Rust

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

The measured FPS data for Rust with the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX and AMD Radeon 760M shows a steep and consistent performance cliff as resolution climbs. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 47 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low drops that to 32 FPS, a 32% reduction. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 19 FPS, which is only 40% of the 1080p Low result. The pattern holds across every settings tier: High goes from 27 FPS at 1080p to 18 FPS at 1440p to 11 FPS at 4K; Medium goes from 31 to 22 to 13; Ultra goes from 20 to 14 to 8.

These scaling ratios are revealing. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 30-40% across all settings, and the drop from 1440p to 4K is another 35-45%. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to stay relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU workload per frame doesn't scale with pixel count in the same way. Instead, the FPS falls nearly proportionally with the pixel count increase. This points to the AMD Radeon 760M being the limiting component in this configuration.

The data suggests that the integrated GPU's fill rate and shading capacity are saturated early. The Radeon 760M has 16 ROPs and a pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s, which is modest for 4K workloads. At 3840x2160 (8.3 million pixels), even at Low settings, the GPU appears to be overwhelmed — the 19 FPS average at 4K Low is barely playable for any interactive use. The gap between 1080p and 4K at Low (47 vs 19 FPS) represents a 60% performance loss, which is substantial but not catastrophic; it indicates that the GPU is being pushed to its limits but still scaling somewhat gracefully.

Interestingly, the scaling behavior is consistent across settings, which suggests that the bottleneck is primarily fill-rate or memory-bandwidth bound rather than shader-bound. The Radeon 760M's memory is System Shared, with bandwidth described as System Dependent. This means the GPU competes with the CPU for the same DDR5 memory bandwidth (83.2 GB/s for the CPU's dual-channel interface). At higher resolutions, the memory traffic increases, and the shared bus becomes a limiting factor. This would explain why the FPS drops are so uniform regardless of whether on Low or Ultra — the memory subsystem is the common constraint.

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

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its base clock runs at 800 MHz with a boost clock of 2599 MHz. The GPU has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. It also includes 8 ray tracing cores, though Rust's overhead from ray tracing is not explicitly measured in this dataset. The FP32 performance is 5.323 TFLOPS, which places it in the lower tier of modern GPUs — its percentile rank versus all GPUs is 35, meaning it outperforms only about a third of the database's tracked GPUs.

The VRAM situation is critical for Rust. The Radeon 760M uses System Shared memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and instead draws from the system's DDR5 pool. The bus width is also System Shared, and the bandwidth is System Dependent. This is a major constraint for a game like Rust, which is known for large world maps and high memory pressure. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra is 8 FPS, which is effectively a slideshow. Even at 1080p Ultra, the average is only 20 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded.

The GPU's benchmark scores contextualize its gaming performance. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 400, and its Passmark G3D score is 5310. These are low numbers, and the nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (avg score 6001, deltaPct 0.3) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (avg score 6049, deltaPct -0.5). The Radeon 760M's average benchmark score is 6019, which is within 0.5% of these discrete GPUs. However, the key difference is that the RX 6400 and Quadro P2000 have dedicated VRAM, while the 760M relies on shared system memory. In Rust, where texture streaming and world data are memory-intensive, this shared memory setup likely exacerbates the FPS drops at higher resolutions.

The clock behavior is also worth noting. The boost clock of 2599 MHz is relatively high for an iGPU, but the base clock of 800 MHz is low. This suggests the GPU can boost aggressively under load, but thermal and power constraints (15 W TDP for the GPU) may limit sustained performance. The measured FPS at 1080p Medium (31 FPS) versus 1080p High (27 FPS) shows only a 13% difference, which indicates the GPU is not heavily shader-bound at these settings; rather, the memory bandwidth is the limiting factor.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX and AMD Radeon 760M ranks 2943 out of 2953 tested combos for Rust. This places it in the bottom 0.3% of all tested systems — a remarkably poor position. Only 10 other combinations in the entire database perform worse in this game. This ranking is surprising given the CPU's strength. The Ryzen 9 8945HX has a percentile rank of 95 versus all CPUs, meaning it outperforms 95% of all processors in the database. Yet, when paired with the Radeon 760M in Rust, the system lands near the very bottom.

This stark contrast between CPU capability and system ranking highlights the GPU bottleneck. The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX (avg score 76155, deltaPct 0.1) and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D (avg score 75779, deltaPct 0.6). These are high-end processors that would typically sit in top-tier gaming systems. But the Radeon 760M's percentile rank of 35 drags the entire combo down. The data implies that in Rust, the GPU is so underpowered relative to the CPU that the system's overall gaming performance is almost entirely determined by the integrated graphics.

The implications are clear: for Rust, this combo is severely imbalanced. The CPU has headroom that the GPU cannot exploit. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 47 FPS, which is acceptable for play, but the ranking suggests that most other combos — even those with weaker CPUs — achieve better results because they have more capable graphics solutions. The rank of 2943 out of 2953 is a strong signal that this pairing is not suitable for Rust at any resolution above 1080p Low, and even at 1080p Low, it's barely in playable territory.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Rust?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 47, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How does the Radeon 760M compare to its nearest GPU rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 6001 (deltaPct 0.3), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M scores 6000 (deltaPct 0.3), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049 (deltaPct -0.5). These are all within 0.5% of each other.

Q: Is this combo better suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming in Rust?

A: The data shows 1080p is the only viable option. At 1080p Low, the average is 47 FPS, while at 1440p Low it drops to 32 FPS. At 4K Low, it falls to 19 FPS. No settings tier at 1440p or above exceeds 32 FPS.

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

A: The combo ranks 2943 out of 2953 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 0.3% of all systems.

Q: Does the Ryzen 9 8945HX's CPU performance help in Rust?

A: The CPU is highly capable — it has a 95th percentile rank among all CPUs and scores 42713 in Cinebench R23 multicore. However, the measured FPS data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, so the CPU's strengths do not translate to high FPS in Rust with this iGPU.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The only settings tier with recorded min/max values is Medium. At 1080p Medium, min is 27 and max is 36. At 1440p Medium, min is 18 and max is 25. At 4K Medium, min is 11 and max is 15. Other settings tiers have no min/max data.

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Dragon Range. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The CPU is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC and features 64 MB of L3 cache, with 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 64 KB of L1 cache per core. Its TDP is 55 W, and it supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s.

In terms of raw processing power, this CPU is formidable. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 42713, and its single-core score is 6030. In Passmark, it scores 51405 in multithread and 3907 in single-thread. Its percentile rank of 95 versus all CPUs confirms it sits near the top of the processor hierarchy. The nearest rivals in the database are all high-end parts: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX (avg score 76155, deltaPct 0.1), the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (avg score 76492, deltaPct -0.4), and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D (avg score 75779, deltaPct 0.6). The Ryzen 9 8945HX's average benchmark score is 76212, which is essentially tied with these parts.

However, the CPU's role in this Rust test is almost entirely overshadowed by the GPU. The measured FPS numbers show no scenario where the CPU appears to be the bottleneck. For instance, at 1080p Low, the CPU is capable of far more than 47 FPS in a game like Rust, but the iGPU cannot render frames faster. The CPU's 32 threads and high boost clock are irrelevant when the GPU is producing only 8 FPS at 4K Ultra. The data suggests that the CPU is idling or partially loaded while the GPU is maxed out.

The memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s is shared between the CPU and GPU. In Rust, where world data and textures are constantly streamed, this shared bandwidth could be a hidden bottleneck. The CPU's strong single-thread performance (6030 in Cinebench R23 single-core) helps with game logic and physics, but the GPU's need for memory bandwidth for frame buffers and textures at higher resolutions may starve the CPU of memory access. This would explain why the FPS drops are so uniform across settings — the memory subsystem is the common constraint, not the CPU's compute capabilities.

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

Given the measured FPS data, the only viable settings for this combo are at 1920x1080 with Low quality. The average FPS at 1080p Low is 47, which is the only configuration that approaches smooth gameplay. The 1080p Medium setting yields 31 FPS, which is borderline playable but with notable stutter potential. The 1080p High setting drops to 27 FPS, and 1080p Ultra falls to 20 FPS — both are below the threshold for comfortable play.

At 2560x1440, no settings tier is recommended. The best result is 32 FPS at Low, which is a marginal 5 FPS improvement over 1080p High but at a higher resolution. The 1440p Medium is 22 FPS, High is 18 FPS, and Ultra is 14 FPS. These are all below playable thresholds. At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor: Low is 19 FPS, Medium is 13 FPS (with min 11 and max 15), High is 11 FPS, and Ultra is 8 FPS. None of these are acceptable for any gameplay.

The data suggests that the best experience is achieved at 1080p Low, with a 47 FPS average. This is the only setting that provides a frame rate above 45 FPS, which is generally considered the minimum for a playable experience in a survival game like Rust, where quick reactions matter. If a player insists on higher visual quality, 1080p Medium at 31 FPS is the next best option, but the trade-off is a 34% performance drop. The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p (47 vs 31 FPS) is significant, indicating that the Low preset is substantially less demanding on the GPU. For players who value smoothness over fidelity, Low at 1080p is the clear choice.

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

The complete measured FPS dataset for this combo in Rust is as follows:

1920x1080:

• Low: 47 FPS average
• Medium: 31 FPS average, with min 27 and max 36
• High: 27 FPS average
• Ultra: 20 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 32 FPS average
• Medium: 22 FPS average, with min 18 and max 25
• High: 18 FPS average
• Ultra: 14 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 19 FPS average
• Medium: 13 FPS average, with min 11 and max 15
• High: 11 FPS average
• Ultra: 8 FPS average

The data shows a clear progression: at each resolution, Low settings provide the best FPS, followed by Medium, then High, then Ultra. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 27 FPS (47 vs 20), which is a 57% performance penalty for the highest quality preset. At 1440p, the delta is 18 FPS (32 vs 14), a 56% drop. At 4K, the delta is 11 FPS (19 vs 8), a 58% drop. This consistency suggests that the performance scaling with settings is roughly linear, which is typical for a GPU-bound scenario where each quality tier adds a similar amount of shading and texture work.

The min/max data for Medium settings provides insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the range is 27-36 FPS, a 9 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range is 18-25 FPS, a 7 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 11-15 FPS, a 4 FPS spread. The relative variability (spread divided by average) is 29% at 1080p, 32% at 1440p, and 31% at 4K. This indicates that frame pacing is consistently unstable across resolutions — the system is struggling to maintain steady frame times, likely due to the shared memory bottleneck causing occasional stalls.

The 4K Ultra result of 8 FPS average is notable because it's the only single-digit FPS measurement in the dataset. This is 83% lower than the 1080p Low result. The progression from 1080p Low (47 FPS) to 4K Ultra (8 FPS) represents a total performance loss of 83%, which is a severe degradation but not entirely surprising given the GPU's 35th percentile ranking and the memory constraints. The data paints a clear picture: this combo is fundamentally limited by the integrated GPU, and no amount of CPU horsepower can compensate.