Rust

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H and AMD Radeon 880M combination represents a mobile platform pairing a 14-core Meteor Lake processor with an integrated RDNA 3.5 GPU. In Rust, this combo ranks 2878th out of 2953 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 3% of all systems. The measured frame rates across resolutions and settings tell a consistent story: this is an integrated graphics solution struggling with a demanding survival title, where playability is confined to the lowest settings at 1080p.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H is a 14-core, 18-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 1, built on Intel's 7 nm Meteor Lake architecture. It operates with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 28 W TDP that classifies it as a mobile part. The cache hierarchy includes 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, providing 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is relevant for Rust's world streaming.

In CPU-centric benchmarks, the Ultra 5 135H posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11875.5 and a single-core score of 1700. Its Passmark single-thread score is 3521, while the multi-thread score reaches 22422. The processor's overall average benchmark score is 29093, placing it at the 81st percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in aggregate performance are the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X with a score of 29123 (0.1% faster), the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 at 29245 (0.5% faster), and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT at 28940 (0.5% slower). The Intel Core i5-13500HX scores 29270, which is 0.6% higher.

For Rust specifically, the CPU's contribution is noticeable in the scaling between settings presets. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 64 FPS average, while at 1080p Ultra it drops to 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at the same resolution is 36 FPS, which is substantial. However, the more telling comparison is how the system behaves across resolutions at the same settings. At High settings, the average frame rate moves from 36 FPS at 1080p to 25 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of about 30%. At Low settings, the drop from 64 FPS at 1080p to 44 FPS at 1440p represents a 31% decrease. These proportional drops indicate that the integrated GPU is the primary bottleneck, as the CPU would maintain more consistent frame rates across resolution changes if it were the limiting factor.

The processor's 18 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s are relevant for Rust's large, persistent world. The game's procedural generation and entity tracking benefit from CPU cache and memory throughput, but the benchmark data suggests the GPU saturates before these CPU resources become the deciding factor. The 14-core configuration with 18 threads provides ample parallel processing headroom, yet the measured results show the platform cannot translate that headroom into higher frame rates in Rust.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H and AMD Radeon 880M ranks 2878th out of 2953 tested combinations in Rust. This places the system in the bottom percentile of all tested hardware pairings, indicating that the integrated GPU severely limits the overall experience. The rank reflects the measured FPS data, which shows the system struggling to maintain playable frame rates at higher resolutions and settings.

Contextualizing this rank requires examining the GPU's standalone position. The AMD Radeon 880M has an average benchmark score of 8436 and sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX with a score of 8427 (0.1% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8458 (0.3% faster), and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8462 (0.3% faster). These are older discrete mobile GPUs, yet the integrated 880M performs comparably in synthetic benchmarks. However, in Rust, the combination's rank of 2878 out of 2953 suggests that the 880M's actual gaming performance falls short of even its modest synthetic standing.

The CPU's percentile rank of 81 and the GPU's percentile rank of 43 highlight the mismatch within this combo. The processor is a competent mobile part, but the integrated graphics solution drags the overall system down. The gap between the CPU's 81st percentile and the combo's bottom-3% rank in Rust indicates that the game is overwhelmingly GPU-bound for this platform. Even the CPU's nearest rival, the Ryzen 7 5800X, which is 0.1% faster in aggregate, would not rescue this combo in Rust because the GPU cannot deliver sufficient frame rates regardless of CPU headroom.

The rank also reflects the absence of any discrete GPU. Among the 2953 tested combos, this system falls near the bottom, which is consistent with integrated graphics performance in a demanding survival game. The data suggests that users would need to drastically lower expectations—both in resolution and settings—to approach playable frame rates, as the measured results show only one configuration (1080p Low) exceeding 60 FPS.

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

The resolution scaling pattern across the measured data clearly identifies the GPU as the limiting component. At Low settings, the average frame rate declines from 64 FPS at 1080p to 44 FPS at 1440p, then to 26 FPS at 4K. This represents a 31% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 41% drop from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is not linear—the second drop is proportionally larger, which is typical of a GPU approaching its fill rate limits.

At High settings, the pattern continues: 36 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 15 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 31%, and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 40%. The consistency of these percentages across settings presets indicates that the GPU is the dominant factor, as the CPU would show smaller relative drops at higher resolutions if it were the bottleneck. The Ultra settings preset shows the most severe scaling: 28 FPS at 1080p, 19 FPS at 1440p, and 11 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result of 11 FPS is essentially unplayable, and even 1440p Ultra at 19 FPS is far below acceptable thresholds.

The Medium preset provides the only data with min and max FPS values, offering insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the average is 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 and maximum of 50. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 30 FPS with a minimum of 25 and maximum of 34. At 4K Medium, the average is 18 FPS with a minimum of 15 and maximum of 20. The spread between min and max is roughly 13 FPS at 1080p, 9 FPS at 1440p, and 5 FPS at 4K. The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests the GPU is consistently saturated, with less variance because it is running at its maximum capability regardless of scene complexity.

The resolution scaling data indicates that the integrated Radeon 880M has limited headroom. The system's performance at 1080p Low is the only configuration that approaches a smooth experience, and the frame rates degrade rapidly as pixel count increases. The proportional drops across all settings presets reinforce that the GPU's shading units, texture mapping units, and raster operations pipelines are the constraining factor, not the CPU's 14 cores or 18 threads.

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

The full measured FPS dataset provides a comprehensive view of this combo's capabilities in Rust. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 64 FPS average on Low settings, which is the highest recorded frame rate across all configurations. The Medium preset at 1080p delivers 43 FPS average, with a minimum of 37 and maximum of 50. High settings at 1080p produce 36 FPS average, while Ultra settings drop to 28 FPS average. The progression from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows a 36 FPS spread, indicating that each settings tier costs roughly 9-12 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 44 FPS, which is a 20 FPS reduction from the same settings at 1080p. Medium at 1440p averages 30 FPS, with a minimum of 25 and maximum of 34. High settings at 1440p produce 25 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 19 FPS average. At this resolution, even Low settings barely maintain playable frame rates, and the Ultra preset at 19 FPS is well below smooth gameplay thresholds.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings average 26 FPS, Medium averages 18 FPS with a minimum of 15 and maximum of 20, High averages 15 FPS, and Ultra averages 11 FPS. The 4K Low result of 26 FPS is the only 4K configuration that approaches playability, and it is still below the 30 FPS threshold that many players consider the minimum for acceptable performance. The 4K Ultra result of 11 FPS is effectively a slideshow.

The Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data across all three resolutions. At 1080p, the min of 37 and max of 50 indicate a relatively tight frame time distribution. At 1440p, the min of 25 and max of 34 show a similar 9 FPS spread. At 4K, the min of 15 and max of 20 narrow to a 5 FPS spread. This narrowing at higher resolutions suggests the GPU is consistently maxed out, with less variance because it cannot render frames faster than its raw throughput allows.

The data reveals that the system's best-case scenario is 64 FPS at 1080p Low, and every other configuration falls below 60 FPS. The 1080p Medium setting at 43 FPS is the highest average on a non-Low preset, but it still requires a 21 FPS sacrifice from Low. The 1440p Low setting at 44 FPS is nearly identical to 1080p Medium, indicating that resolution and settings trade-offs are roughly equivalent in FPS cost.

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

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations pipelines, along with 12 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates with a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, with a TDP of 15 W that shares power with the CPU in the mobile platform.

The 880M's memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM. The memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as system-shared or system-dependent, which means the GPU relies on the same DDR5 memory as the CPU over a dual-channel bus. The system's 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is shared between CPU and GPU workloads, and in Rust, this shared bandwidth becomes a critical constraint. The GPU's 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 46.40 GPixel/s pixel rate are modest figures that align with the measured frame rates.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 880M scores 7615 in Passmark G3D and 3719 in Passmark GPU Compute. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 31285, and the Vulkan score reaches 40006. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 535, which is low even for integrated graphics. The GPU's 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs places it below most discrete solutions, and its nearest rivals—the GTX 675MX, MX330, and HD 8870M—are all older mobile GPUs that outperform it by 0.1% to 0.3% in aggregate.

The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and 12_2 feature level are technically capable, but the hardware cannot sustain the workloads that Rust demands. The 12 ray tracing cores are present but largely irrelevant at the frame rates this GPU achieves. The pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s are the raw throughput limits that explain the resolution scaling observed in the FPS data. At 4K, the GPU must process over 8 million pixels per frame, and its fill rate simply cannot keep up, resulting in the 11-26 FPS range measured at that resolution.

The shared memory architecture means that Rust's large world data competes with frame buffer requirements for the same memory bandwidth. This is evident in the steep FPS drops between 1080p and 1440p, where the increased resolution demands more memory bandwidth for the frame buffer, leaving less for texture streaming and geometry processing. The 880M's 15 W TDP also limits its sustained boost clock, which is why the 2900 MHz boost is not maintained under heavy gaming loads.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for playable frame rates in Rust?

A: The measured data shows that 1920x1080 on Low settings is the only configuration exceeding 60 FPS, with an average of 64 FPS. The 1080p Medium preset averages 43 FPS, which is the highest non-Low setting, while 1440p Low averages 44 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Rust?

A: The combination ranks 2878th out of 2953 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 3% of all systems. This rank reflects the integrated GPU's limitations rather than the CPU, which sits at the 81st percentile among all processors.

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

A: The resolution scaling data identifies the GPU as the primary bottleneck. At High settings, the FPS drops from 36 at 1080p to 25 at 1440p (a 31% reduction) and then to 15 at 4K (a 40% reduction from 1440p), which is consistent with GPU-bound performance.

Q: What is the best frame rate achievable at 4K resolution?

A: The highest 4K average is 26 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 18 FPS, High averages 15 FPS, and Ultra averages 11 FPS. None of these approach playable thresholds for most users.

Q: How does the integrated GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon 880M has an average benchmark score of 8436, which is 0.1% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8427 and 0.3% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8458. It outperforms the AMD Radeon R9 M375X by 1.3%.

Q: Does the Medium preset offer consistent frame times?

A: The Medium preset is the only one with full min/max data. At 1080p, it ranges from 37 to 50 FPS; at 1440p, from 25 to 34 FPS; and at 4K, from 15 to 20 FPS. The spread narrows at higher resolutions, indicating consistent GPU saturation.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only configuration that delivers a smooth experience in Rust is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which averages 64 FPS. This is the sole preset above 60 FPS across all tested combinations, and it should be the default choice for any user seeking responsive gameplay. The 1080p Medium preset at 43 FPS is playable for those who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, but the 21 FPS sacrifice from Low is substantial.

For users who prefer higher resolutions, 1440p Low at 44 FPS is the best option, offering nearly identical performance to 1080p Medium. This suggests that resolution and settings trade-offs are roughly equivalent in FPS cost for this system. However, 1440p Medium at 30 FPS is borderline, and the Ultra preset at 19 FPS is not recommended for any gameplay scenario.

At 4K, no settings preset delivers acceptable performance. The Low preset at 26 FPS is the highest, but it remains below the 30 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for playability. The Medium preset at 18 FPS and High at 15 FPS are only suitable for static screenshots, while Ultra at 11 FPS is effectively unusable. Users with 4K displays should either lower the resolution or accept that this combo cannot handle Rust at native 4K.

The data suggests a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low is the primary recommendation, with 1440p Low as a viable alternative for those with higher-resolution displays. The Medium preset provides the best balance of visual quality and frame rate for users willing to accept 43 FPS at 1080p or 30 FPS at 1440p. High and Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution, as they consistently deliver frame rates below 40 FPS even at 1080p. The 4K resolution should be avoided entirely for gaming with this combination.