Rust

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU features 16 MB of L3 cache, with 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core. This configuration places it in the 74th percentile among all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20733.

Benchmark results show the processor's multithreaded capability: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 17272, while the single-core score is 2438. PassMark multithread reaches 20325, and Geekbench multicore hits 7986. The 3DMark suite shows scaling from 913 in single-thread to 5554 in max-threads, indicating that the CPU gains substantial performance when all 12 threads are utilized.

In Rust, the CPU's role is significant because the game's simulation and entity processing rely heavily on single-thread performance, while base building and large player counts can stress multiple cores. The data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the combo reaches 157 FPS, which is the highest measured average. At 1080p Ultra, the average drops to 74 FPS, a 53% reduction. This scaling pattern suggests that while the CPU provides a strong foundation for high frame rates at lower settings, the GPU becomes the limiting factor as settings increase.

The nearest rivals in CPU benchmarks include the Intel Core i5-12490F at 20802 (deltaPct -0.3%), the Intel Xeon 6325P at 20821 (deltaPct -0.4%), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U at 20826 (deltaPct -0.4%). The Ryzen 5 5600GT trails these by less than half a percent, indicating that its compute performance is effectively on par with those parts. For Rust, this means the CPU is unlikely to be the bottleneck in most scenarios, particularly at lower resolutions where the GPU has more headroom to work.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Examining the measured FPS data across all resolutions and settings reveals a clear pattern for optimal play.

At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 157 FPS average, which is exceptionally high for a survival game with frequent physics interactions and world persistence. The Medium preset achieves 128 FPS, with a minimum of 109 and a maximum of 147. High drops to 99 FPS, and Ultra falls to 74 FPS. For competitive or high-refresh-rate monitors, Low or Medium would provide the smoothest experience, with Medium offering a better visual balance while still maintaining over 120 FPS.

At 1440p, the same hierarchy holds: Low at 99 FPS, Medium at 81 FPS (min 69, max 93), High at 62 FPS, and Ultra at 47 FPS. The Medium preset here remains playable on standard 60 Hz displays, while High and Ultra begin to show diminishing returns with frame rates that may cause noticeable stutter in intense firefights or large-scale raids.

At 4K, the situation changes dramatically. Low averages 52 FPS, Medium averages 43 FPS (min 36, max 49), High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. Only Low and Medium provide acceptable playability at this resolution, with Medium offering a more visually pleasing experience while staying above 30 FPS on average.

The data indicates that the best experience per the measured rows is the Medium preset at 1080p: it provides 128 FPS with a minimum of 109, ensuring smooth gameplay even during demanding scenes. For users prioritizing visual fidelity, High at 1080p (99 FPS) or Medium at 1440p (81 FPS) are viable alternatives that still maintain comfortable frame rates.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data shows the following scaling for each preset when moving from 1080p to 4K:

• Low: 157 FPS at 1080p → 99 FPS at 1440p → 52 FPS at 4K. This represents a 37% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 67% drop from 1080p to 4K.
• Medium: 128 FPS at 1080p → 81 FPS at 1440p → 43 FPS at 4K. This is a 37% drop to 1440p and a 66% drop to 4K.
• High: 99 FPS at 1080p → 62 FPS at 1440p → 33 FPS at 4K. This is a 37% drop to 1440p and a 67% drop to 4K.
• Ultra: 74 FPS at 1080p → 47 FPS at 1440p → 25 FPS at 4K. This is a 36% drop to 1440p and a 66% drop to 4K.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all presets is striking. Whether running Low or Ultra, the frame rate decreases by approximately 37% when stepping from 1080p to 1440p, and by roughly two-thirds from 1080p to 4K. This uniform scaling strongly indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component across the entire range of settings. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rate to hold steadier at higher resolutions when the GPU workload increases, but the data shows the opposite: the FPS scales almost exactly with the pixel count.

The RX 6600 XT, with its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus (256.0 GB/s bandwidth), is clearly the limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 4K, even the Low preset only manages 52 FPS, which suggests that the GPU's compute throughput (10.60 TFLOPS FP32) and memory bandwidth are insufficient to maintain high frame rates at that pixel density. The CPU, by contrast, appears to have ample headroom—the fact that Low settings at 1080p achieve 157 FPS demonstrates that the processor can feed the GPU effectively at lower resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT ranks 2060 out of 3723 tested combos for Rust. This places it in the 55th percentile of all tested combinations—slightly above the median but far from the top tier.

The rank of 2060 out of 3723 indicates that while this combo delivers playable performance at 1080p and 1440p, it is outperformed by a substantial number of other CPU-GPU pairings. This is consistent with the hardware profile: the Ryzen 5 5600GT sits in the 74th percentile of CPUs, and the RX 6600 XT sits in the 70th percentile of GPUs. When combined, the pairing is roughly average for Rust, which is a demanding title that benefits from both strong single-thread performance and substantial GPU compute.

The data shows that the combo's performance is more limited by the GPU than the CPU. At 1080p Low, the 157 FPS result is respectable, but at 4K Ultra, the 25 FPS average is at the edge of playability. This suggests that in the ranking, the combo is held back by the GPU's inability to maintain high frame rates at higher resolutions and settings, rather than by any CPU deficiency.

Given that the CPU's nearest rivals (Intel Core i5-12490F, Intel Xeon 6325P, Intel Core Ultra 5 125U) all have nearly identical benchmark scores, swapping the CPU for one of those would likely not change the combo's rank significantly for Rust. The GPU, however, is the more likely upgrade path to improve this combo's position in the rankings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Rust?

A: The measured data shows that 1080p provides the highest frame rates across all settings, with Low achieving 157 FPS and Medium achieving 128 FPS. At 1440p, Medium still delivers 81 FPS, while at 4K, even Low only manages 52 FPS.

Q: Can this combo run Rust at 4K?

A: Yes, but with limitations. At 4K Low, the average FPS is 52, which is playable. At 4K Medium, it drops to 43 FPS (minimum 36), and at 4K High, it falls to 33 FPS. Ultra at 4K is only 25 FPS, which is below comfortable playability.

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

A: The Ryzen 5 5600GT has an average benchmark score of 20733. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-12490F at 20802 (deltaPct -0.3%), Intel Xeon 6325P at 20821 (deltaPct -0.4%), Intel Core Ultra 5 125U at 20826 (deltaPct -0.4%), and AMD EPYC 7J13 at 20845 (deltaPct -0.5%). All are within 0.5% of the Ryzen's score.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile?

A: The RX 6600 XT is in the 70th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24442. It has a 0.7% advantage over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 and a 1.1% advantage over the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER, while trailing the Intel Arc A350M by 0.8%.

Q: Should I play on Low or Medium settings at 1080p?

A: The data indicates that Medium at 1080p delivers 128 FPS with a minimum of 109 FPS, which provides a smoother experience than Low's 157 FPS if you value visual quality. The minimum frame rate of 109 on Medium ensures that even in demanding scenes, the game stays above 100 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in Rust?

A: The resolution scaling data suggests the GPU is the limiting component. Frame rates drop by approximately 37% from 1080p to 1440p and by about 67% from 1080p to 4K, consistent across all settings. This uniform scaling indicates the GPU's rendering capacity is the constraint, not the CPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 157 FPS average
• Medium: 128 FPS average, 109 FPS minimum, 147 FPS maximum
• High: 99 FPS average
• Ultra: 74 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 99 FPS average
• Medium: 81 FPS average, 69 FPS minimum, 93 FPS maximum
• High: 62 FPS average
• Ultra: 47 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 52 FPS average
• Medium: 43 FPS average, 36 FPS minimum, 49 FPS maximum
• High: 33 FPS average
• Ultra: 25 FPS average

The Medium preset is the only setting that includes minimum and maximum frame rate data, providing insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the range from 109 to 147 FPS indicates a relatively stable experience with a 30% variance from minimum to maximum. At 1440p Medium, the range expands to 69–93 FPS, a 35% variance. At 4K Medium, the range is 36–49 FPS, a 36% variance. This consistency in variance across resolutions suggests that the game's frame pacing issues are not exacerbated by resolution changes.

The step from Low to Medium costs approximately 18–19% of frame rate at each resolution (157→128 at 1080p, 99→81 at 1440p, 52→43 at 4K). The step from Medium to High costs roughly 23–24% (128→99 at 1080p, 81→62 at 1440p, 43→33 at 4K). The step from High to Ultra costs approximately 25% (99→74 at 1080p, 62→47 at 1440p, 33→25 at 4K). These increasing penalties for higher presets indicate that the GPU's workload scales super-linearly with visual quality settings.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process. It features 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, along with 32 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1968 MHz, a game clock of 2359 MHz, and a boost clock of 2589 MHz. Memory is 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s and an effective memory speed of 16 Gbps.

The GPU's compute capabilities include 10.60 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 21.21 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1 ratio). Its pixel rate is 165.7 GPixel/s and texture rate is 331.4 GTexel/s. With a TDP of 160 W and a dual-slot design, it requires a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested 450 W power supply.

In Rust, the GPU's role is critical, as evidenced by the resolution scaling data. At 1080p, the GPU can deliver 157 FPS on Low settings, but this drops to 25 FPS at 4K Ultra. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for Rust's texture requirements at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K with Ultra settings, the combination of higher resolution and increased texture detail may be pushing against the memory capacity, contributing to the low 25 FPS average.

The GPU's benchmark performance places it in the 70th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 24442. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 at 24277 (deltaPct 0.7%), the Intel Arc A350M at 24647 (deltaPct -0.8%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER at 24170 (deltaPct 1.1%). The RX 6600 XT outperforms the GTX 1630 and RTX 2080 SUPER by less than 1.1%, but trails the Arc A350M by 0.8%.

The measured FPS data shows that the GPU's performance ceiling in Rust is reached at 1080p Low (157 FPS), and that the frame rate scales almost linearly with resolution. This behavior is typical of a GPU-bound scenario where the rendering workload dominates. The fact that even at 1080p Low, the frame rate does not exceed 157 FPS suggests that there is a hard limit to the GPU's rasterization throughput in this game, likely due to Rust's draw call overhead and complex scene geometry. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, appears to be sufficient to keep the GPU fed at this level, but the GPU cannot push beyond this point regardless of CPU headroom.