Rust

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX paired with the AMD Radeon 760M is a combination that ranks near the very bottom of the database for Rust, placing 3712th out of 3723 tested combos. This is a decidedly low-end pairing for this specific title, and the measured frame rates confirm that the integrated GPU becomes the primary bottleneck across all tested scenarios. The data indicates that this system is not suitable for smooth gameplay at any resolution or preset, with average frame rates falling well below the 60 FPS playable threshold in every configuration tested.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 3712 out of 3723 places this hardware configuration in the bottom 1% of all tested combinations for Rust. This is an exceptionally poor result, indicating that the pairing of the Ryzen 9 8945HX with the Radeon 760M is fundamentally mismatched for this game’s demands. The CPU itself is a high-end mobile processor, ranking in the 95th percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 76212. However, the GPU tells a different story entirely.

The Radeon 760M sits in the 35th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6019. This massive disparity between CPU capability and GPU performance is the defining characteristic of this combo. The data shows that the GPU’s integrated nature and relatively modest compute resources (5.323 TFLOPS FP32) severely limit what the powerful CPU can accomplish in Rust. When compared to other tested combinations, this pairing sits just 11 spots above the absolute worst, making it one of the least capable configurations for this game in the entire database. The benchmark results consistently show that no matter how capable the processor is, the graphics solution cannot keep up with the game’s rendering requirements.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance data across resolutions and presets reveals a clear pattern: the GPU is the dominant limiting factor at every setting. This becomes evident when examining the scaling between resolutions. At 1920x1080 Low, the combo achieves 47 FPS average, which drops to 32 FPS at 2560x1440 Low, and further to 19 FPS at 3840x2160 Low. This steep decline with increasing resolution is classic GPU-bound behavior, where the rendering load grows faster than the integrated graphics can handle.

The CPU’s role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions and settings, where the GPU has less work to do. At 1920x1080 Low, the 47 FPS result suggests the system is still GPU-limited, but the CPU is providing enough headroom that the frame rate is entirely dependent on the graphics solution. The Ryzen 9 8945HX, with its 16 cores and 32 threads, is more than capable of feeding the Radeon 760M under any circumstances. The benchmark data shows that even at 3840x2160 Ultra, where the GPU is completely overwhelmed at just 8 FPS average, the CPU is not the constraint.

Preset scaling reinforces this analysis. Moving from Low to Ultra at any resolution produces a roughly 60% reduction in frame rate, which is consistent with the GPU being the bottleneck. At 1920x1080, the drop is from 47 FPS on Low to 20 FPS on Ultra. At 2560x1440, it falls from 32 to 14 FPS. At 3840x2160, it goes from 19 to 8 FPS. This consistent pattern across all resolutions indicates that the CPU’s role is static while the GPU’s workload scales with both resolution and graphical fidelity.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide context for what other hardware might behave similarly in this combination. For the Ryzen 9 8945HX, the closest matches are the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX with a deltaPct of 0.1 percent, the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P at -0.4 percent, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX at -0.4 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D at 0.6 percent. These processors all have average benchmark scores within a fraction of a percent of the Ryzen 9 8945HX, meaning they would deliver nearly identical CPU performance in this game. The data shows that swapping the CPU to any of these alternatives would not meaningfully change the outcome, as the GPU remains the limiting factor.

For the Radeon 760M, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 0.3 percent deltaPct, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 0.3 percent, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 0.4 percent, and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at -0.5 percent. These GPUs have average scores very close to the Radeon 760M, suggesting they would produce similar frame rates in Rust. The interesting detail here is that the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server appears in this list, which indicates that raw benchmark scores do not always translate directly to gaming performance. However, for the purposes of this analysis, any of these GPU alternatives would likely result in the same sub-60 FPS experience across all resolutions.

The Verdict

The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: this system cannot run Rust at a playable level at any resolution tested. The playable settings list is empty for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. The best settings field is null for all resolutions, and the average FPS at best is also null. This means there is no configuration of settings and resolution that achieves the 60 FPS playable threshold.

The data shows that the highest average frame rate achieved in any test was 47 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This falls 13 FPS short of the playable threshold. Even at the lowest resolution and lowest quality settings, the system cannot deliver a smooth experience. The conclusion is that this combo is unsuitable for Rust gameplay, and users would need to either lower their expectations significantly or consider different hardware. The 60 FPS threshold is a hard requirement for playability in this database, and this system misses it by a substantial margin at every tested configuration.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates provide a complete picture of the system’s performance across all tested configurations. At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. High settings yield an average of 11 FPS, Low settings produce 19 FPS, Medium settings average 13 FPS with a minimum of 11 and maximum of 15, and Ultra settings drop to just 8 FPS average. The minimum and maximum values for most 4K configurations are not reported, but the Medium preset shows a tight range of 11 to 15 FPS, indicating consistent performance at a very low level.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates improve but remain far below playable. High settings average 18 FPS, Low settings reach 32 FPS, Medium settings average 22 FPS with a range of 18 to 25, and Ultra settings fall to 14 FPS. The 1440p results show a clear progression where lower settings provide better performance, but even the best case at Low settings only reaches 32 FPS, which is still 28 FPS below the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the best results in the entire dataset are observed. High settings average 27 FPS, Low settings achieve 47 FPS, Medium settings average 31 FPS with a range of 27 to 36, and Ultra settings average 20 FPS. The 1080p Low configuration is the closest this system comes to playability, but it still misses the 60 FPS target by a significant margin. The data shows a consistent pattern where each resolution drop of roughly 50% (from 4K to 1440p to 1080p) yields approximately a 1.7x improvement in frame rate at the same settings.

Best Settings per Resolution

Given the verdict that no settings achieve 60 FPS at any resolution, the best settings per resolution are technically non-existent. The data shows that the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is none, because no preset at any resolution reaches that threshold. The verdictByResolution data confirms this with null values for best settings and average FPS at best for all three resolutions.

However, examining the data for the highest performing configuration at each resolution provides useful context. At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 19 at Low settings, which is the maximum this system can achieve at 4K. At 2560x1440, the best average FPS is 32 at Low settings. At 1920x1080, the best average FPS is 47 at Low settings. In every case, Low settings provide the highest frame rate, and the performance decreases as settings increase. Since none of these configurations reach 60 FPS, the recommendation would be that no settings are viable for playable performance at any resolution.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average frame rate this system can achieve in Rust?

A: The highest average frame rate measured is 47 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is 13 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Can this combination run Rust at 2560x1440 resolution?

A: No. The best result at 2560x1440 is 32 FPS average at Low settings, which falls well short of the 60 FPS threshold. The verdict data lists no playable settings for this resolution.

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

A: The Ryzen 9 8945HX has an average benchmark score of 76212, which is within 0.6 percent of its closest rivals including the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX and AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D. All four nearest rivals have scores within a fraction of a percent of this CPU.

Q: Why does the system perform so poorly if the CPU is in the 95th percentile?

A: The Radeon 760M GPU ranks in only the 35th percentile against all GPUs, with an average score of 6019. The GPU is the limiting factor in all tested configurations, as evidenced by the frame rate scaling patterns across resolutions and presets.

Q: What is the lowest resolution tested, and what performance does it deliver?

A: The lowest resolution tested is 1920x1080. At Low settings, it delivers 47 FPS average, which is the best result in the entire dataset. At Ultra settings, it drops to 20 FPS average.

Q: Are there any settings at any resolution that achieve 60 FPS?

A: No. The playable settings list is empty for all three resolutions tested (3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080), and the best average FPS across all configurations is 47 at 1080p Low.