Rust

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER lands at rank 1511 out of 1717 tested combos in Rust. That places this configuration in the bottom 12% of the database, a relatively low standing that reflects the age and tier of both components. The ranking is driven primarily by the GPU’s modest performance ceiling; the CPU itself sits at the 78th percentile among all processors, but the graphics card only reaches the 55th percentile among all GPUs.

The CPU is a solid mid-range part by synthetic metrics. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18578 and single-core score of 2622 show a balanced chip. However, the nearest rivals in the database tell a tighter story: the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT scores 20740 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core i7-10700 scores 20746 (0.3% higher), and the Intel Core i5-12490F scores 20794 (0.5% higher). The Intel Xeon 6325P trails at 20538, which is 0.7% lower. These deltas are negligible in real-world gaming, meaning the Ryzen 5 5600X is not the bottleneck here.

On the GPU side, the GTX 1660 SUPER’s average benchmark score of 14286 places it just below several integrated and entry-level discrete parts. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 scores 14314 (0.2% higher), the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14315 (0.2% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT scores 14389 (0.7% higher). Only the AMD Radeon Vega 11 trails at 14352, which is 0.5% higher than the GTX 1660 SUPER. This clustering indicates that the GTX 1660 SUPER is competitive with entry-level silicon but lacks the headroom needed for demanding survival titles like Rust.

Given the combo rank, the data suggests this pairing is best suited for lower resolutions and conservative settings. The CPU can handle the game’s simulation and server-side logic, but the GPU will struggle at higher loads. The measured FPS results confirm this imbalance, with the GPU consistently being the limiting factor as resolution and quality increase.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture with a TU116 chip fabricated on a 12 nm process from TSMC. It packs 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The base clock runs at 1530 MHz with a boost clock of 1785 MHz, while the memory operates at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The 6 GB of GDDR6 memory sits on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s.

For Rust, the GPU’s memory capacity and bandwidth are critical. The game’s large maps and frequent asset streaming demand both capacity and throughput. The 6 GB frame buffer is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p at lower settings, but the data shows it becomes a constraint at 4K. The pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s are modest figures that align with the measured results. The FP32 performance of 5.027 TFLOPS is adequate for the game’s lighting and shadow calculations but falls short when Ultra settings are enabled.

The GTX 1660 SUPER’s DirectX 12 support (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility are relevant for Rust, which can leverage modern graphics APIs. However, the lack of ray tracing cores and tensor cores means the GPU cannot accelerate newer rendering features, and the game’s performance relies entirely on raw rasterization throughput. This is evident in the measured FPS, where Ultra settings at 4K drop to 16.6 FPS, a clear sign that the GPU is overwhelmed.

The GPU’s percentile ranking of 55 indicates it sits in the middle of the database, but its nearest rivals are all integrated or entry-level parts. This is telling: the GTX 1660 SUPER is not far ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (integrated graphics) or the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics. In Rust, this means the GPU will deliver playable frame rates only at 1080p with Low or Medium settings, and even then, the margin over weaker parts is slim.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience is achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the combo averages 108.9 FPS. This is the only configuration that crosses the 100 FPS threshold, providing a smooth experience for fast-paced gameplay. Medium settings at 1080p yield 71.6 FPS, which is still playable but with a noticeable drop. High settings at 1080p produce 62.5 FPS, while Ultra drops to 48 FPS, which may feel sluggish in combat scenarios.

At 2560x1440, the picture changes. Low settings average 70.5 FPS, which is respectable, but Medium drops to 47.7 FPS, High to 43.3 FPS, and Ultra to 32 FPS. The data indicates that 1440p is only viable at Low settings, and even then, the frame rate is below the 1080p Low figure by a significant margin. For 4K, all settings are below playable thresholds: Low averages 40.7 FPS, Medium 26.9 FPS, High 26.1 FPS, and Ultra 16.6 FPS.

The recommendation is clear: use 1080p Low for the best balance of frame rate and visual fidelity. If a player prefers higher quality, Medium at 1080p is the second-best option, offering 71.6 FPS while improving shadows and texture detail. Ultra settings should be avoided entirely, as the 48 FPS at 1080p is the lowest playable frame rate, and any resolution above that becomes untenable.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers a clear scaling pattern. Low settings produce 108.9 FPS, Medium 71.6 FPS, High 62.5 FPS, and Ultra 48 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 37.3 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 9.1 FPS, and High to Ultra is 14.5 FPS. This suggests that the Low preset removes significant GPU workload, likely by reducing draw distances and shadow complexity.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers drop proportionally. Low settings average 70.5 FPS, Medium 47.7 FPS, High 43.3 FPS, and Ultra 32 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 22.8 FPS, Medium to High is 4.4 FPS, and High to Ultra is 11.3 FPS. The smaller delta between Medium and High at 1440p compared to 1080p indicates that the GPU is becoming more pixel-bound, reducing the impact of quality settings.

At 3840x2160, the results are stark. Low settings average 40.7 FPS, Medium 26.9 FPS, High 26.1 FPS, and Ultra 16.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 13.8 FPS, Medium and High are nearly identical (0.8 FPS difference), and High to Ultra is 9.5 FPS. The near-parity between Medium and High at 4K suggests that the GPU is limited by its memory bandwidth or fill rate, not just shader complexity.

The data shows a consistent trend: each resolution step halves the pixel count, and the FPS drops accordingly. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 108.9 FPS; at 1440p Low, it drops to 70.5 FPS (a 35.3% reduction); and at 4K Low, it falls to 40.7 FPS (a 42.3% reduction from 1440p). This scaling is typical for a GPU with a 192-bit memory bus and 6 GB of VRAM, where bandwidth becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals the limiting component. At Low settings, the combo goes from 108.9 FPS at 1080p to 70.5 FPS at 1440p, then to 40.7 FPS at 4K. This represents a 62.6% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The trend is similar across all settings: High goes from 62.5 FPS at 1080p to 43.3 FPS at 1440p to 26.1 FPS at 4K, a 58.2% drop. Medium drops from 71.6 to 47.7 to 26.9, a 62.4% reduction. Ultra falls from 48 to 32 to 16.6, a 65.4% decline.

The scaling behavior indicates that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the primary bottleneck. The CPU, with its high single-core performance (2622 in Cinebench R23), can comfortably feed the GPU at lower resolutions, but as pixel count rises, the GPU’s limited fill rate and memory bandwidth become the constraint. The 336.0 GB/s bandwidth is insufficient for 4K, where the game must move more texture and geometry data per frame.

At 1080p, the combo appears CPU-bound at Low settings (108.9 FPS), but as settings increase, the GPU load rises and the FPS falls. At 4K, even Low settings cannot reach 60 FPS, confirming that the GPU is the limiting factor across the board. The data suggests that players with this combo should prioritize resolution over quality: dropping from 1440p High (43.3 FPS) to 1080p Low (108.9 FPS) yields a 151% improvement in frame rate, which is a far better trade-off for a survival game where responsiveness matters.

The CPU’s 32 MB L3 cache and 6 cores help maintain consistent frame pacing in Rust’s server-side simulations, but the GPU’s 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit bus are the hard ceiling. For any player considering this combo, the measured results indicate that 1080p is the only viable resolution for a competitive experience, and Low settings are mandatory for smooth frame rates. Higher resolutions are playable only at Low, and even then, 4K remains below 60 FPS.