Rust

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D paired with the Intel Arc B370 produces a heavily GPU-limited experience in Rust, with the combo ranking 2710th out of 2953 tested configurations. The data shows that while the 9800X3D is a top-tier processor with an 87th percentile ranking against all CPUs, the Arc B370’s integrated-class performance, sitting at the 5th percentile, caps frame rates so severely that even the lowest settings at 1080p only yield 69 FPS. Benchmark results indicate this pairing is unsuitable for smooth gameplay at any resolution above 1080p Low, as the GPU becomes the definitive bottleneck across all tested scenarios.

FAQ

Q: What is the best-case frame rate this combo can achieve in Rust?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 69 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration in the measured data that approaches playable smoothness, though it still falls short of high-refresh-rate standards.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 9800X3D compare to its nearest rivals in CPU benchmarks?

A: The 9800X3D’s average benchmark score of 39768 is nearly identical to its closest rivals: it is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS, 0.7% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450, 0.8% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 7700, and 0.7% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365. These deltas are within noise, indicating performance parity in synthetic tests.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B370 a discrete graphics card?

A: No. The Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 25 W TDP, using system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. It is designed for portable devices, not desktop gaming.

Q: What is the performance gap between the Arc B370 and its closest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This is 0.2% behind the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, 0.5% behind the ATI Radeon HD 5770, 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and 1.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro M2000. All rivals are within a 2% performance band.

Q: What is the FPS difference between 1080p and 4K at High settings?

A: At 1920x1080 High, the average FPS is 39. At 3840x2160 High, the average FPS drops to 16. This represents a 59% reduction in frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K.

Q: Does the CPU’s performance matter for this game’s results?

A: No. The CPU’s 8 cores and 16 threads are far beyond what the GPU can feed. The data shows consistent FPS scaling with resolution and settings, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU’s single-thread score of 4430 in Passmark is irrelevant here because the GPU never allows the CPU to become a limiting factor.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the single most important component in this pairing, and not in a good way. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it at the 5th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it performs worse than 95% of the database’s tracked graphics solutions. The GPU’s specifications confirm its integrated nature: it operates at a 300 MHz base clock and a 2400 MHz boost clock, with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. It also features 10 ray tracing cores and delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

The memory configuration is the most telling constraint. The Arc B370 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM. This forces the GPU to compete with the CPU for memory access, which severely limits texture throughput and frame buffer operations. In Rust, a game known for heavy asset streaming and large open-world environments, this shared-memory architecture is a critical weakness. The GPU’s 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate are theoretically sufficient for older titles, but the memory bottleneck prevents these capabilities from being realized in practice.

The data confirms this analysis. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the combo manages only 12 FPS. Dropping to 1080p Low raises this to 69 FPS, but even that is a mediocre result for a game from 2018. The GPU’s 25 W TDP and IGP slot width indicate it is designed for thin-and-light laptops, not gaming. When paired with a flagship desktop CPU like the 9800X3D, the Arc B370 acts as a hard performance ceiling. No amount of CPU headroom can compensate for the GPU’s inability to render frames quickly enough.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and predictable pattern of resolution scaling, which strongly indicates the GPU is the limiting component. At High settings, average FPS drops from 39 at 1920x1080 to 27 at 2560x1440, and finally to 16 at 3840x2160. This represents a 31% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 41% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total decrease from 1080p to 4K is 59%, which is consistent with a GPU that is overwhelmed by pixel count.

The scaling behavior is similar across all settings. At Low settings, FPS falls from 69 at 1080p to 48 at 1440p (a 30% drop) and then to 28 at 4K (a 42% drop). At Medium settings, the averages are 46, 32, and 19 for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K respectively. At Ultra, the numbers are 30, 20, and 12. In every case, the percentage drop between successive resolutions remains roughly constant, which is the signature of pure GPU-bound scaling. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect FPS to remain flat across resolutions as the CPU reaches its limit, which is not what the data shows.

This scaling pattern also reveals that the Arc B370’s performance is driven almost entirely by pixel throughput. The GPU’s 20 ROPs are the likely constraint, as rasterization work scales directly with resolution. At 4K, the GPU is rendering four times the pixels of 1080p, and the FPS numbers reflect this workload. The 9800X3D’s 96 MB of L3 cache and 8 cores are simply idle, waiting for the GPU to deliver frames. For users considering this combo, the data suggests that 1080p is the only viable resolution, and even then, only at Low or Medium settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS dataset shows a consistent hierarchy across all twelve tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 69 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire dataset. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 46 FPS, with a minimum of 39 and a maximum of 53. High settings at 1080p average 39 FPS, while Ultra drops to 30 FPS. This progression shows a 57% reduction in performance from Low to Ultra at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the averages are significantly lower. Low settings produce 48 FPS, which is 30% slower than the same settings at 1080p. Medium averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 37. High settings average 27 FPS, and Ultra falls to 20 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 58%, nearly identical to the 1080p gap, further confirming GPU-bound scaling.

At 3840x2160, the results are consistently poor. Low settings average 28 FPS, which is barely playable in a survival game where reaction times matter. Medium averages 19 FPS, with a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 22. High settings average 16 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 12 FPS. The minimum FPS values at Medium settings across all resolutions (39 at 1080p, 27 at 1440p, 16 at 4K) show that frame pacing is also problematic, with dips well below the averages.

The data shows that the Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values, indicating that this was the benchmark’s primary test configuration. The fact that the min FPS at 1080p Medium is 39, which is equal to the average FPS at 1080p High, demonstrates the steep cost of higher presets. For any resolution above 1080p, the average FPS falls below 30, making the game effectively unplayable for competitive or even casual play.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the only sensible recommendation for this combo is 1080p with Low settings. This configuration produces an average of 69 FPS, which is the only result that approaches the 60 FPS threshold generally considered acceptable for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 1080p, with an average of 46 FPS, is a secondary option for users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, but the minimum of 39 FPS indicates that dips below 40 FPS will occur.

The data strongly advises against any settings above Medium at 1080p. High settings at 1080p average 39 FPS, which is on the edge of playability but will feel stuttery in combat situations. Ultra at 1080p, with its 30 FPS average, is not recommended. At 1440p and above, all presets are effectively unplayable. Even Low settings at 1440p only manage 48 FPS, and the 4K results, ranging from 12 to 28 FPS, are far below any acceptable threshold.

The best experience per the measured rows is unequivocally 1080p Low. This is the only configuration that provides a frame rate high enough to mitigate the GPU’s weak performance. Users who cannot tolerate the visual compromise of Low settings should consider that the alternative is a significant frame rate penalty. The data shows that the step from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 23 FPS (33%), which is a steep price for modest visual improvements. The step from Medium to High costs another 7 FPS (15%), and from High to Ultra another 9 FPS (23%). The diminishing returns are clear, and the 1080p Low preset is the only one that offers a playable experience.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is a high-end desktop processor that is entirely wasted in this pairing. It features 8 cores and 16 threads, based on the Zen 5 architecture with a Granite Ridge codename. The CPU runs at a 4.70 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.20 GHz, with a 120 W TDP. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, and it includes 96 MB of shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores are exceptional: Cinebench R23 multicore reaches 23230, Geekbench multicore hits 18696, and Passmark multithread scores 40009.

The CPU’s percentile ranking of 87th against all CPUs confirms its position as a top-tier processor. Its average benchmark score of 39768 is within 1% of its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 (40081) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (40048). However, this performance is irrelevant for Rust in this configuration. The GPU’s 5th percentile ranking means it is roughly 82 percentile points lower than the CPU, creating an enormous imbalance.

The benchmark results show that the CPU is never the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect FPS to remain constant across different resolutions, as the CPU would be maxed out regardless of pixel count. Instead, the data shows FPS dropping steadily as resolution increases, which proves the GPU is the constraint. The 9800X3D’s high single-thread performance (2080 in Cinebench R23 single-core, 4430 in Passmark single-thread) and massive L3 cache are designed to feed powerful discrete GPUs, not an integrated solution. In Rust, the CPU likely spends most of its time idle, waiting for the Arc B370 to produce frames. This pairing represents a severe mismatch, where the CPU’s capabilities are completely hidden behind the GPU’s limitations.