Rust

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

The measured frame rates for Rust with this AMD Ryzen 7 5700 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER combination show a pronounced and consistent drop as resolution climbs from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At the Low preset, the average frame rate falls from 138.2 FPS at 1080p to 92.4 FPS at 1440p, then to 55.8 FPS at 4K. That is a 33% reduction when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and another 40% drop when stepping up to 4K. The scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the primary constraint at higher resolutions, as the frame rate penalty is far steeper than what a CPU-bound scenario would typically exhibit.

Looking at the High preset, the trend is similar but with lower absolute numbers: 79.9 FPS at 1080p, 52.7 FPS at 1440p, and 32.4 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset tells the same story in even harsher terms, starting at 56.5 FPS at 1080p and collapsing to 42.5 FPS at 1440p and 25.9 FPS at 4K. The Medium preset occupies the middle ground, with 94.9 FPS at 1080p, 65.4 FPS at 1440p, and 37.8 FPS at 4K. Across all settings, the 1080p-to-4K transition costs roughly 55-60% of the original frame rate. This is a heavy toll that strongly suggests the rendering pipeline, rather than the processor, is what buckles under the increased pixel count.

The data also reveals that the gap between settings widens at lower resolutions. At 1080p, the spread from Low to Ultra is 81.7 FPS (from 138.2 down to 56.5), while at 4K that spread narrows to 29.9 FPS (from 55.8 down to 25.9). This compression at 4K is a classic sign of a GPU that is saturated: when the graphics card is already working at its limit, changing quality settings has less impact because the bottleneck is raw fill rate and shading throughput. At 1080p, the GPU has headroom, so preset changes translate into larger frame rate differences. The conclusion from the resolution scaling is straightforward: this combination is viable for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but 4K demands significant settings compromises to stay playable.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture with a TU106 chip fabricated on a 12 nm process from TSMC. Its base clock is 1470 MHz with a boost clock of 1650 MHz, and it carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. The memory clock is listed at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective data rate. For a game like Rust, which is known for large open-world environments and frequent asset streaming, the 8 GB VRAM capacity is a relevant factor. The measured frame rates at 4K Ultra (25.9 FPS) and 4K High (32.4 FPS) suggest that the card is not running out of memory outright, but rather that the shading units and texture rate are the limiting factors.

The GPU has 2176 shading units, 136 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 105.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 224.4 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 7.181 TFLOPS. These specifications place it in the mid-range of the GeForce 20-series, and the benchmark data confirms this: the passmark G3D score is 16462, with a percentile ranking of 63 against all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN, scores 19706, a delta of only 0.3%. The RTX 2070 sits at 19680, just 0.5% behind, and the Quadro K5200 trails by 0.8%. This tight clustering means the RTX 2060 SUPER is essentially performance-equivalent to those cards in synthetic benchmarks, though the measured FPS in Rust will vary based on the specific workload.

In Rust specifically, the GPU's role becomes more prominent at higher settings and resolutions. The frame rate drop from Low to Ultra at 1080p (138.2 down to 56.5) shows that the preset heavily influences the graphics card workload. At 4K, even the Low preset only manages 55.8 FPS, which indicates that the pixel fill rate is a hard ceiling. The 8 GB memory size is adequate for the measured settings, as there are no signs of texture thrashing or stutter in the average FPS values. However, the card's 175 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest it is a conventional power draw part, and the 450 W suggested PSU is a modest requirement for a system with this GPU. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16, which is sufficient for this generation of hardware.

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

Based strictly on the measured frame rates, the Low preset at 1920x1080 delivers the highest average at 138.2 FPS, which is well above the threshold for smooth competitive play. However, for most users, the Medium preset at 1080p (94.9 FPS) offers a better balance between visual fidelity and performance, as it retains a comfortable margin above 60 FPS while providing a higher quality image. The High preset at 1080p (79.9 FPS) is also playable, but the drop from Medium is noticeable (15 FPS), and the visual gain may not justify the cost for all players.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset (92.4 FPS) is the only option that stays above the 60 FPS line. Medium drops to 65.4 FPS, which is borderline acceptable, while High falls to 52.7 and Ultra to 42.5. For a 1440p monitor, the Medium preset is the recommended choice if the user can tolerate occasional dips, but Low is the safer pick for consistent performance. The data does not include min FPS values, so the average figures may hide stutter, but the relative ordering is clear.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets reach 60 FPS. The Low preset (55.8 FPS) is the closest, and it is the only viable option for 4K gaming with this hardware. Medium (37.8) and High (32.4) are playable only in less demanding scenes, and Ultra (25.9) is effectively a slideshow. The recommendation is to use Low at 4K if the resolution is non-negotiable, or to drop to 1440p with Medium for a better experience. The overall best experience per the measured rows is 1080p with Medium settings, as it provides a high frame rate (94.9) without sacrificing too much visual quality.

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

The complete set of measured average frame rates is as follows. At 1920x1080, the Low preset runs at 138.2 FPS, Medium at 94.9 FPS, High at 79.9 FPS, and Ultra at 56.5 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low achieves 92.4 FPS, Medium 65.4 FPS, High 52.7 FPS, and Ultra 42.5 FPS. At 3840x2160, Low delivers 55.8 FPS, Medium 37.8 FPS, High 32.4 FPS, and Ultra 25.9 FPS. All values are averages with no min or max FPS recorded in the data.

The pattern across all resolutions is that each step up in preset costs a consistent amount of performance. From Low to Medium at 1080p, the drop is 43.3 FPS; from Medium to High, 15.0 FPS; and from High to Ultra, 23.4 FPS. At 1440p, the same steps cost 27.0, 12.7, and 10.2 FPS respectively. At 4K, the costs are 18.0, 5.4, and 6.5 FPS. The diminishing impact of preset changes at higher resolutions reinforces the GPU-bound nature of the 4K results. The data also shows that the Low preset at 1440p (92.4 FPS) is faster than the High preset at 1080p (79.9 FPS), which is an interesting cross-resolution comparison: the lower settings at a higher resolution can outperform higher settings at a lower resolution.

FAQ

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

A: 1920x1080 with the Low preset yields the highest average frame rate at 138.2 FPS. For a balance of quality and speed, 1080p Medium at 94.9 FPS is recommended. 4K is only playable at Low settings (55.8 FPS).

Q: How does the RTX 2060 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GPU's passmark G3D score is 16462. The nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN, scores 19706, which is 0.3% higher. The RTX 2070 is 0.5% higher at 19680, and the Quadro K5200 is 0.8% higher at 19623.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck in Rust at any resolution?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the main constraint at 4K, given the steep frame rate drops with resolution. At 1080p Low (138.2 FPS), the CPU (with a passmark multithread score of 24303) is likely still sufficient, as the frame rate is high enough to indicate no severe CPU limit.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low runs at 138.2 FPS and Ultra at 56.5 FPS, a difference of 81.7 FPS. This large gap indicates that the GPU has headroom at 1080p, so settings have a major impact.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM limit performance in Rust?

A: There is no direct evidence of VRAM exhaustion in the measured data. The frame rates decline smoothly with resolution, and the GPU's memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s appears sufficient for the tested presets, as no abnormal dips are present.

Q: How does the CPU rank against other processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 has a percentile rank of 84 against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27220. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-9900K, scores 27043, which is 0.7% lower.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 is an 8-core, 16-thread processor from the 5000 series, based on the Zen 3 architecture with a Cezanne codename. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The chip is manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC, with 10,700 million transistors on a 180 mm² die. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of L3. It supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The processor's benchmark scores include a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20655 and a single-core score of 2916, along with a passmark multithread score of 24303 and a single-thread score of 3296.

In Rust, the CPU's role is most evident at lower resolutions where the GPU is not the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the frame rate of 138.2 FPS is likely near the CPU's practical limit for this game, as the 8 cores and 16 threads provide ample parallel processing for the game's simulation and physics tasks. The processor's 3DMark scores show a strong scaling from 2 threads (1762) to 16 threads (6628), indicating that the chip can leverage its multi-threaded capabilities effectively. The average benchmark score of 27220 places it in the 84th percentile, with rivals such as the Intel Core i9-9900K (27043, 0.7% lower) and the Intel Core i7-12700H (27006, 0.8% lower) being nearly identical in performance.

The single-thread performance, as measured by the 3DMark single-thread score of 901 and the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2916, is adequate for Rust's main thread. The game is known to have a heavy main thread in certain scenarios, but the data does not show any resolution-independent frame rate ceiling that would indicate a CPU bottleneck. At 4K, the frame rates are so low (25.9 to 55.8 FPS) that the CPU is certainly not the limiting factor. At 1080p, the frame rate spread across settings (56.5 to 138.2) suggests that the GPU is still the primary variable, as the CPU can handle the workload without capping the performance. The processor's 16 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel memory bandwidth are sufficient for the game's data streaming needs, and the 7 nm process node keeps power draw low at 65 W, allowing it to pair well with the GPU's 175 W TDP.