%, High by 31%, and Ultra by 45%. The pattern shows that lower presets gain less from the resolution drop, which implies the CPU becomes more relevant at 1080p. With Low settings, the GPU workload is light enough that the Ryzen 7 3700X starts to limit frame rates, so reducing resolution further does not provide proportional gains. At Ultra settings, the GPU still has significant work to do, so the resolution reduction yields larger improvements.

The absolute FPS numbers support this interpretation. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 956 FPS, which is extremely high for any CPU to sustain. The 3700X's single-thread score of 2656 in Passmark and Geekbench single-core score of 1593 indicate moderate single-thread performance, and generating nearly 1000 FPS requires substantial CPU work per frame. The fact that 1080p Low (956 FPS) is only 13% faster than 1440p Low (844 FPS), while 1080p Ultra (812 FPS) is 45% faster than 1440p Ultra (559 FPS), confirms that the CPU headroom is thinner at lower GPU workloads.

At 4K, the GPU is clearly the dominant factor. The RTX 5090's 32 GB of GDDR7 memory and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth are more than sufficient for any Rust scene, and the measured FPS at 4K Ultra (330) is still GPU-bound because dropping to 1440p produces a 69% uplift. At 1080p with Low settings, the CPU becomes the limiting factor, as evidenced by the modest 13% gain from 1440p.

For the highest preset at each resolution, the GPU remains the primary driver. Ultra settings at 4K, 1440p, and 1080p all show significant gains when resolution drops (69% and 45% respectively), meaning the GPU still has headroom to work harder at lower pixel counts. The CPU only becomes the principal constraint at 1080p with Low or Medium presets, where the frame rates exceed 900 FPS and the per-frame CPU cost dominates.

In summary, the Ryzen 7 3700X provides adequate throughput for Rust at 4K and 1440p, where the RTX 5090 dictates performance. At 1080p with lower presets, the CPU's single-thread capabilities begin to cap frame rates, but even then the cap sits above 800 FPS, which is far beyond any display's refresh rate. The combination ranks first in the database, and the bottleneck analysis shows that replacing the CPU would yield minimal gains at 4K, while replacing the GPU would be irrelevant given the already top-tier RTX 5090.