Rust

# FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance percentile of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D among all CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D sits in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, indicating it outperforms the vast majority of processors in synthetic benchmarks. Its average benchmark score is 54,762, placing it near the top of the desktop processor hierarchy.

Q: How does the Ryzen 9 9900X3D compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The CPU's average score of 54,762 is 0.6% lower than the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF (55,093), but 1.3% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (54,053), 2% higher than the Intel Xeon 6505P (53,701), and 2.1% higher than the Intel Core i7-14700F (53,620). This places it in a tightly contested performance band.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking and how does it compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti is in the 59th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 16,129. It trails the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M by 1.4% (16,351) and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT by 1.4% (16,361), while leading the AMD Radeon RX 9060 by 0.7% (16,014) and the AMD Radeon R9 370X by 1.7% (15,862).

Q: What combination rank does this CPU-GPU pairing achieve in Rust?

A: The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti ranks 1,408 out of 2,953 tested combos in Rust, placing it in the upper half of all pairings tested for this game.

Q: What is the best 4K performance recorded for this combo in Rust?

A: At 3840x2160 resolution, the highest average FPS recorded is 69 with Low settings, followed by 46 FPS on Medium, 39 FPS on High, and 30 FPS on Ultra. The Medium setting shows a minimum of 39 FPS and a maximum of 53 FPS.

Q: What is the best 1080p performance recorded for this combo in Rust?

A: At 1920x1080 resolution, the combo achieves 169 FPS on Low settings, 114 FPS on Medium, 96 FPS on High, and 73 FPS on Ultra. The Medium setting shows a minimum of 97 FPS and a maximum of 131 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The data shows that the Ryzen 9 9900X3D combined with the RTX 3060 Ti lands at position 1,408 out of 2,953 tested combinations in Rust. That is a solidly mid-pack result, but context matters. This rank places the combo in the 47.7th percentile of all tested pairings — just below the halfway point. Given that the CPU alone sits in the 91st percentile of all processors, one might expect a better overall rank. The discrepancy points directly to the GPU as the limiting factor.

The RTX 3060 Ti, at the 59th percentile among GPUs, is far less exceptional than the CPU driving it. This imbalance creates a pairing where the processor's potential is only partially realized. The rank of 1,408 suggests that in Rust, many other combos with more balanced CPU-GPU pairings achieve better results. The delta between the CPU's high percentile and the combo's middling rank is the most telling metric here.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each component offers additional insight. The CPU's closest competitor, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, scores nearly identically (within 0.6%), yet the pairing's rank in Rust depends heavily on the GPU side. The GPU's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, performs within 1.4% — a negligible difference that would not meaningfully change the combo's position.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), manufactured on TSMC's 4nm process. It features a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, with a TDP of 120W. The cache hierarchy is substantial: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of L3 cache. This large L3 cache is particularly relevant for gaming workloads like Rust, which often benefit from high cache capacity.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU demonstrates strong multi-threaded performance with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 47,737 and a single-core score of 6,739. The Geekbench multi-core score of 22,884 and single-core score of 3,041 reinforce this picture. The 3DMark results show scaling from 2,512 (2 threads) to 13,795 (max threads), indicating good thread scaling across the 12 cores.

For Rust, the CPU's role is likely substantial given the game's simulation-heavy nature. The 128 MB L3 cache and high boost clock of 5.50 GHz should help with the game's physics and entity processing. However, the measured FPS data reveals that even with this powerful CPU, frame rates at 4K Ultra drop to 30 FPS. This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU becomes the primary constraint, while at 1080p Low (169 FPS), the CPU is clearly delivering enough throughput to keep the frame rate high.

The benchmark data indicates the CPU is not the bottleneck in most scenarios tested. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 12,490 and max-thread score of 13,795 show strong parallel performance, which should handle Rust's multi-threaded server-side and client-side processing demands.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 69 FPS average
• Medium: 46 FPS average, 39 FPS minimum, 53 FPS maximum
• High: 39 FPS average
• Ultra: 30 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 117 FPS average
• Medium: 78 FPS average, 67 FPS minimum, 90 FPS maximum
• High: 66 FPS average
• Ultra: 50 FPS average

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 169 FPS average
• Medium: 114 FPS average, 97 FPS minimum, 131 FPS maximum
• High: 96 FPS average
• Ultra: 73 FPS average

The progression across resolutions and settings tells a clear story. At 1080p Low, the combo delivers 169 FPS, which is excellent for competitive play. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 117 FPS — a 30.8% reduction. At 4K Low, the frame rate falls to 69 FPS, another 41% reduction from 1440p. This scaling pattern suggests that the GPU is increasingly the limiting factor as resolution rises.

The Medium settings show the most detailed data with min/max values. At 1080p Medium, the range is 97-131 FPS, with an average of 114. At 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 67-90 FPS, with an average of 78. At 4K Medium, the range contracts further to 39-53 FPS, with an average of 46. The narrowing range at higher resolutions indicates the GPU is working closer to its limits, reducing frame time variance.

High settings show a consistent pattern: 96 FPS at 1080p, 66 FPS at 1440p, and 39 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings are the most demanding: 73 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K. The Ultra 4K result of 30 FPS is at the edge of playability, while 1080p Ultra at 73 FPS remains smooth.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti is built on the Ampere architecture using Samsung's 8nm process, with the GA104 chip containing 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU has a base clock of 1410 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, with a TDP of 200W.

The GPU's compute capabilities include 4,864 shading units, 152 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output units. It also includes 38 RT cores and 152 tensor cores, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. The FP32 performance is 16.20 TFLOPS, with a pixel rate of 133.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 253.1 GTexel/s.

In benchmark tests, the RTX 3060 Ti scores 20,349 in Passmark G3D and 10,006 in Passmark GPU Compute. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2,626. The GPU's 59th percentile ranking places it in the mid-range tier, which aligns with its observed performance in Rust.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is a notable consideration for Rust at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the combo drops to 30 FPS — likely a combination of VRAM pressure and raw compute limits. The 448 GB/s memory bandwidth may also constrain performance in texture-heavy scenes typical of Rust's open-world environments.

The GPU's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, performs within 1.4%, indicating that this GPU tier is competitive but not exceptional. The delta between the RTX 3060 Ti's 59th percentile and the CPU's 91st percentile is stark, and the measured FPS data confirms that the GPU is the bottleneck in most scenarios, particularly at higher resolutions and settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate.

For 4K (3840x2160): The only playable option is Low, delivering 69 FPS average. Medium drops to 46 FPS, which is playable but not smooth by modern standards. High (39 FPS) and Ultra (30 FPS) are not recommended for consistent gameplay. The 4K Low setting provides the best balance of visual quality and performance at this resolution.

For 1440p (2560x1440): Low delivers 117 FPS, which is excellent for competitive play. Medium provides 78 FPS, a good balance for most players. High at 66 FPS is acceptable, while Ultra at 50 FPS may be too low for fast-paced action. The Medium setting appears to be the sweet spot, offering solid visual improvements over Low while maintaining a playable frame rate.

For 1080p (1920x1080): Low delivers 169 FPS, ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. Medium at 114 FPS is excellent and likely the best overall choice, balancing visual fidelity with performance. High at 96 FPS is also very playable, while Ultra at 73 FPS remains smooth. The Medium setting at 1080p offers the best experience per the measured rows, with a 97 FPS minimum ensuring no significant stutters.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset appears to be the most balanced option. It consistently shows the largest FPS improvement over High while maintaining visual quality. The minimum FPS values for Medium (97 at 1080p, 67 at 1440p, 39 at 4K) indicate acceptable frame pacing, though the 4K minimum is borderline.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling across resolutions reveals where the bottleneck lies in this combination.

Low settings: 169 FPS at 1080p, 117 FPS at 1440p, 69 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 30.8%, and from 1440p to 4K is 41.0%. From 1080p to 4K, the total reduction is 59.2%. This scaling is steeper than ideal, suggesting the GPU's rendering capabilities are being saturated at higher resolutions.

Medium settings: 114 FPS at 1080p, 78 FPS at 1440p, 46 FPS at 4K. The drops are 31.6% (1080p to 1440p) and 41.0% (1440p to 4K), with a total reduction of 59.6% from 1080p to 4K. The consistency of these percentages across settings suggests a uniform GPU bottleneck.

High settings: 96 FPS at 1080p, 66 FPS at 1440p, 39 FPS at 4K. Drops are 31.3% and 40.9%, totaling 59.4% from 1080p to 4K. The pattern holds.

Ultra settings: 73 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p, 30 FPS at 4K. Drops are 31.5% and 40.0%, totaling 58.9% from 1080p to 4K.

The remarkable consistency of these percentages — all falling between 58.9% and 59.6% total reduction from 1080p to 4K — indicates that the GPU is the consistent limiting factor across all settings. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect less FPS reduction at higher resolutions, as the CPU workload would remain constant while GPU load increases. Instead, the FPS scales almost exactly with the pixel count increase (4K has 4x the pixels of 1080p, but the FPS reduction is not 75%, suggesting some CPU involvement at 1080p).

The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is partially limiting performance, particularly at Low settings where 169 FPS approaches the CPU's maximum frame delivery. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the constraint, with all settings producing sub-70 FPS results. This dual-bottleneck behavior is typical of a high-end CPU paired with a mid-range GPU, and the measured data confirms this dynamic in Rust.