Rust

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination delivers a broad sweep of results in Rust, from 39 FPS at 4K Ultra to 156 FPS at 1080p Low. The measured data shows this pairing spans playable and highly fluid territory depending on resolution and preset. Across all 12 measured rows, the combo averages are steady with no dramatic outliers, and the CPU sits at the 84th percentile, while the GPU sits at the 55th. This duo is ranked 1179th out of 3723 tested combinations in Rust, suggesting a mid-to-high placement. The launch MSRP of the CPU is $329 and the GPU is $599, each stated once here.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo in Rust?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 156. The next closest is 134 at 1080p Medium.

Q: Which resolution and settings combination yields the lowest average FPS?

A: The lowest measured average FPS is 39, which occurs at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: What is the minimum FPS reported at 2560x1440 Medium?

A: The minimum FPS recorded at 1440p Medium is 88, with a maximum of 119 and an average of 104.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival overall?

A: The Ryzen 7 3700X has an average benchmark score of 34260. Its nearest listed rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350, scores 34222, a delta of 0.1%. The Intel Core i5-13450HX scores 34333, a negative delta of -0.2%, while the AMD EPYC 4244P scores 34220, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H scores 34083 (delta 0.5%).

Q: What are the GPU's key memory specs?

A: The Radeon RX 9070 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth, and memory clock of 2518 MHz.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile among all tested GPUs?

A: The GPU is at the 55th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 13543.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 9070 XT carries 16 GB of GDDR6 memory across a 256-bit bus, backed by 644.6 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 2518 MHz. In Rust, this memory capacity and bandwidth appear sufficient to handle the range of settings tested—each resolution step from 1080p to 4K keeps the GPU productive, with FPS dropping from 156 Low at 1080p to 91 Low at 4K. The GPU is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. Its base clock is 1660 MHz, boost clock reaches 2970 MHz, and it has a game clock of 2400 MHz.

In this game, the results show that at lower resolutions like 1080p, the average FPS for Low settings is 156, and even Ultra achieves 97. Moving to 1440p, Low still reaches 137 FPS, but High drops to 88. At 4K, the gap widens dramatically: Low yields 91 FPS, but Ultra bottoms out at 39 FPS. The GPU's passmark G3D score of 26795 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 7260 suggest a capable card, yet the 55th percentile ranking indicates it sits among a wide field rather than at the top.

The GPU's problem is straightforward: the 4K Ultra run at 39 FPS is below any 60 Hz target, and even 4K Medium averages only 61 FPS. The data implies that the GPU—rather than the CPU—dictates the experience when settings or resolution are pushed, as the frame count scales clearly with GPU load. There is no measurement of a CPU-specific scenario in isolation, but the 664 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 16 GB VRAM are not an obvious constraints at 1080p Medium, where the combo peaks at 134 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

Across the measured rows, the Medium preset offers the most balanced experience for most users. At 1920x1080, Medium yields an average of 134 FPS with a minimum of 114 and a maximum of 154—consistent fluidity for fast surgeon movements. At 2560x1440, Medium averages 104 FPS, with the measured droop range of 88 to 119, which stays comfortably above a 60 Hz display. Even at 3840x2160, Medium holds an average of 61 FPS, with a minimum of not shown but a max of 71; the reported min is 52, while the average is 61, meaning the frame rate hovers around 60. For players who prioritize quality, High presents a tradeoff: at 1440p, High averages 88 FPS, and at 4K it drops to 52. Low settings give the highest averages (156 at 1080p, 137 at 1440p, 91 at 4K) but leave visual fidelity on the table.

For the best experience overall—balancing both clear, smooth motion and acceptable quality at any resolution—the medium preset is the most repeatable. At 1440p Medium, the 104 average with a minimum of 88 FPS demonstrates headroom. At 1080p Medium, 134 FPS offers a cushion even during intense action. For players locked to 60 Hz displays, 4K Medium (61 FPS avg) is essentially at the target, but could occasionally dip toward 52 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data from the combination is presented row by row.

At 3840x2160 (4K):

• Low brings 91 FPS average.
• Medium runs 61 FPS average, with minimum 52 and maximum 71 FPS.
• High drops to 52 FPS.
• Ultra leaves 39 FPS.

At 2560x1440 (2K):

• Low: 137 FPS
• Medium: 104 FPS average (min 88, max 119)
• High: 88 FPS
• Ultra: 67 FPS

At 1920x1080 (Full HD):

• Low: 156 FPS
• Medium: 134 FPS (min 114, max 154)
• High: 126 FPS
• Ultra: 97 FPS

The data shows that the step from Low to Medium is modest at 1080p (156 to 134 FPS) but becomes larger at 1440p (137 to 104) and at 4K (91 to 61), a sign that higher resolutions load more of the GPU's shading and pixel work. The jump from Medium to High is also substantial: at 1440p it costs 16 FPS (104 to 88) and at 4K it costs 10 FPS (61 to 51). From High to Ultra, the drop is very steep at 4K (51 to 39) and moderate at 1440p (88 to 67) and 1080p (126 to 97). These numbers illustrate a system that can deliver high refresh at 1080p, comfortable play at 1440p with Medium/High, and only marginal performance at 4K with reduced settings.

Resolution Scaling

From 1080p to 4K, the FPS decline is clear for each setting class. For Low, 156 at 1080p goes to 137 at 1440p and further down to 91 at 4K. For Medium, 134 at 1080p, 104 at 1440p, 61 at 4K. High: 126 to 88 to 51. Ultra: 97 to 67 to 39. The scaling is not linear: the move from 1440p to 4K costs more than half of the loss from 1080p to 1440p? Actually at Medium: 134 to 104 is 20% loss, then 104 to 61 is another 41% loss. The 4K run toggles far less headroom.

The data suggests the limiting component at 1080p and 1440p is likely the game's CPU/herally, since the GPU can deliver 156 FPS only at Low 1080p, but at 1440p even Low drops to 137. The lower resolution reduces the need for GPU work, but the frame rate does not scale linearly—at 1080p Medium 134 FPS, at 1440p Medium 104, so a 2.56x increase in pixel count results in a 1.28x FPS decrease in a rough inverse. This is incomplete to point to a single bottleneck, but it is certain that at 4K, the GPU is the more limiting factor, given the large drops at that resolution.

CPU Size

The Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on Zen 2 (Matisse) with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost of 4.40 GHz. It has a 32 MB L3 cache and supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core score is 2092, single-core 204, and Python’s 8899 multi-core Geekbench contributes to the 84 percent of all CPUs.

In the context of Rust, the CPU’s role is visible in the scaling of frames at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the FPS reaches 156, but at 1080p Medium it drops to 134, a relatively modest drop in settings, suggesting that the CPU is keeping enough performance to feed the GPU. However, the game engine's tendency to be CPU-limited in multiplayer survival titles is not directly measurable from this data, but the CPU scores, especially the multiprocessor ones, place it well above average CPUs. The data showing a rapid drop at 4K—with 156 FPS at 1080p Low but 91 at 4K Low—shows that the GPU takes center stage at higher resolutions.

The 65W TDP and modest nest of the CPU compared with the GPU suggests adequate balance, but the data does not show any evidence of CPU stalling at 1080p. The PassMark multithreaded score of 22458, integer math 66141, and random string sorting 32147 all indicate robust multi-threading, which is beneficial for a game like Rust that must handle many personnel and world elements. The CPU's percentile (84) means it outperformers of CPUs, placing it comfortably above typical mid-range parts.

How This Ranks

The combo ranks 1179 out of 3723 tested combinations for Rust. That means it sits above the lower fourth of all tested combos. Given the GPU's 55th percentile and CPU's 84th percentile, this combo is stronger due to the CPU side, while the GPU’s relative rank is below average in pure benchmark terms—the GPU sits below many GPUs in the average ranking, though its actual game FPS might differ.

Looking at rivals and raw numbers, the CPU in this combination is fairly strong, with an average benchmark score of 34260, and its nearest rivals—the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350, AMD EPYC 4244P, Intel Core i5-13450HX, and Intel Core Ultra 7 165H—match it closely within 0.5% deltas. This means the CPU choices aren't likely a drawback. The GPU, on its side, is at the 55th percentile and its nearest rivals (ancient GPUs like the Radeon HD 7770M) are far below it in terms of absolute power, but in a game like Rust the resolution settings are the primary limitation.

To sum up, the 1179 position of 3723 is a respectable showing, suggesting that this pairing delivers better-than-most results, primarily driven by the strong CPU. The GPU, while not in the top percentile, still produces frame rates at 1440p that are highly playable, and the combo list is just that—a ranking, not a guarantee of consistency. The measured evidence demonstrates a system that excels at 1080 and 1440p, but at 4K it must sacrifice quality to stay above 40 frames per second.