Rust

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination in Rust shows a clear, resolution-driven performance curve. At 3840x2160, the system is heavily constrained. The High preset delivers an average of 18 FPS, while Low improves to 31 FPS. Medium lands at 21 FPS with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 24, and Ultra drops to 13 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS playable threshold, and even the best case at 4K, Low at 31 FPS, is below half of that target.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains firmly below playability. High averages 30 FPS, Low reaches 53 FPS, Medium sits at 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 41, and Ultra falls to 23 FPS. The jump from 4K to 1440p is substantial, roughly a 66% improvement on Low (from 31 to 53 FPS), which indicates that pixel count is a dominant factor for this GPU. However, even the best 1440p result, Low at 53 FPS, misses the 60 FPS mark by a noticeable margin.

At 1920x1080, the system finally finds a usable setting. Low averages 76 FPS, which clears the playable threshold comfortably. High averages 43 FPS, Medium averages 51 FPS with a minimum of 44 and a maximum of 59, and Ultra averages 33 FPS. The Medium preset's maximum of 59 FPS is tantalizingly close to 60, but the average of 51 and the minimum of 44 confirm that it cannot sustain a consistent experience at that threshold. Low is the only preset at 1080p that both exceeds 60 FPS on average and does so with enough headroom to absorb frame-time spikes.

Data granularity is uneven across the table: min and max values are recorded only for the Medium preset at each resolution. For High, Low, and Ultra, only averages are available. This limits the analysis of frame pacing for those presets, but the averages themselves are sufficient to establish the overall hierarchy.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database, this specific CPU and GPU pairing ranks 3312 out of 3723 tested combinations for Rust. That places it in the lower 11% of all recorded configurations, meaning roughly 89% of tested systems perform better in this game. The rank is a composite measure of the measured FPS across all resolutions and presets, so it reflects the system's overall capability rather than any single setting.

The poor ranking is consistent with the FPS data. The GPU, Intel Arc B390, sits at the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database, based on its average benchmark score of 1482. Its nearest rivals in raw GPU score are all legacy or low-end parts: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (score 1463, delta 1.3%), the GeForce 800M (score 1460, delta 1.5%), the GeForce GT 625 OEM (score 1446, delta 2.5%), and the GeForce GT 710 (score 1443, delta 2.7%). The B390 is only 1.3% faster than the GT 520MX, a GPU from a much older generation, which puts its performance tier into sharp perspective.

The CPU, Intel Core Ultra 5 225, is a much stronger component. It ranks in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 36938. Its nearest rivals in CPU score are the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (score 36945, delta 0%), the Ryzen 5 5500X3D (score 37018, delta -0.2%), the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (score 37093, delta -0.4%), and the Intel Core i9-12900T (score 37112, delta -0.5%). All four rivals are within 0.5% of the Ultra 5 225, meaning the CPU is not the limiting factor in this pairing. The data strongly suggests that the GPU is the bottleneck, as the CPU's percentile rank (85) vastly exceeds the GPU's (9).

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between these two components is stark. At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmed, and the FPS figures are uniformly low regardless of CPU headroom. Scaling from Low (31 FPS) to Ultra (13 FPS) at 4K shows a 58% drop, which is a GPU-bound response to increasing pixel shading and texture work. The CPU's 10 cores and 10 threads, with a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, are not the constraint here; the Arc B390's 1536 shading units and 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute simply cannot feed the display pipeline fast enough.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds. Low (53 FPS) to Ultra (23 FPS) represents a 57% reduction, nearly identical to the 4K scaling. The consistency of this drop across resolutions indicates that the GPU is the dominant factor at every step. The CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions, but the GPU still caps the ceiling.

At 1920x1080, the picture shifts slightly. Low (76 FPS) to Ultra (33 FPS) is a 57% drop, matching the other resolutions. However, the absolute values show that the CPU can push the GPU to 76 FPS on Low, which is a respectable result for a game as simulation-heavy as Rust. The CPU's Passmark multithread score of 30459 and single-thread score of 4412 suggest it can handle Rust's server-side and physics calculations, but the GPU's low fill rate and texture throughput hold back higher presets.

The scaling between resolutions on the same preset is telling. For Low, 4K (31) to 1440p (53) to 1080p (76) shows a steady climb. For High, the progression is 18, 30, 43. This roughly linear scaling with pixel count indicates a GPU that is bandwidth- and compute-limited, not a CPU-limited scenario. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and dual-channel DDR5 support are adequate, but the GPU's shared system memory and System Dependent bandwidth create a bottleneck that no CPU improvement can resolve.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Rust? The answer depends entirely on resolution and preset. According to the recorded data, the only playable configuration, defined as maintaining at least 60 FPS on average, is 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which achieves 76 FPS. This clears the 60 FPS threshold by 16 FPS, providing a reasonable margin for the frame drops that Rust's dynamic world can cause.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best result is Low at 53 FPS, which is playable in a casual sense but does not meet the defined threshold. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse, with the best result being Low at 31 FPS, which is below half the target.

For a survival game like Rust, where PvP encounters and building mechanics reward smooth input, the 1080p Low setting is the only safe recommendation. Medium at 1080p (51 FPS average, 44 min) is close but risks dipping below 60 during intense moments, and the maximum of 59 FPS suggests it cannot sustain the threshold even in favorable conditions. The verdict is clear: this combo is a 1080p, low-settings machine for Rust, and nothing more.

FAQ

Q: What is the best FPS this combo can achieve in Rust?

A: The highest recorded average is 76 FPS at 1920x1080 with the Low preset.

Q: Can this system run Rust at 1440p?

A: Yes, but not at 60 FPS. The best 1440p result is Low at 53 FPS average, which is below the playable threshold.

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

A: The Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482, which is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and 2.7% higher than the GeForce GT 710.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this pairing?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. It ranks at the 9th percentile among GPUs, while the CPU ranks at the 85th percentile among CPUs.

Q: What is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS?

A: Only 1920x1080 with Low settings qualifies, averaging 76 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: It ranks 3312 out of 3723 combinations, placing it in the lower 11% of the database.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The best recorded average is Low at 31 FPS, but this is not playable by the defined standard. The verdict for this resolution lists no playable settings, so the recommendation is to avoid 4K entirely with this hardware.

At 2560x1440, the same conclusion applies. No preset clears 60 FPS, and the verdict lists no playable settings. The best result, Low at 53 FPS, is close but still 7 FPS short of the target.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset is the only playable option, averaging 76 FPS. This is the sole configuration in the entire dataset that meets the 60 FPS requirement. The verdict confirms Low as the best settings choice at this resolution, with the exact average of 76 FPS. Medium at 51 FPS and High at 43 FPS are both unplayable by the threshold, and Ultra at 33 FPS is far off.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is closely matched by several processors. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F has an identical average score of 36945, a 0% delta. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018, which is 0.2% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093, 0.4% lower, and the Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112, 0.5% lower. Any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical CPU-bound performance in Rust, meaning the choice between them would not meaningfully alter the FPS results at the presets where the GPU is the limiter.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B390's nearest rivals are all significantly slower parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower. The GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% lower. The GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% lower, and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% lower. These deltas are small in percentage terms, but the absolute scores are all below 1500, meaning any of these GPUs would produce similarly low FPS in Rust. The B390 is the fastest of the group, but the margin is negligible in real-world terms, so users with any of these GPUs should expect the same 1080p Low limitation.

The pairing of the Ultra 5 225 with any of these rival GPUs would shift the bottleneck even further toward the GPU. Conversely, pairing the B390 with a weaker CPU might slightly lower the 1080p Low result, but the GPU's 9th percentile rank indicates that the ceiling is set by the graphics card regardless of CPU choice.