Rust

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1653rd out of 1717 tested combinations for Rust. This places the combo in the bottom 4% of all tested systems, a position driven almost entirely by the graphics card rather than the processor. The Ryzen 9 9900X is a high-end desktop CPU with a 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs, but the GTX 1650 sits in the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. The data shows a significant bottleneck: the processor is capable of far more work than the GPU can feed to the display. Benchmarks for the CPU show strong multi-threaded performance, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 46438 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 19827, yet the measured frame rates in Rust remain modest. The GPU’s Passmark G3D score of 7880 aligns with its percentile, confirming it as the limiting factor in this configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

The 1653rd rank out of 1717 combos translates to a position in the bottom 4% of tested systems for Rust. This is a poor result for a game that can be demanding on both CPU and GPU, but the data indicates the GPU is the primary constraint. The Ryzen 9 9900X sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms 94% of processors in general benchmark tests. However, the GTX 1650’s 43rd percentile ranking places it below average. In practical terms, the CPU’s potential is largely untapped in this pairing for Rust. The processor’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, which scores 0.4% higher on average, and the Intel Core i7-14700F, which scores 0.7% lower. These differences are marginal, showing the 9900X is competitive with its peers. The GPU’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, which scores 0.4% higher, and the AMD Radeon 550X, also 0.4% higher. The Quadro P2200 scores 0.5% lower. None of these rivals change the overall ranking picture: the combo is held back by the GPU’s modest capabilities in Rust’s specific rendering workload.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The memory runs at 2001 MHz, or 8 Gbps effective. These specifications are modest by modern standards, and the data reflects this in Rust’s measured performance. The GPU scores 7880 in Passmark’s G3D test and 3048 in GPU compute, with a 43rd percentile ranking. The card’s nearest rival, the RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 0.4% higher, while the Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 0.5% higher. The GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM is likely a limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings, as Rust’s world rendering can consume significant memory. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combo manages only 13.5 FPS, dropping to 15.5 FPS at Medium. The boost clock of 1665 MHz is fixed regardless of resolution, so the frame rate differences across resolutions are primarily due to pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth constraints. The card’s 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors suggest it is designed for low-power systems, but this does not translate to high performance in Rust.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1920x1080 as the only resolution where playable frame rates are achieved. At Low settings, the average FPS is 66.6, while Medium drops to 46.5 FPS. At 2560x1440, the best result is 43.7 FPS at Low, and at 3840x2160, the best is 26 FPS at Low.

Q: How does the Ryzen 9 9900X compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X’s average benchmark score is 54450, which is 0.4% lower than the Ryzen 9 9900X3D’s 54681 and 0.7% higher than the Intel Core i7-14700F’s 54097. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K scores 55304, which is 1.5% higher.

Q: Is the GTX 1650’s performance consistent with its GPU percentile?

A: Yes, the GTX 1650 ranks in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, and its measured performance in Rust aligns with this. The Passmark G3D score of 7880 and the average benchmark score of 8713 both reflect a mid-to-low tier GPU.

Q: What settings should be avoided at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Ultra settings yield only 22.2 FPS, and High settings yield 25.9 FPS. These are below acceptable playability thresholds. Medium improves to 29.9 FPS, but only Low settings reach 43.7 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this combo?

A: No, the data suggests the opposite. The CPU’s 94th percentile ranking versus the GPU’s 43rd percentile indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU’s high multi-threaded scores, such as 46438 in Cinebench R23, far exceed what Rust requires from the GPU’s output.

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

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings average 66.6 FPS, while Ultra drops to 28 FPS. This represents a 38.6 FPS difference, or a 58% reduction in performance when moving from Low to Ultra.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data shows that 1920x1080 with Low settings is the only configuration that delivers a consistently smooth experience, with an average of 66.6 FPS. This is the recommended preset for general play. At Medium settings, the average drops to 46.5 FPS, which is still playable for many users but may show stutters in busy scenes. High settings at 1080p yield 35 FPS, which is borderline, and Ultra drops to 28 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. At 2560x1440, only Low settings approach playability with 43.7 FPS, while Medium falls to 29.9 FPS. High and Ultra are not viable at this resolution. At 3840x2160, no setting achieves 30 FPS, with Low at 26 FPS and Ultra at 13.5 FPS, making 4K impractical for this combo. The data indicates that users should prioritize resolution over graphical fidelity: sticking to 1080p and lowering settings to Low or Medium provides the best balance between performance and visual quality. For competitive play, the 66.6 FPS at 1080p Low is the clear choice. For a more visually rich experience, 1080p Medium at 46.5 FPS is acceptable, but the jump to High offers diminishing returns given the 31.6 FPS difference from Low.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings average 66.6 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 46.5 FPS, a 20.1 FPS drop from Low. High settings average 35 FPS, and Ultra drops to 28 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a consistent decline, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium. At 2560x1440, the performance scales down significantly. Low settings average 43.7 FPS, which is the only playable result at this resolution. Medium averages 29.9 FPS, High averages 25.9 FPS, and Ultra averages 22.2 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 21.5 FPS. At 3840x2160, the results are marginal across all settings. Low averages 26 FPS, which is the highest at this resolution. High averages 17.1 FPS, Medium averages 15.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 13.5 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 12.5 FPS, indicating the GPU is heavily constrained regardless of settings. Across all resolutions, the data shows that the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for smooth 1440p or 4K gameplay in Rust. The 1080p results, particularly at Low settings, are the only ones that approach the 60 FPS threshold, and even then only just barely with 66.6 FPS. The combo’s rank of 1653 out of 1717 reflects this limitation, as the CPU’s strength cannot compensate for the GPU’s weaknesses in this title.