Rust

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

The measured FPS data for this combination reveals a steep and consistent performance cliff as resolution climbs. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo delivers 76 FPS average. Dropping to 1440p Low reduces that to 53 FPS, a 30% loss. Moving further to 4K Low yields only 31 FPS, which is a 59% reduction from the 1080p Low figure. This scaling pattern is not linear; the frame rate roughly halves each time pixel count doubles, which strongly indicates that the graphics processor is the dominant bottleneck at higher resolutions.

Looking at Medium settings, the same trend holds. The 1080p Medium average is 51 FPS, which falls to 35 FPS at 1440p and then to 21 FPS at 4K. The 4K Medium row also provides min and max values of 18 and 24 FPS, showing that even the upper bound at 4K Medium remains below the 1080p Medium average. High settings tell a similar story: 43 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and only 18 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings are the most punishing, starting at 33 FPS at 1080p, dropping to 23 FPS at 1440p, and collapsing to 13 FPS at 4K.

The pattern across all four quality presets is remarkably consistent—each resolution step costs roughly the same percentage of performance. This uniformity suggests that the limiting factor is not a sudden cache or memory effect, but rather the raw pixel throughput of the Intel Arc B390. The GPU's pixel rate is listed at 60.00 GPixel/s, and its FP32 compute is 7.680 TFLOPS. These figures are modest for modern gaming, and the benchmark results confirm that the integrated graphics solution is saturated well before the CPU's capabilities are exhausted.

The CPU side, by contrast, shows no signs of being the primary constraint at higher resolutions. The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X is a desktop part with 8 cores and 16 threads, and its benchmark scores (such as 15,476 in Cinebench R23 multicore) place it far above what a survival game like Rust would need to drive frame rates in the teens and twenties. When the 4K Ultra average is 13 FPS and the 4K Low average is 31 FPS, the CPU is clearly waiting on the GPU to finish each frame. The data implies that any attempt to play at 4K with this combo will be limited by the graphics processor, regardless of how much CPU headroom exists.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X with the Intel Arc B390 ranks 2601 out of 2953 tested combinations for Rust. This places it in the bottom 12% of all tested systems, which is a poor position for a desktop CPU paired with a discrete-class GPU name. However, the GPU is actually an integrated graphics solution (the bus interface is listed as IGP), and its benchmark percentile reflects that reality. The Intel Arc B390 sits at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, meaning 91% of tested graphics processors are faster.

The GPU's nearest rivals clarify the performance tier. The Arc B390 scores 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is only 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1,463), 1.5% higher than the GeForce 800M (1,460), 2.5% higher than the GT 625 OEM (1,446), and 2.7% higher than the GT 710 (1,443). These are all entry-level or legacy discrete GPUs, and the Arc B390 is barely ahead of them. This is not a gaming-oriented part, and the Rust results reflect that positioning.

On the CPU side, the Ryzen 7 5800X ranks at the 81st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29,123. Its nearest rivals show how tightly packed the CPU field is: the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H scores 29,093 (0.1% lower), the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 scores 29,245 (0.4% higher), the Intel Core i5-13500HX scores 29,270 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT scores 28,940 (0.6% lower). The 5800X is essentially at parity with these parts, meaning the CPU is not an outlier in either direction.

The combination rank of 2601 out of 2953 is therefore driven almost entirely by the GPU's low standing. If the CPU were paired with a more capable graphics solution, the rank would likely improve substantially. But as measured, this combo sits in the lower quartile of all tested systems for Rust. The data suggests that the CPU is overqualified for the GPU it is paired with, and the overall rank is a reflection of the weakest link in the chain.

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

Looking at the measured data, the only preset that approaches a playable frame rate at 1080p is Low, which delivers 76 FPS average. This is the only row across all resolutions and presets that exceeds 60 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 51 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold but may be acceptable for some players. The High preset at 1080p yields 43 FPS, and Ultra drops to 33 FPS. Each step up in quality costs roughly 20-30% performance, which is a substantial trade-off.

At 1440p, the Low preset is the only one that stays above 50 FPS, hitting 53 FPS average. Medium drops to 35 FPS, High to 30 FPS, and Ultra to 23 FPS. None of these reach 60 FPS, and even the Low preset is only marginally above 50. At 4K, all presets are below 32 FPS, with Low at 31 FPS, Medium at 21 FPS, High at 18 FPS, and Ultra at 13 FPS. None of these are playable for a competitive survival game.

The best experience per the measured rows is clearly 1080p Low, which offers 76 FPS average. This is the only measured configuration that provides a smooth frame rate by typical standards. The min FPS data is not available for the 1080p Low row, but the Medium row at 1080p shows a min of 44 FPS and a max of 59 FPS, suggesting that the Low preset would have a similar or better variance. If visual quality is a priority, 1080p Medium at 51 FPS is the next step, but players should expect occasional dips below 45 FPS.

For 1440p users, the Low preset at 53 FPS is the only reasonable option, as anything higher falls below 36 FPS. At 4K, the data indicates that no preset provides a playable experience; even Low at 31 FPS would be a slideshow in a game like Rust where quick reactions matter. The recommendation from the data is clear: stay at 1080p and use Low settings for the best measured performance. Any other combination of resolution and quality will result in frame rates below 60 FPS, with the gap widening dramatically as resolution increases.

FAQ

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

A: The measured data shows 1920x1080 with Low settings delivers 76 FPS average, which is the highest frame rate across all tested rows. This is the only configuration that exceeds 60 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1,463), 1.5% higher than the GeForce 800M (1,460), 2.5% higher than the GT 625 OEM (1,446), and 2.7% higher than the GT 710 (1,443).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K?

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. At 4K, even Low settings only produce 31 FPS, while the CPU has 8 cores and 16 threads and ranks at the 81st percentile. The GPU sits at the 9th percentile, making it the clear performance constraint.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested systems for Rust?

A: The combo ranks 2601 out of 2953 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 12% of all tested systems.

Q: How much performance is lost when going from 1080p to 4K at Low settings?

A: The 1080p Low average is 76 FPS, while the 4K Low average is 31 FPS. This represents a 59% reduction in frame rate.

Q: Does the CPU's benchmark score suggest it is a strong performer?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 7 5800X has an average benchmark score of 29,123, ranking at the 81st percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H, scores 29,093, only 0.1% lower, showing the CPU is competitive with modern mobile and desktop parts.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. Its base clock is 300 MHz and its boost clock is 2500 MHz, which is a wide frequency range that suggests the GPU can ramp up significantly under load. However, the memory configuration is "System Shared" for both size and type, with a bus width also listed as "System Shared" and bandwidth as "System Dependent." This means the GPU relies on the system's main memory rather than dedicated VRAM, which is a critical limitation for a game like Rust that can be memory-bandwidth sensitive.

The GPU has 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units. It also includes 12 ray tracing cores. The texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s and the pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s. The FP32 compute is 7.680 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1). These are modest figures for a graphics solution in 2026, and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,482 confirms that this is not a high-performance part.

The measured FPS data aligns closely with the GPU's specifications. At 1080p Low, the 76 FPS average is achievable because the pixel workload is manageable for 24 ROPs and 48 TMUs. But as resolution increases, the limited ROP count and shared memory bandwidth become severe bottlenecks. At 4K Ultra, the 13 FPS average shows that the GPU is completely overwhelmed. The shared memory architecture means that the GPU competes with the CPU for memory bandwidth, and in Rust's open-world environments, this likely causes stuttering and low minimums. The 4K Medium row shows a min of 18 FPS and a max of 24 FPS, indicating tight frame pacing but at an unplayable level.

The GPU's percentile rank of 9 among all GPUs places it in the bottom decile. Its nearest rivals, such as the GT 710 and GT 520MX, are ancient entry-level parts. This is not a GPU designed for gaming, and the Rust results reflect that. The ray tracing cores (12) are present but will not help in rasterized scenarios, and the system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM size means that texture-heavy scenes will degrade performance further. The data shows that this GPU is the limiting component at every resolution above 1080p Low.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X is a desktop CPU based on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Vermeer, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 cache. The TDP is 105 watts, and it supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s.

The CPU's benchmark scores are strong. In Cinebench R23, it scores 15,476 in multicore and 1,574.5 in single-core. In Geekbench, it scores 11,036 in multicore and 2,032 in single-core. The Passmark multithread score is 27,732, and the single-thread score is 3,445. These numbers place the 5800X at the 81st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29,123. The nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H, is only 0.1% behind, and the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 is 0.4% ahead. This shows that the CPU is competitive with modern parts, both mobile and desktop.

In the context of Rust, the CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads are more than sufficient. Rust is known to be CPU-intensive in its simulation logic, but the measured FPS data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the 76 FPS average is likely near the CPU's limit for this game, but at 4K, the FPS drops to 31, which is clearly GPU-limited. The fact that the FPS scales so dramatically with resolution indicates that the CPU has headroom that the GPU cannot utilize.

The CPU's 32 MB L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory bandwidth are adequate for Rust's needs. The 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is shared with the integrated GPU, which could cause contention in memory-heavy scenes, but the CPU's own performance scores suggest it is not the limiting factor. The 5800X's boost clock of 4.70 GHz provides strong single-thread performance, which is important for Rust's main thread. Overall, the data shows that the CPU is overqualified for the GPU it is paired with, and if a more capable GPU were used, the combo rank would improve dramatically.

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

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low settings: 76 FPS average, no min or max values provided.
• Medium settings: 51 FPS average, with a min of 44 FPS and a max of 59 FPS.
• High settings: 43 FPS average, no min or max values provided.
• Ultra settings: 33 FPS average, no min or max values provided.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low settings: 53 FPS average, no min or max values provided.
• Medium settings: 35 FPS average, with a min of 30 FPS and a max of 41 FPS.
• High settings: 30 FPS average, no min or max values provided.
• Ultra settings: 23 FPS average, no min or max values provided.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low settings: 31 FPS average, no min or max values provided.
• Medium settings: 21 FPS average, with a min of 18 FPS and a max of 24 FPS.
• High settings: 18 FPS average, no min or max values provided.
• Ultra settings: 13 FPS average, no min or max values provided.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: each step up in quality costs roughly 20-30% performance. At 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra is 43 FPS (from 76 to 33), which is a 57% reduction. At 1440p, the gap is 30 FPS (from 53 to 23), a 57% reduction. At 4K, the gap is 18 FPS (from 31 to 13), a 58% reduction. This consistency suggests that the GPU's architecture handles quality settings in a predictable manner, with no sudden cliffs or anomalies.

The Medium settings rows are the only ones with min and max values, and they show reasonable frame pacing windows. At 1080p Medium, the 44-59 FPS range is a 15 FPS spread, which is acceptable. At 1440p Medium, the 30-41 FPS range is an 11 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the 18-24 FPS range is only a 6 FPS spread, indicating that the GPU is hitting a hard performance ceiling. The absence of min/max data for Low, High, and Ultra rows means we cannot assess frame time consistency for those settings, but the averages are low enough that they are unlikely to be smooth.

The data shows that this combo is only viable at 1080p Low, where it achieves 76 FPS. Every other configuration falls below 60 FPS, and the higher resolutions quickly become unplayable. The 4K Ultra average of 13 FPS is a slideshow, and even 1440p Medium at 35 FPS would be borderline. For anyone using this combo, the measured FPS breakdown clearly defines the performance envelope: one sku, one resolution, one preset.