Rust

The Intel Core i7-13700K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER delivers a formidable gaming experience in Rust, placing the combo in the top 8% of all tested configurations. With a combo rank of 137 out of 1717 tested pairs, this system demonstrates that it can handle the demanding survival title with high frame rates across most settings, though the data reveals distinct performance ceilings depending on resolution and graphics presets.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the i7-13700K and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER sits at position 137 out of 1717 tested combos in Rust, placing it in the 92nd percentile of all systems benchmarked. This is a strong showing, as the top 137 combos represent the elite tier of hardware configurations capable of delivering smooth gameplay in this notoriously CPU-intensive survival title.

The CPU itself ranks in the 93rd percentile against all processors, with an average benchmark score of 47282. In the synthetic benchmarks, the i7-13700K trails its closest rival, the Intel Core i7-13700KF, by a negligible 0.1% (47334 vs 47282), while edging out the AMD EPYC 4364P by 0.3% and the Intel Core i9-12900F by 0.4%. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 sits slightly ahead at 47527, representing a 0.5% advantage over the 13700K. These margins are effectively noise-level, indicating the 13700K delivers flagship-class CPU performance for gaming workloads.

On the GPU side, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER achieves an 86th percentile ranking among all graphics cards with an average benchmark score of 48704. It trails the NVIDIA CMP 50HX by 0.7% and the Intel Arc A550M by 2.1%, while outperforming the NVIDIA RTX A2000 by 1.6% and the RTX A1000 Mobile by 2.0%. These synthetic results suggest the GPU is well-matched to the CPU's capabilities, with neither component creating a significant bottleneck in Rust's engine.

GPU Role

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER brings substantial memory resources to Rust, featuring 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 672.3 GB/s of bandwidth. This generous VRAM allocation is particularly relevant for a game like Rust, which features large, persistent worlds with extensive building structures and environmental detail. The memory operates at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective speed, ensuring texture streaming and asset loading are unlikely to become limiting factors even at maximum settings.

The GPU's core configuration includes 8448 shading units, 264 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output pipelines. Clock speeds range from a 2340 MHz base to a 2610 MHz boost, allowing the card to scale performance dynamically based on thermal and power headroom. The 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for ray tracing and DLSS features, though Rust's rendering workload primarily stresses traditional rasterization.

With a TDP of 285 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W, the card demands substantial power delivery. The measured FPS data shows the GPU scales predictably with resolution changes, suggesting it is the primary performance driver at higher resolutions while the CPU becomes more influential at 1080p. The 5 nm TSMC process node and Ada Lovelace architecture deliver 44.10 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, providing ample raw throughput for Rust's simulation-heavy gameplay.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings configuration for 4K gaming in Rust?

A: The data shows the combo achieves 62.2 FPS at High settings in 3840x2160, but drops to 49 FPS at Ultra. For a stable 60+ FPS experience at 4K, High settings are the highest playable preset, while Medium runs at 72.2 FPS and Low reaches 110.1 FPS.

Q: How does the combo perform at 1080p for competitive play?

A: At 1920x1080, the system delivers exceptional frame rates: 251.4 FPS on Low, 179.2 FPS on Medium, 150.9 FPS on High, and 113 FPS on Ultra. Low settings provide the highest frame rates, which is ideal for competitive scenarios where responsiveness matters most.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in Rust?

A: The scaling from 1080p to 4K suggests GPU limitation. At 1080p High, the combo hits 150.9 FPS, which drops to 107.1 FPS at 1440p (a 29% reduction) and further to 62.2 FPS at 4K (a 59% reduction from 1080p). This progressive decline with resolution indicates the GPU becomes the bottleneck as pixel count increases.

Q: Can this system maintain 60 FPS at 1440p Ultra?

A: Yes, at 2560x1440 with Ultra settings, the combo achieves 76.8 FPS, providing a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold. This allows for smooth gameplay even in demanding scenes with many players and complex bases.

Q: How does the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER compare to its closest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The card scores 48704 on average, which is 0.7% behind the NVIDIA CMP 50HX (49071), 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (47915), 2.0% ahead of the RTX A1000 Mobile (47743), and 2.1% behind the Intel Arc A550M (49737).

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

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 251.4 FPS while Ultra yields 113 FPS, a difference of 138.4 FPS or approximately 55% lower performance at Ultra. This gap narrows to 61.1 FPS at 1440p and 61.1 FPS at 4K, showing the settings impact diminishes at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured performance data provides a comprehensive view of how this combo handles Rust across three resolutions and four quality presets.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates. Low settings produce a remarkable 251.4 FPS, while Medium achieves 179.2 FPS. High settings yield 150.9 FPS, and Ultra maintains a strong 113 FPS. All presets at 1080p exceed the 100 FPS mark, indicating this resolution is well within the combo's comfort zone for high-refresh-rate monitors.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains robust. Low settings reach 181.2 FPS, representing a 28% drop from 1080p. Medium runs at 126.2 FPS, High at 107.1 FPS, and Ultra at 76.8 FPS. The 1440p results show that even the most demanding preset stays above 75 FPS, making this resolution an excellent choice for a balance between visual fidelity and smoothness.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's workload becomes significant. Low settings produce 110.1 FPS, which is still highly playable. Medium achieves 72.2 FPS, and High runs at 62.2 FPS, just above the 60 FPS target for standard displays. Ultra settings drop to 49 FPS, which may be acceptable for slower-paced gameplay but falls below the threshold for competitive play.

The progression across settings shows consistent scaling. At each resolution, reducing from Ultra to Low roughly doubles the frame rate: 251.4 vs 113 FPS at 1080p, 181.2 vs 76.8 FPS at 1440p, and 110.1 vs 49 FPS at 4K. This indicates the engine scales predictably with graphics load, allowing users to fine-tune performance based on their priority between visual quality and frame rate.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data reveals how the combo's performance degrades as pixel count increases, providing insight into which component is the primary limiting factor at each stage.

From 1080p to 1440p, the frame rate drops by 28-32% depending on settings. For example, High settings fall from 150.9 FPS to 107.1 FPS, a reduction of 43.8 FPS. This percentage decline is roughly proportional to the increase in pixel count (1440p has 78% more pixels than 1080p), suggesting the GPU is beginning to become a factor but the CPU still has significant headroom.

The transition from 1440p to 4K shows a more dramatic scaling. High settings drop from 107.1 FPS to 62.2 FPS, a 42% reduction. Low settings fall from 181.2 FPS to 110.1 FPS, a 39% decline. This accelerated degradation at 4K indicates the GPU is now the dominant bottleneck, as the pixel count more than doubles while performance drops by less than half.

The scaling pattern across all settings is remarkably consistent. At 4K, the frame rates are roughly 55-60% of their 1080p values regardless of preset. This uniformity suggests that neither the CPU nor GPU is causing an unexpected bottleneck at any particular resolution; rather, the system scales predictably with the rendering workload.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference is 138.4 FPS (251.4 vs 113). At 1440p, it narrows to 104.4 FPS (181.2 vs 76.8). At 4K, the gap closes to 61.1 FPS (110.1 vs 49). This indicates that at higher resolutions, the GPU's raw compute limits performance regardless of settings, while at 1080p, the CPU can feed the GPU enough data to expose the full range of settings-based performance scaling.