Rust

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rate data for Rust on this Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Intel Arc B390 combination covers three resolutions and four quality presets. The database records average FPS for all presets, with minimum and maximum values captured only for the Medium preset at each resolution.

At 3840x2160, the results are consistently below playable thresholds. The Low preset delivers an average of 31 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded at this resolution. Medium drops to 21 FPS average, with a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 24 FPS. High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 13 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra represents a reduction of 18 FPS, or roughly a 58% drop in average frame rate when moving from the least to most demanding preset.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates improve but remain under the 60 FPS playable threshold across all presets. Low averages 53 FPS, which is the strongest result at this resolution. Medium averages 35 FPS with a recorded range of 30 to 41 FPS. High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The transition from Low to Ultra at 1440p costs 30 FPS on average, a decline of approximately 57%.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset finally crosses the 60 FPS line. Low averages 76 FPS, which is the only preset at any resolution to exceed the playable threshold. Medium averages 51 FPS with a minimum of 44 FPS and a maximum of 59 FPS. High averages 43 FPS, and Ultra averages 33 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 25 FPS, while the full climb from Low to Ultra removes 43 FPS from the average.

The scaling pattern across resolutions shows consistent behavior. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings reduces the average from 76 to 53 FPS, a 23 FPS loss. Moving from 1440p to 2160p at Low settings further reduces the average to 31 FPS, another 22 FPS loss. The same resolution scaling at High settings goes from 43 FPS at 1080p to 30 FPS at 1440p to 18 FPS at 2160p, showing a similar proportional decline.

The Medium preset is the only configuration where minimum and maximum frame times were recorded across all three resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the minimum of 44 FPS and maximum of 59 FPS indicate a 15 FPS fluctuation range. At 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 11 FPS (30 to 41). At 2160p Medium, the range is 6 FPS (18 to 24). The data indicates that frame time variance shrinks as resolution increases, likely because the graphics subsystem becomes the consistent bottleneck.

Best Settings per Resolution

The playable threshold for this analysis is 60 FPS average. At 3840x2160, no preset achieves this threshold. The highest average recorded is 31 FPS at Low settings, which falls 29 FPS short of the target. The verdict data confirms that no playable settings exist at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the same conclusion applies. No preset reaches 60 FPS average. The Low preset comes closest at 53 FPS, leaving a 7 FPS gap. Medium, High, and Ultra all sit further below the threshold at 35, 30, and 23 FPS respectively.

At 1920x1080, exactly one preset clears the threshold. The Low preset averages 76 FPS, which is 16 FPS above the 60 FPS target. This is the only playable configuration in the entire measured dataset. Medium at 51 FPS, High at 43 FPS, and Ultra at 33 FPS all remain below the threshold.

The best settings per resolution can be summarized directly from the recorded data. For 2160p, no best setting exists because none meet the playable criterion. For 1440p, no best setting exists for the same reason. For 1080p, the best setting is Low, delivering 76 FPS average.

The database's verdict field aligns with these measurements. It lists no playable settings for 3840x2160 or 2560x1440, and identifies Low at 1920x1080 as the sole playable preset with an average of 76 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows how the CPU and GPU each influence performance at different resolutions and presets. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor with a boost clock of 5.50 GHz and a TDP of 125 W. The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution with 1536 shading units, 12 ray tracing cores, and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. Its FP32 throughput is 7.680 TFLOPS.

The GPU's percentile ranking versus all GPUs is 9, placing it in the bottom tenth of the database. The CPU's percentile ranking versus all CPUs is 96, placing it near the top. This disparity suggests the GPU is the limiting factor in most scenarios.

The resolution scaling data supports this interpretation. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 76 at 1080p to 53 at 1440p to 31 at 2160p. This consistent decline as pixel count increases indicates that the graphics subsystem is saturated. At 1080p Low, the CPU likely has enough headroom to feed the GPU, but the GPU cannot maintain high frame rates at higher resolutions.

The preset scaling data further clarifies the GPU bottleneck. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra reduces the average from 76 to 33 FPS, a 43 FPS loss. At 1440p, the same preset change reduces the average from 53 to 23 FPS, a 30 FPS loss. At 2160p, the change reduces the average from 31 to 13 FPS, an 18 FPS loss. The absolute frame rate loss shrinks as resolution increases, which is consistent with the GPU being the primary constraint at all resolutions.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions and lower presets. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 76 FPS, which is the only result above the playable threshold. This suggests the CPU can drive the integrated GPU to its maximum output when the pixel workload is relatively light. The CPU's single-thread score of 2439 in Cinebench R23 and its passmark single-thread score of 5068 indicate strong per-core performance that can keep up with Rust's simulation and physics demands.

At higher resolutions and presets, the GPU's limited compute resources dominate. The Arc B390's pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s provide a hard ceiling that the CPU cannot overcome. The measured FPS at 2160p Ultra (13 FPS) is likely near the GPU's raw output limit for that workload.

The memory configuration also matters. The CPU supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the GPU uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. This shared memory arrangement means the GPU competes with the CPU for memory access, which can further constrain performance in memory-intensive scenes.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide context for what other hardware would behave similarly in this game. The CPU's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon 6520P with an average benchmark score of 93786, essentially identical to the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus's 93785 (0% delta). The AMD EPYC 4564P scores 95183, which is 1.5% higher. The AMD EPYC 9175F scores 95615, 1.9% higher. The AMD EPYC 4565P scores 95764, 2.1% higher. These deltas are small, so any of these CPUs would produce very similar CPU-side performance in Rust.

The GPU's nearest rivals are all NVIDIA parts from older generations. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower than the Arc B390's 1482. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% lower. These are all older, low-end GPUs, and the small deltas indicate they would deliver nearly the same frame rates in Rust.

For the combined system, substituting any of the rival CPUs would change little because the GPU is the limiting factor. Substituting any of the rival GPUs would also change little because their benchmark scores are within 2.7% of the Arc B390. The practical implication is that this combination sits in a narrow performance band where nearby hardware would produce nearly indistinguishable results.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Rust? The data says yes, but only under specific conditions. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system averages 76 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold by a comfortable margin. This is the only configuration in the measured dataset that achieves playable performance.

At 1920x1080 Medium, the average drops to 51 FPS, below the threshold. At High, it falls to 43 FPS, and at Ultra, to 33 FPS. None of these presets are playable according to the 60 FPS criterion.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best result is 53 FPS at Low settings, which is 7 FPS short. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall further behind at 35, 30, and 23 FPS respectively.

At 3840x2160, the results are worse. Low averages 31 FPS, Medium 21 FPS, High 18 FPS, and Ultra 13 FPS. None of these approach the playable threshold.

The verdict by resolution is clear. For 2160p, no playable settings exist. For 1440p, no playable settings exist. For 1080p, Low settings are playable with 76 FPS average. Users who want higher presets or resolutions would need different hardware, but the recorded data confirms that 1080p Low delivers a playable experience for this game.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this system achieves in Rust?

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

Q: Is Rust playable at 2560x1440 with this hardware?

A: No. The best result at 1440p is 53 FPS on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. No preset at 1440p reaches 60 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 93785 on average, while the Intel Xeon 6520P scores 93786, a 0% difference. The AMD EPYC 4564P is 1.5% higher, the EPYC 9175F is 1.9% higher, and the EPYC 4565P is 2.1% higher.

Q: What GPU performance class does the Intel Arc B390 belong to?

A: Its average benchmark score of 1482 places it at the 9th percentile versus all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX at 1463, which is 1.3% lower.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 1920x1080 Medium settings?

A: The minimum is 44 FPS, with a maximum of 59 FPS and an average of 51 FPS.

Q: Which presets at 3840x2160 have recorded minimum and maximum FPS values?

A: Only the Medium preset has recorded min and max values at 2160p, with a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 24 FPS. Other presets at this resolution only have average FPS data.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific CPU and GPU combination for Rust at position 3312 out of 3723 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested configurations for this game. The rank reflects the GPU's low percentile standing (9th versus all GPUs) despite the CPU's high percentile standing (96th versus all CPUs).

The ranking position means that the vast majority of tested hardware combinations deliver better performance in Rust. The 411 combos ranked below this one are likely using even less capable integrated graphics or older low-end discrete GPUs. The combinations ranked above include systems with more powerful graphics solutions that can handle higher resolutions and presets.

The data indicates that the CPU is not the reason for this low rank. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus delivers strong multi-core and single-core performance, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44253 and a single-core score of 2439. The bottleneck is clearly the integrated Arc B390 GPU, which cannot provide enough graphics throughput for Rust at demanding settings.

For context, the GPU's rivals are all in the same performance class. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 and GT 625 OEM score within 2.7% of the Arc B390. Systems using those GPUs would rank similarly in this game. The combination's rank of 3312 out of 3723 is consistent with an integrated graphics solution that falls far below the median GPU performance level.

The practical takeaway from the rank data is that this combo sits at the low end of the database for Rust. Users with this hardware can play at 1080p Low, but the rank indicates that most other tested systems would provide higher frame rates or allow higher quality settings.