Rust

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G pairs a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 2 design with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. This configuration is the CPU-side foundation for the measured Rust results. The 4600G’s 8 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support place it as a mid-range desktop part, and its benchmark percentile of 75 versus all CPUs confirms it sits above the median. In Rust, a game that is heavily dependent on single-thread performance for its core simulation logic, the 4600G’s 3dmark_single_thread score of 726 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1919 indicate a modest ceiling. This becomes relevant when looking at the lowest resolution and settings, where the CPU is more likely to be the primary constraint. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE and Intel Core i5-12450H, have nearly identical average benchmark scores, with deltaPct values of 0 and 0.1 respectively, suggesting that the 4600G’s processing power is comparable to those parts in general compute. However, the data shows that the 4600G’s multi-threaded capability, reflected in a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 13593, is sufficient to feed the GPU at higher resolutions, where the graphics card takes over as the limiting factor.

The CPU’s 12 threads are utilized well in Rust’s world-building and entity update tasks, but the benchmark results indicate that its single-core speed is the more critical attribute. The PassMark single-thread score of 2653 is relatively low compared to modern high-end parts, and this is a likely reason why the frame rates at 1080p Low do not scale as dramatically as they do when moving from 1080p to 1440p. The 4600G’s integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics are irrelevant for this test, as the system is paired with a discrete GPU, but the CPU’s PCIe Gen 3 interface (20 lanes) could theoretically limit data transfer speeds, though the measured FPS data does not show any obvious bottleneck from this. The CPU’s performance is best understood as a stable, mid-tier platform that provides a solid base for the GPU, but it is not the star of the show in this combination.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is the dominant component in this pairing, and its specifications are heavily reflected in the measured Rust frame rates. The GPU features the AD104 chip on TSMC’s 5 nm process, with a base clock of 2310 MHz and a boost clock of 2610 MHz. Its 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus provides a memory bandwidth of 504.2 GB/s. This memory configuration is ample for Rust at the tested resolutions, as the game’s textures and draw distances are not particularly demanding on VRAM capacity. The GPU’s 7680 shading units and 240 TMUs contribute to its raw compute power, and its FP32 performance of 40.09 TFLOPS places it in a high-performance tier, as evidenced by its 85th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

The RTX 4070 Ti’s benchmark scores, including a PassMark G3D score of 31624 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5024, show it is a potent card for modern titles. Its nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile and Intel Arc A730M, have comparable average scores, with deltaPct values of -0.6 and -1.5 respectively, indicating the 4070 Ti is slightly ahead of those parts in synthetic benchmarks. In Rust, the GPU’s role becomes more pronounced as resolution increases. The transition from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K shows a clear scaling pattern where the GPU is the primary driver of performance. The 4070 Ti’s 60 RT cores and 240 Tensor Cores are not directly utilized by Rust’s standard rendering path, which does not rely heavily on ray tracing, but they contribute to the card’s overall capability and feature set. The GPU’s 285 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU indicate it is a power-hungry part, but this is irrelevant to the measured performance data.

The data shows that the GPU is not the bottleneck at 1080p Low, where the CPU limits frame rates, but it becomes the decisive factor at 4K Ultra, where its rendering load is highest. The 4070 Ti’s average benchmark score of 44900 is significantly higher than the CPU’s average score of 17489, which is expected given the price and performance tier of the two components. This disparity is the key to understanding the scaling behavior across resolutions: the GPU has more headroom to exploit at higher settings, while the CPU’s limitations are exposed at lower settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of resolution scaling that shifts the bottleneck from CPU to GPU. At 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS is 154.2, which is the highest recorded value. Moving to 1440p Low reduces this to 136.2 FPS, a drop of 18 FPS, and then to 4K Low at 104.5 FPS, a further drop of 31.7 FPS. This scaling indicates that at Low settings, the CPU is still capable of pushing frame rates, but the GPU’s workload increases significantly as resolution climbs. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is approximately 32%, which suggests that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor, but the CPU is still contributing to the overall performance.

At High settings, the scaling is more pronounced. The average FPS at 1080p is 126.5, dropping to 103.2 FPS at 1440p (a 23.3 FPS decrease) and then to 62.8 FPS at 4K (a 40.4 FPS decrease). The drop from 1440p to 4K is particularly steep, indicating that the GPU is now the primary constraint, as the increased pixel count and texture detail are overwhelming the GPU’s capabilities. At Ultra settings, the pattern is similar but with lower absolute values. The 1080p Ultra average is 116.9 FPS, falling to 80.7 FPS at 1440p and then to 44.5 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is the lowest in the entire dataset, showing that the combination is not suitable for high-fidelity 4K gaming in Rust.

This scaling behavior tells a story about the limiting component. At 1080p Low, the CPU is the bottleneck, as the GPU is not being fully utilized. The frame rate of 154.2 FPS is likely close to the CPU’s maximum output, and increasing the resolution to 1440p Low only reduces it to 136.2 FPS, which is a smaller relative drop than what is seen at higher settings. At 4K Low, the GPU is starting to become more relevant, but the CPU is still holding back the full potential of the GPU. Conversely, at 4K Ultra, the GPU is unequivocally the limiting factor, as the frame rate drops to 44.5 FPS, which is less than half of the 1080p Low result. The data suggests that the sweet spot for this combo is at 1440p, where the CPU and GPU are more balanced, but the GPU still has enough headroom to deliver playable frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed view of performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 154.2 at Low settings to 116.9 at Ultra settings. The Medium preset yields 136.1 FPS, and High settings produce 126.5 FPS. This shows a steady decline as settings increase, but the differences are relatively modest, with only a 37.3 FPS gap between Low and Ultra. The 1080p results are all above 100 FPS, indicating that this resolution is well within the capabilities of the combo, even at the highest settings.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS values are lower but still respectable. Low settings deliver 136.2 FPS, which is close to the 1080p Low result, showing that the GPU can handle the resolution increase at minimal settings. Medium settings yield 116.3 FPS, High settings produce 103.2 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 80.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 55.5 FPS, which is larger than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming more stressed. All 1440p results are above 80 FPS, which is generally considered smooth for a survival game.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly. Low settings average 104.5 FPS, which is still playable, but Medium settings fall to 70.7 FPS, and High settings drop to 62.8 FPS. Ultra settings are the outlier, with an average of 44.5 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold that most gamers consider essential for a smooth experience. The transition from 1440p to 4K at each setting level shows a consistent drop: Low loses 31.7 FPS, Medium loses 45.6 FPS, High loses 40.4 FPS, and Ultra loses 36.2 FPS. This indicates that 4K is only viable at Low settings for this combo, and even then, the frame rate is not as high as at lower resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti ranks 397th out of 1717 tested combinations in Rust. This places it in the top 23% of all tested combos, which is a strong showing given the CPU’s mid-range status. The ranking is likely driven by the GPU’s high performance, as the RTX 4070 Ti is capable of delivering high frame rates at most settings, but it is held back by the CPU at lower resolutions. The 397th rank out of 1717 means that there are 396 combos that are faster in Rust, which includes systems with higher-end CPUs like the Ryzen 7 or Core i7 series, paired with similar or better GPUs.

The data suggests that the CPU is the weak link in this pairing, as its single-thread performance is not sufficient to fully unlock the GPU’s potential at 1080p. However, the combo’s overall rank is still respectable, as the GPU can compensate at higher resolutions. The rank of 397 confirms the GPU’s power, as it is likely in the top quartile of all GPUs, but the CPU’s lower percentile of 75 is a drag on the overall system performance. The deltaPct values of the CPU’s nearest rivals are all within 1% of its average score, indicating that swapping in a similar CPU would not change the rank significantly. The combo’s performance is therefore a balance of the GPU’s high-end capabilities and the CPU’s mid-range execution, with the final rank reflecting the GPU’s dominance in most scenarios.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience for this combo depends on the target resolution. At 1080p, the Ultra preset is viable, with an average FPS of 116.9, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold. However, the High preset at 126.5 FPS offers a slight improvement in frame rate with a marginal visual quality reduction, making it a better choice for players who prioritize smoothness over fidelity. The Medium preset at 136.1 FPS is also a strong option, as it provides a significant FPS boost over High while still looking decent. For maximum performance, the Low preset at 154.2 FPS is the best, but it sacrifices visual quality.

At 1440p, the High preset is the recommended choice, with an average FPS of 103.2, which is smooth and visually appealing. The Medium preset at 116.3 FPS offers a better frame rate with a slight reduction in quality, making it a good alternative for those who want higher FPS. The Ultra preset at 80.7 FPS is still playable, but it is close to the edge of what is considered smooth, and players may prefer to drop to High for a more comfortable margin. The Low preset at 136.2 FPS is the fastest, but it is not necessary for a good experience at this resolution.

At 4K, the options are more limited. The Low preset at 104.5 FPS is the only setting that delivers a consistently smooth experience, as the Medium preset at 70.7 FPS is playable but may have occasional dips, and the High preset at 62.8 FPS is borderline. The Ultra preset at 44.5 FPS is not recommended, as it falls below the 60 FPS threshold and will result in a stuttery experience. For 4K gaming, players should stick to Low settings to ensure a stable frame rate, or consider lowering the resolution to 1440p for a better balance of quality and performance. Overall, the data indicates that 1440p High is the sweet spot for this combo, offering a good mix of visual fidelity and frame rate.