Rust

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Rust shows a steep performance curve as resolution climbs, which is typical for a survival title that leans heavily on draw-distance and object culling. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, this combo produces 135.1 FPS, a figure that drops to 94.3 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 58.8 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 56.5% reduction in frame rate from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, indicating that the GPU is the primary scaling bottleneck.

The pattern intensifies at higher quality presets. At High settings, the transition from 1080p (80.6 FPS) to 1440p (55.5 FPS) costs 31.1% performance, while moving to 4K (31.4 FPS) represents a 61% drop from the 1080p baseline. The Ultra preset shows the most dramatic scaling: 57 FPS at 1080p falls to 40.2 FPS at 1440p and bottoms out at 26.4 FPS at 4K. This is a 53.7% loss from 1080p to 4K on Ultra, which suggests that the RTX 2060 SUPER runs out of pixel throughput headroom well before the CPU becomes a limiting factor.

The Medium preset tells a similar story. At 1080p, the combo delivers 94.1 FPS, which is respectable for a survival game with complex base-building physics. At 1440p, that drops to 61.8 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 41.1 FPS. The delta between Medium and High at each resolution is consistent — roughly 12-15% — which implies that the quality presets scale predictably with shader complexity rather than exposing any sudden bottleneck.

Notably, the gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 78.1 FPS (135.1 vs 57), while at 4K the same preset gap is only 32.4 FPS (58.8 vs 26.4). This compression at higher resolutions is a classic sign of GPU-bound operation: when the render target grows, the absolute cost of each quality tier becomes proportionally smaller relative to the total pixel workload.

The data indicates that 1440p is the practical ceiling for smooth play on this hardware. Even at High settings, the 55.5 FPS result is playable but not ideal for competitive scenarios, while Medium at 61.8 FPS offers a better balance. At 4K, only the Low preset (58.8 FPS) approaches what most players would consider acceptable, and even that is marginal. The CPU, an Intel Core i7-12700KF with a 3.60 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost, is clearly not the constraint here — the 12-core, 20-thread part has ample headroom for Rust's simulation logic.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is the determining component in this pairing. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for Rust's texture streaming at 1080p and 1440p but becomes strained at 4K Ultra where the frame rate collapses to 26.4 FPS. The GPU's 2176 shading units and 64 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 105.6 GPixel/s, yet the measured data shows that this is not enough to maintain high frame rates at 4K with quality settings above Low.

Clock behavior matters here. The GPU has a base clock of 1470 MHz and a boost clock of 1650 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). These are modest figures by modern standards, and the benchmark results reflect that. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2011 places this GPU in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, meaning it outpaces roughly two-thirds of the field but sits well behind current-generation parts.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the aggregate benchmark database are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (0.3% higher score), the RTX 2070 (0.5% higher), the Quadro K5200 (0.8% higher), and the Tesla K40m (1.3% higher). These deltas are small, indicating that the RTX 2060 SUPER sits in a tightly contested performance band. In Rust specifically, the 4K Low result of 58.8 FPS versus the 1080p Low result of 135.1 FPS shows that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors when resolution scales.

The Turing architecture's 12 nm process and 10,800 million transistors on a 445 mm² die give it a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². The 34 RT cores and 272 tensor cores are present, though Rust does not meaningfully utilize ray tracing or DLSS in the measured rows. The FP32 throughput of 7.181 TFLOPS provides the raw compute for the game's physics and rendering, but the 4K Ultra result of 26.4 FPS demonstrates that even the full FP32 pipeline is insufficient for heavy preset loads at high resolution.

The GPU's 175 W TDP and dual-slot design are consistent with its mid-range positioning. The PassMark G3D score of 16462 and the G2D score of 854 place it in the 63rd percentile, while the compute score of 6721 shows moderate parallel processing capability. For Rust, the takeaway is clear: the RTX 2060 SUPER can handle 1080p and 1440p with quality settings dialed in, but 4K requires significant compromise.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1920x1080 as the only resolution where all presets remain above 57 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low (94.3 FPS) and Medium (61.8 FPS) stay above 60 FPS, while High drops to 55.5 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance more in Rust?

A: The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K indicates a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU's 3DMark max-thread score of 9983 and Cinebench R23 multicore score of 28979 show substantial headroom, while the GPU's 4K Ultra result of 26.4 FPS versus its 1080p Ultra result of 57 FPS demonstrates the GPU is the constraint.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 SUPER compare to the RTX 2070 in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The RTX 2070 has an average benchmark score of 19680, which is 0.5% higher than the RTX 2060 SUPER's score of 19774. This means the RTX 2060 SUPER actually edges out the RTX 2070 in the database average, despite the naming convention suggesting the opposite.

Q: What FPS can I expect at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows 61.8 FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings. This is the highest-quality preset that maintains a 60+ FPS average at 1440p for this hardware combination.

Q: Is 4K playable on this setup?

A: Only at Low settings, where the average FPS is 58.8. Medium drops to 41.1 FPS, High to 31.4 FPS, and Ultra to 26.4 FPS. Most players would find the Low preset marginally playable at 4K, but not ideal.

Q: How does this combo rank among tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 1192 out of 1717 tested combinations, placing it in the lower third of all tested setups. This is consistent with the GPU's 63rd percentile standing and the CPU's 89th percentile, suggesting the GPU drags down the overall ranking.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1192 out of 1717 tested combinations places this system in the 30th percentile of all configurations tested. This is a modest result, driven primarily by the GPU's limitations rather than the CPU. The Intel Core i7-12700KF sits in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35355, which puts it within 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-14400 (35336) and 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-13800H (35416). The CPU's performance is not the issue.

The GPU, however, sits in the 63rd percentile with an average benchmark score of 19774. Its nearest rivals — the GTX TITAN (19706, 0.3% higher), RTX 2070 (19680, 0.5% higher), Quadro K5200 (19623, 0.8% higher), and Tesla K40m (19519, 1.3% higher) — all cluster within a narrow band. This means the RTX 2060 SUPER is competitive with its immediate peers but cannot push the combo higher in the rankings.

In Rust specifically, the measured FPS data reveals why the rank is so low. At 4K Ultra, the 26.4 FPS result is below playable thresholds, and even at 1080p Ultra the 57 FPS average is not smooth for a game where quick reaction times matter in PvP encounters. The combo's ranking reflects the reality that while the CPU is a high-end part, the GPU holds the system back in a title that scales heavily with pixel count and texture quality.

The ranking data shows that 1717 combinations have been tested, and this one lands at 1192. That places it behind the majority of systems, but the CPU's strong benchmark scores suggest that upgrading the GPU alone would yield significant gains. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (135.1 FPS) proves the CPU can feed frames at high rates; the GPU simply cannot maintain that pace at higher resolutions or quality settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, delivering 94.1 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS while maintaining visual quality that is noticeably better than Low. The High preset at 1080p (80.6 FPS) is also viable for players who prioritize visuals over frame rate headroom, but the Medium setting offers the best balance of smoothness and fidelity.

For players with 1440p monitors, the Medium preset at 61.8 FPS is the recommended choice. It stays above the 60 FPS threshold and provides a good visual experience. The Low preset at 1440p (94.3 FPS) is the best option for competitive play where frame rate matters most, but the visual downgrade is significant. The High preset at 1440p (55.5 FPS) is playable but may feel less responsive in combat scenarios, and the Ultra preset (40.2 FPS) is not recommended for anything beyond casual exploration.

At 4K, the options are limited. The Low preset at 58.8 FPS is the only setting that approaches playability, and even then, the frame rate is below 60 FPS. Players with 4K displays should either accept the Low preset or consider lowering the resolution to 1440p for a better experience. The Medium (41.1 FPS), High (31.4 FPS), and Ultra (26.4 FPS) presets at 4K are all below acceptable thresholds for a game like Rust, where sudden frame drops can be costly.

The data suggests a simple rule: start at 1080p Medium for the best all-around experience, move to 1440p Medium if the display demands it, and only use 1080p Low (135.1 FPS) or 1440p Low (94.3 FPS) when maximum frame rate is the priority. The Ultra preset is not worth the performance cost at any resolution, as the jump from High to Ultra at 1080p costs 23.6 FPS (80.6 to 57) for marginal visual gains. Similarly, the gap from Medium to High at 1080p (94.1 to 80.6 FPS) is a 14.3% loss that may not justify the visual improvement for all players.