Rust

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti combination was measured in Rust, producing 12 FPS results across three resolutions and four presets. The combo ranks 2103rd out of 3,723 tested CPU/GPU pairs, placing it in the lower middle of the database. The CPU launched on 2024-07-30, while the GPU shipped on 2017-03-09. The measured data comes from a directly tested system, not a predictive model.

How This Combo Ranks

The interlock of the Ryzen 7 5800XT and GTX 1080 Ti lands in position 2103 of 3723 in this specific game’s benchmark pool. That means 2,102 combinations are recorded ahead of it, and the remainder are recorded behind it. The ranking fits with the components’ respective positions in individual benchmarks: the CPU sits in the 81st percentile among all CPUs tested, while the GPU manages the 58th percentile among all GPUs. The split tells a familiar story: the CPU is well above the GPU in its relative standing, so the pairing is limited by the video board, particularly at higher resolutions and quality presets.

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 29,879. Its nearest rivals are a practical tie: the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H scores 29,868 with a deltaPct of 0, the Ryzen 7 8845HS scores 29,955 at -0.3% (meaning it trails by that amount), the Ryzen 7 7840HS matches that at 29,955 and -0.3%, and the Ryzen 5 9600X scores 29,713 with a deltaPct of 0.6%. None of these moves exceed 0.6% away from the 5800XT, so the CPU should not be considered a significant outlier compared with these modern parts. From this perspective, the Ryzen 7 5800XT is a stable eight-core thread engine.

On the GPU side, the GTX 1080 Ti’s average benchmark score of 15,548 puts it ahead of three of the four listed neighbors. It is 0.2% above the AMD Radeon R9 M380 (15,521, delta 0.2), 1.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (15,290, delta 1.7), and 1.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15,283, delta 1.7). It sits 0.8% below the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15,679, delta -0.8). All corners are within 2%, so this is a region of similar-tier hardware, not a leap in GPU performance.

What the combined rank adds is the context of a real game lead. The measured FPS at each of the 12 screens is consistent with a card that places in the middle of the pack: capable enough for 1080p play with a decent frame rate, less impressive at 4K ultra. Given the system's placement at 2103 of 3723, buyers should not expect top-of-database performance, but the data confirms playable results in the lower-to-mid portions of the game’s FPS spectrum.

GPU Role

The card is a huge piece of the performance equation, and its memory subsystem goes a long way in Rust. The GTX 1080 Ti is built on GP102 silicon using the 16 nm process from TSMC, with 11,800 million transistors squeezed into a 471 mm² die. The memory buffer is 11 GB of GDDR5X, running over a 352-bit bus at a bandwidth of 484.4 GB/s. The boost clock is 1582 MHz, base clock 1481 MHz. There are 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 88 ROPs. Specs like these place the card so last decade, but the memory size gives it an advantage in games that use lots of texture data.

The GPU’s measured results in Rust show a clear dependence on settings. At 4K, the memory bus and memory capacity become compressed: in the Ultra preset it only holds 27 FPS average, and in High it drops to 36 FPS. The same card, at lower demand, does much better: at 1080p High it reaches 88 FPS, and at 1080p Low it hits 155 FPS. Thus, the GPU is not a 4K element in this game with this CPU even at the highest quality. It is a high-bandwidth 1080p or 1440p performer, and the 11 GB VRAM is the reason texture-heavy settings do not cave in immediately at 1080p.

Other synthetic aggregate supports these practical observations. The GTX 1080 Ti gets a 5th percentile rating of 58, compared with the GPU population. The PassMark G3D score is 18,600, likely the one that aligns with general raster workloads. The Vulkan and OpenCL scores of 40,511 and 67,929 are respectable for a TearOfThe card, though not headline-fluid for modern titles. The launch MSRP of this card was $699.

The card demonstrates its Pascal-era design. It needs 250W under load, from a 6-pin and 8-pin connector, with a 600W optimal power supply. It is a dual-card, check mini-ATX case clearance, and its dimensions are specified. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is fine for the data transfer rates in Rust, but the main concern is that the GPU is the main load that limits the ability to push to high resolution with heavy settings.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling tells a linear time: the same system provides a large FPS drop as readout climbs to 1080p to 2160p. Looking at the High preset, the FPS averages are 88 at 1920x1080, 61 at 2560x1440, and 36 at 3840x2160. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is 27 FPS, while the next step to 4K is cut again by 25 FPS. This is a near-linear response following a rise in pixel count, pointing to GPU shader and memory bandwidth limits.

The low preset shows the same shape, but at higher absolute numbers: 155 FPS at 1080p, 107 at 1440p, and 63 at 2160p. Particularly interesting is the 63 FPS output at 4K Low - it surpasses the 4K High result by 27 FPS, which means lowering graphics settings gives a nearly 75% boost at 4K (58 additional frames per second from 36 to 63). The Medium preset adds a minimum and maximum frame tracking: at 3840x2160, the average is 42 FPS with a 36 min and 49 max. At 2560x1440 Medium, average 72 FPS (min 16, max 50), and 1920x1080 Medium average 104 FPS with a min frame of 89 and a max of 120.

When the Ultra preset is used, the resolution scaling collapses: 67 FPS at 1080p, 46 at 1440p, and 27 at 4K. The 4K Ultra row is the lowest number in the entire measurement set, and it is well below the (no minimum/maximum stated) comfortable threshold. This pattern (giving large differences in Low vs Ultra) indicates that the cardinal memory bandwidth and shader output are the limiting factor at higher settings, while the CPU has more room to spare.

The data also shows that the gap between 1440p and 4K is less severe at Low preset: 107 to 63 FPS (a loss of 44) compared to the Ultra dialogue: 46 to 27 (a loss of 19). This is the opposite of what we might expect in a GPU-bound scenario, but it is the measured fact. It implies that at high quality levels, the initial 4K pixel load is dominant and the delta decreases because the number can’t go lower already, at 4K Low there is enough headroom to contain the cost. In short, all resolution steps show a strict decline, which is the mark of a GPU bottleneck at standard settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured FPS data appears below.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|-------------|---------|---------|

| 1920x1080 | High | 88 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 155 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 104 | 89 | 120 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 67 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 61 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 107 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 72 | 32 | 83 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 46 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | High | 36 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 63 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 42 | 38 | 49 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 27 | - | - |

Two patterns emerge from these numbers. First, every settings tier loses around 30–50 FPS when scaling from 1080p to 1440p, and then a similar further drop to 4K. Second, the only preset that keeps an average above 60 FPS at every resolution is Low: 155, 107, and 53 (?) Actually 63 for 4K. That makes Low the baseline reliable settings, while High drops below 60 at 1440p (61, actually it's exactly 61) and below 60 at 4K (36). Ultra only clears 60 at 1080p (67) and falls quickly.

The Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum/maximum data; these indicate the frame-time variation in the run: at 1080p Medium, the range is 89-120 with a mean of 104, a fairly smooth band. At 1440p Medium has 32-83 and at 4K Medium has 38-49. The min to max gaps broaden as resolution decreases: the 4K Medium has just an 11 FPS gap while the 1080 Medium is 31 FPS wide. This suggests that the game’s frame pacing changes a lot with resolution and that Medium quality preserves the consistency needed for ongoing play.

Settings Recommendations

The ideal preset depends on the target resolution. For 1920x1080, the data points to Ultra (67 FPS) as the best visual preset with acceptable smoothness, but if users prioritise the frame rate, Low (155 FPS) and Medium (104 FPS) provide more headroom. The medium row carries a minimum of 89 FPS, which means it rarely dips under 90 in the test, so it is the strongest anchor for a 144Hz monitor at a moderate settings, while High at 80—just barely under the 100FPS mark–sits between them. For pure above 140 FPS, low is the only representative that reliably stays that high.

At 2560x1440, Low (107 FPS) is the unmistakable pick for high-refresh displays; Medium reaches 72 FPS and High 61, while Ultra drops to 46. For a 60–75Hz screen, Medium aligns with that target, not output less than 60 FPS (minimum 32, although the average is 72). Users looking to reduce system load can equally High (61 FPS) which is same to a 60Hz limiter. Essentially, to drop Ultimate at a certain speed, 1440p is a reactive trade-off: Low gives 399 FPS, Medium has a smooth 72, and the 4K row shows any 25%.

At 4K, the picture is very different: only Low (63 FPS) hits the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 30, High averages 28, and Ultra theoretically 42, actually 42 Medium, so only Low is playable with responsive high frame rate. Medium (42 FPS) and High (36 FPS) both fall below 30, which may be sub-optimal for fast reaction