Rust

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER form a high-end desktop pairing measured in Rust, the 2018 survival game. The data shows this combo finishing at rank 404 out of 3,723 tested combinations, which places it in the top 11% of all recorded CPU-GPU pairs for this game. Measured frame rates span from a 47 FPS average at 4K Ultra all the way to a 242 FPS average at 1080p Low, revealing a broad operating range that depends heavily on resolution and quality preset. At 1440p, the most commonly cited competitive resolution, the combo maintains triple-digit averages on every preset except Ultra, where it settles at 79 FPS. This section-by-section breakdown works through those measurements to answer three questions: where this pairing sits among other tested systems, how the GPU and CPU each contribute to the results, and which preset delivers the best certain experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's placed rank 404 of 3,723 tested combos in Rust. That means roughly 89% of recorded systems finish behind this Ryzen 5 7600X + RTX 4070 Ti SUPER pairing, while only about 10.9% of combos rank ahead. Consider that ranking against the measured averages: the data not only places the system firmly in the top decile but the FPS distribution shows headroom across presets. For example, even at 1080p High, the average of 151 FPS exceeds the refresh ceiling of typical high-end 1440p or entry-level 4K displays, so the rank-404 result reflects a system that is never marginal at 1080p or 1440p.

The gap between the highest and lowest average FPS in this table is substantial: from 242 at 1080p Low to 47 at 4K Ultra, a difference of 195 FPS. That spread indicates the data set captures a system that can either push very high frame near three-digit territory or hold a watchable 60+ FPS at 4K depending on which preset is active. Taken together, the ranking and the broad range of results suggest the limiting factor changes sharply with resolution and preset — the GPU's role grows as resolution to 4K, while at 1080p the CPU can push frame generation far higher. The percentile rank of the CPU among all CPUs is 79, and the GPU's percentile among all GPUs is 76, so both components sit prominently by their generic benchmark scores, yet the in-game rank at 404 of 3,723 is even better than a naive percentile basis would predict. The arithmetic: 404 ÷ 3,723 = about 0.108, so the top 10.9% outcome provides consistent evidence of a well-matched two-part system for this title.

GPU Role

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER brings 16 GB of GDDR6X memory over a 256-bit bus, backed by a memory bandwidth of 672.3 GB/s. The core clock sits at a base of 2340 MHz and boosts to 2610 MHz, while the memory clock runs at an effective 21 Gbps from a 1313 MHz base. The compute configuration counts 8448 shading units, 264 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, executing on Ada Lovelace architecture's on TSMC 5 nm process. In Rust, this translates to a wide palette of FPS behavior across presets. At 4K, the GPU bears the full load: 4K Low produces 108 FPS, Medium 73 FPS, High 61, and Ultra only 47. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 61 FPS, which suggests the heavier effects and draw distances of Upper and Ultra presets tax the rasterizer more than the 16 GB frame buffer.

The memory subsystem deserves special attention. With 672.3 GB/s of bandwidth, the card can feed the colocated 256-bit memory bus and high 8448 embarrass parallel shader count at 4K without straining its remove. The difference between High and Medium at 1440p is 19 FPS (104 vs 123), while closing the same gap at 1080p costs 27 FPS during preset: High 151, Medium 178. Interestingly, the Medium preset surpasses High across all three resolutions, contributing to the sensor data: the algorithm that determines "High" in this benchmark tests different techniques that weigh the GPU more heavily. Therefore, the GPU's role is the dominant one when moving up from 1440p to 4K, and the FPS is a smooth progression that tracks the workload rather than a step that would suggest memory capacity is a limiting factor. A 16 GB frame buffer holds enough for 4K scenes even at Ultra, where the 47 FPS result is a compute-bound number rather than a capacity-bound one.

Settings Recommendations

Among the measured presets, Medium offers the best balance between fluidity and visual load in the benchmark database. At 1080p, Medium yields an average of 178 FPS with a minimum observed 152 and a maximum 205. That frame range sits above the headroom of nearly any display that a player might own. In contrast, High at 1080p falls 27 FPS lower to an average of 151, Ultra further down to 115. The gap between Medium and High, in relative terms, is about 18% higher throughput in of middle setting. At 1440p, Medium earns 123 FPS average (min 104, max 141), versus High's 104 straight average — again an approximately 18% advantage. At 4K, Medium steadily manages 73 FPS average (min 62, max 83), while High drops to 61 FPS, a 20% penalty. Ultra at 4K drops below 60, to 47.

Thus, the data consistently names Medium as the only preset that provides consistently above 60 FPS at every resolution tested. For the player at 1440p, choosing Medium yields a 123 FPS average, which suits the majority of 120 Hz or higher displays; whereas switching to High changes into the fatigue to 104 resting. At 1080p, even High 151 FPS is plentiful, but medium pushes to 178. If the goal is the strongest security of average FPS, Medium is the pick.

The practical suggestion is: for any resolution from 1080p to 4K, select the Medium preset. This is not a visual judgment — the benchmarking database does not attempt to quantify image quality, only the measured throughput — but based on the FPS columns, Medium sits above the 60–240 FPS range that matches the vast spread of panel types. The High and Ultra settings emphasize output without delivering a disproportionate number of frames; they either bring the system below 60 FPS (4K Ultra with 47 FPS) or trade roughly 18–20% of average FPS for unclear performance quality returns. In competitive Rust, where frame spikes can mean the difference in combat, the Medium row is the security option.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Below are the recorded average FPS and, where available, the minimum-maximum range for each resolution and test preset. Note that many rosters only report average FPS data.

| Resolution | Preset | Average | Min-Max |

|-----------:VIP:---------|---------| -------- |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 242 | — |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 178 | 152–205 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 151 | — |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 115 | — |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 183 | — |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 123 | 104–141 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 104 | — |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 79 | — |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 108 | — |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 73 | 62–83 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 61 | — |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 47 | — |

(Note: 1920x1080 Ultra is 115 FPS; 2560x1440 Ultra 79; 3840x2160 Ultra 47.)

The smallest relative gaps across settings occur at high resolution: at 4K, the jump from Medium to High costs 12 FPS (73 to 61), and from High to Ultra costs another 14 FPS (61 to 47). At 1080p, the drop from Medium to High is 27 FPS, and from High to Ultra a 36 FPS. This shows that, at ultra settings, the GPU is already under load and the gradient becomes steeper with each added effect. The exact minima/maxima at the Medium settings illustrate stability: 1080p medium moves between 152 and 205, a 53 FPS band; at 1440p the band is 35–41; at 4K it is 62–83. The absolute variance shrinks with resolution, but the relative swing (the variance compared to average) is roughly similar — around 18‑20% of the average at each tier.

The highest measured single figure in the entire set is 242 FPS at 1080p Low. The highest measured low point — that is, the guaranteed minimum — is 152 FPS (1080p medium). Any of the three lowest settings at 1080p sustains an average above 140 FPS, with Low vs Medium difference of 44 FPS (242 vs 178). These numbers position the combo as a heavy frame-purpose generator for 1080p display ecosystems, supporting adaptive sync without less.

Resolution Scaling

Moving from 1080p to 4K produces clear, quantitative scaling drop. Take Low settings: 242 FPS at 1080p drops to 108 FPS at 4K — that is 55% of the original performance, or a 45% feature drop. Medium: 178 reduced 73, retention 41%... Actually 73/178 = 0.41, so a 59% average drop. High: 158 and 61: 151 to 61 is a factor of 0.404, so 60% decline. Ultra: 115 to 47 is a 59% reduction. So across all four presets, moving to 4K costs close to 40–45% of the original frames, and the GPU keeps about 41–45% of 8p performance. Wait, compute again properly.

• Low: 108/242 = 0.446 → 44.6% of 1080p, i.e., 55.4% drop.
• Medium: 73/178 = 0.410 → 59.0% drop.
• High: 61/151 = 0.404 → 59.6% drop.
• Ultra: 47/115 = 0.409 → 59.1% drop.

So the least severe decline is at the low preset (using only 55.4% drop), but all four yield approximately the same relative area — about 55 to 60% of 1080p performance is lost when going to 4K. This consistency is a telling indicator: the graph remains a relatively flat line across presets, meaning the 4K cut is the dominant factor, not the advanced effects. If a given preset added disproportionately heavy load, the curve (across presets) would collapse more steeply when moving to 4K. Instead, the uniform delay (except Low) suggests the frame twelve that drives performance at 4K is pixel throughput dominant — essentially the GPU's pixel rate of 250.6 GPixel/s. Such a constant scaling also hints that:

• cpu where (1080p) is able to keep up, since the drop at 4K is not steeper for CPU-heavy scenes.

The scaling indicates that this combo is never limited by the GPU's 16 GB memory capacity in Rust, even at 4K Ultra; otherwise, the 4K Ultra would have a far larger drop than 4K High. Since High and Ultra both suffer nearly same drop (59.6% vs 59.1%), it implies that the vRAM memory is not the steet-block. The differences among High/Ultra are strictly contractor throughput.

CPU Role

The CPU is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 part with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz fabricated on a 5 nm process. It has 64 in Level 1 cache per core, 1 MB Level 2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 15,236 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1,965 in Cinebench R23 single-core; Geekbench multi-core 13,858, and Geekbench single 2,603. Single-thread speeds are what the game at 1080p Low can measure: the 242 FPS at 1080p Low and 183 at 1440p Low are high figures tied to the CPU's ability to issue the draw calls for simpler geometry. Note the CPU's clock numbers: 5.3 GHz boost is among the faster desktop clocks in the data fields, and this 7000-series chip unlocks overclocking — but in stock form, the 5.30 GHz likely treats single-threaded workloads.

(The CPU's nearest rival field shows that its general benchmark average is again within to tight ±0.4% margin of four CPUs: the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X (avg 25758, and delta 0.5 0.2), Intel Core i5-12600K (27578, 0.2), AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE (27712, -0.3), and AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (27535, 0.4). None of those rival CPUs differing by more than 0.4% to the 7600X (score average 27636 typical). So in a synthetic multi-thread average, the 7600X is virtually nose-and-nose with those competing parts. The in-Rust result, though, ranks high because of the other half of the pairing — the GPU.

At 1080p Low, the GPU is under-utilised and the average FPS is essentially CPU-limited (that is for each, the force line). The fact that 1080p Low (242) is more than 60% above 1080p High (151) is a sign that the Low settings eliminate the effects that stress the GPU, letting the CPU run unload. Even if the CPU, with its integrated Radeon graphics, is not the final bottleneck here in 3.0 DB, the 5.3 GHz boost is the engine for producing over 200 frame draws. On a lower-clocked CPU, that number would be lower (for example the neighborhood rivals have swim to 0.2-0.4% average — a 20% delta? Actually not in the data. So we cannot say based on that. The only reference is the R23 scores; for example 1,965 against competitors unknown).

What's noteable: The combo's rank of 404 / 3,723 is high because the GPU jamais forces the CPU to max: at 4K Ultra the fps collapses while the CPU is no longer the bar. At 1080p, the CPU's 12 threads likely makes it enough to feed even an octa-core game; yet the measured minimums (152 at 1080p Medium) show no stutters above 100 fps. The Min/Max for 1080p Medium range, 152 to 205, demonstrates that even in scenes with high scene draw calls, the CPU sustain the 5.3 GHz with 32 MB of cache. Therefore, CPU role is that of a fast rename that keeps frame generation elevated at all resolutions, making the GPU the only factor that reduces FPS when moving to 4K.

FAQ

Q: What is the combo's rank in the Rust database?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X + RTX 4070 Ti SUPER ranks 404 out of 3,723 tested combos, which puts it in the top 11% of Rust test performance.

Q: How much video memory does the GPU carry?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, with 672.3 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Q: At which settings does it fall below the 60 FPS threshold?

A: The only measured configuration that falls below 60 FPS is 4K Ultra with an average of 47 FPS. At 4K High, the FPS stays at 61, and 4K Medium is at 73.

Q: Which preset offers the most balanced high-FPS experience per the measured data?

A: The Medium preset outperforms High at both 1440p and 4K. At 1440p, Medium achieves 123 FPS average vs 104 for High; at 4K, Medium 73 vs 61 for High; at 1080p medium 178 vs 181. The constant trend across resolution makes Medium the better fit.

Q: What is the lowest measured FPS?

A: The data records 47 FPS at 4K Ultra, with the 4K medium adding a minimum observed of 62 FPS and a 4K exhibiting 62 FPS minimum. The lowest reported min-FPS is 104 at 1440p Medium.

Q: How does the CPU's synthetic single core compare to its multi-core?

A: The Ryzen 5 7600X scores 1,965 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 15,206 in R23 multi-core; on Geekbench, 2,603 single and 13,858 multi. These numbers sit alongside an average benchmark score of 27,636 and a 79th percentile among all CPUs — the CPU is balanced, but the single thread 1,965 suggests sustained per-core load capability needed for high 1080p frame rates.