Rust

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT and Intel Arc B390 in Rust shows a clear pattern: performance scales predictably with resolution and settings, but the overall headroom is limited. At 3840x2160, the best result comes from Low settings with an average of 31 FPS. Medium settings drop to 21 FPS average, with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 24. High settings average 18 FPS, and Ultra falls to 13 FPS. No minimum or maximum values were recorded for Low, High, or Ultra at this resolution, so the medium preset is the only one with a full range of data.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages improve noticeably. Low settings reach 53 FPS, while Medium averages 35 FPS with a range of 30 to 41. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra drops to 23 FPS. Again, only the Medium preset includes min and max values, which suggests that the benchmark captured a more complete frame-time distribution for that setting. The gap between Low and Medium is 18 FPS, while the gap from Medium to High is just 5 FPS, indicating diminishing returns as settings climb.

At 1920x1080, the picture becomes more usable. Low settings average 76 FPS, which is the only preset across all resolutions that clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 51 FPS, with a minimum of 44 and a maximum of 59, meaning even the peak frame rate stays just under 60. High settings average 43 FPS, and Ultra averages 33 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 25 FPS drop, from Medium to High is another 8 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 10 FPS. This suggests that the Low preset is the sweet spot for smooth gameplay, while anything above that introduces increasingly steep penalties.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low is the only setting that approaches or exceeds playable frame rates, and the gap between Low and Medium is always larger than the gap between Medium and High or High and Ultra. For example, at 2560x1440, the Low to Medium drop is 18 FPS, while Medium to High is only 5 FPS. This implies that the most demanding visual features are concentrated in the jump from Low to Medium, and that further increases in quality have a smaller, though still significant, impact.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this combination at rank 3312 out of 3723 tested combos for Rust. That places it in the lower percentile of all configurations, specifically around the 11th percentile (calculated from the rank and total). This is a low standing, and it aligns with the GPU's individual percentile of 9 among all GPUs. The CPU, by contrast, sits at the 81st percentile among all CPUs, so the processor is not the limiting factor here.

The ranking implies that the vast majority of tested systems deliver better performance in Rust than this pairing. The data shows that even with a strong CPU, the GPU drags the overall result down. The combo rank is driven almost entirely by the Intel Arc B390's modest compute capabilities, which are reflected in its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482. That score places it in the bottom tier of GPUs, and the in-game results confirm that this translates directly to low frame rates across all settings.

The fact that the CPU ranks in the 81st percentile while the combo ranks near the bottom of the list is telling. It suggests that swapping the GPU for a more capable model would dramatically improve the ranking, while upgrading the CPU would yield minimal gains. The data does not include a separate CPU-only benchmark for Rust, but the combination of high CPU percentile and low GPU percentile makes the bottleneck clear.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Rust at 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the average is 76 FPS. No other resolution or preset combination reaches 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, the best average is 53 FPS on Low, and at 3840x2160, the best average is 31 FPS on Low.

Q: What is the most demanding setting that stays above 60 FPS?

A: The only setting that clears 60 FPS is Low at 1920x1080, averaging 76 FPS. Medium at 1920x1080 averages 51 FPS, which is below the threshold. At higher resolutions, no setting reaches 60 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1463, which is 1.3% slower. The GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% slower), the GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% slower), and the GT 710 scores 1443 (2.7% slower). This means the B390 is the fastest in this small group, but the differences are tiny.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT has an average benchmark score of 29879. The AMD Ryzen 7 7840H scores 29868 (0% difference), the Ryzen 7 8845HS scores 29955 (0.3% faster), the Ryzen 7 7840HS scores 29955 (0.3% faster), and the Ryzen 5 9600X scores 29713 (0.6% slower). The CPU is effectively tied with these parts in average performance.

Q: What is the best settings choice for 2560x1440?

A: Low settings at 2560x1440 average 53 FPS. This is the highest average at that resolution, but it is still below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 35 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS.

Q: Is the data measured or estimated?

A: The database confirms that the data is measured, not estimated. The combination rank of 3312 out of 3723 is based on real testing, and the FPS values come from direct observation.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the GPU, the Intel Arc B390 is surrounded by very old, low-end NVIDIA parts. The GeForce GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710 all score within 2.7% of the B390 in 3DMark Steel Nomad. This means that swapping the B390 for any of these would produce nearly identical frame rates in Rust. However, the B390 is slightly faster than all of them, so a change would likely result in a marginal performance drop, not an improvement. The data does not include any GPU that is faster than the B390 in its nearest rivals list, so there is no direct upgrade path within that group.

For the CPU, the nearest rivals are all AMD parts: the Ryzen 7 7840H, Ryzen 7 8845HS, Ryzen 7 7840HS, and Ryzen 5 9600X. These have average scores from 29713 to 29955, which is within 0.6% of the 5800XT's 29879. In practice, this means that any of these CPUs would deliver essentially identical CPU-bound performance in Rust. Since the game is clearly GPU-limited in this configuration, swapping the CPU for any of these rivals would produce no measurable change in frame rates. The data shows that the CPU is not the constraint, so the only meaningful alternative would be a different GPU, but the nearest rivals list does not include a faster option.

The combination of a high-end CPU from the 81st percentile and a low-end GPU from the 9th percentile creates an unusual situation. The system's performance in Rust is dictated almost entirely by the GPU, and any of the listed rival GPUs would behave nearly the same. A user looking for higher frame rates would need to look beyond the nearest rivals, as the data does not show any GPU in this group that can reach 60 FPS at 1080p Medium.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the best average FPS comes from Low settings at 31 FPS. No other preset comes close: Medium averages 21, High averages 18, and Ultra averages 13. Since even Low is far below the 60 FPS threshold, there is no playable setting at this resolution. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist here.

At 2560x1440, Low settings again provide the highest average at 53 FPS. Medium drops to 35, High to 30, and Ultra to 23. Similar to 4K, no setting reaches 60 FPS, so the playable threshold is not met. The best option for visual quality while maximizing frame rate is Low, but it still falls short.

At 1920x1080, Low settings average 76 FPS, which is the only preset across all resolutions that exceeds 60 FPS. Medium averages 51 FPS, High averages 43, and Ultra averages 33. Therefore, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low at 1920x1080. If a user prioritizes visual quality over frame rate, Medium is the next step down at 51 FPS, but it does not meet the playable threshold.

The data clearly shows that Low settings are required for any playable experience, and even then, only at 1080p. At 1440p and 4K, the system cannot deliver smooth gameplay regardless of settings.

The Verdict

The verdict by resolution is unambiguous. At 3840x2160, the database lists no playable settings. The best average is 31 FPS on Low, which is well below the 60 FPS target. At 2560x1440, the situation is slightly better but still not playable: no settings reach 60 FPS, and the best average is 53 FPS on Low. At 1920x1080, Low settings average 76 FPS, which clears the threshold, and this is the only playable configuration in the entire dataset.

In practical terms, this PC can run Rust, but only under very specific conditions. A user must select Low settings and a resolution of 1920x1080 to achieve smooth gameplay. Any other combination of resolution and preset will result in frame rates below 60 FPS, with 4K dropping to as low as 13 FPS on Ultra. The system is not suitable for higher resolutions or higher quality settings.

The data also shows that the gap between 53 FPS at 1440p Low and 76 FPS at 1080p Low is significant, indicating that the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's high percentile ranking cannot compensate for the GPU's low compute throughput. For users who want to play Rust at higher settings or resolutions, this combination is not adequate, but for 1080p Low, it is functional.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT and the Intel Arc B390 in Rust is stark. The CPU ranks in the 81st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29879, placing it on par with recent AMD mobile and desktop parts. The GPU, on the other hand, ranks in the 9th percentile, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of just 1482. This massive disparity means the GPU is the bottleneck at every resolution and setting.

The scaling between resolutions confirms this. At 1920x1080 Low, the system averages 76 FPS. Dropping to 2560x1440 Low reduces the average to 53 FPS, a 30% decrease. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 31 FPS, another 42% decrease. This pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where increasing pixel count directly impacts frame rate. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would stay similar across resolutions, but the data shows a steep decline.

The settings scaling also points to the GPU as the limiting factor. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 43 FPS (76 to 33), which is a large range that reflects the GPU's inability to handle higher quality effects. At 1440p, the range is 30 FPS (53 to 23), and at 4K, it is 18 FPS (31 to 13). The shrinking range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is already saturated and cannot maintain even Low settings at 4K, let alone higher presets.

The CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic, but in this case, it is never the limiting factor. The 5800XT's 8 cores and 16 threads, with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, are more than sufficient for Rust. The data does not show any scenario where a CPU upgrade would improve frame rates. Conversely, a GPU upgrade would likely have a dramatic effect, as the B390's nearest rivals are all similarly low-end parts, and none of them offer a path to higher performance.

In summary, the GPU is responsible for the low frame rates across all settings and resolutions. The CPU is vastly overqualified for this pairing, and its performance headroom goes unused. For anyone considering this combination for Rust, the data suggests that the GPU should be the first component to replace, as it is the sole reason the system cannot reach 60 FPS at 1440p or higher.