Rust

The data below is for Rust running on a combo of an Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER. All results come from measured testing—the `dataIsMeasured` field is `true`—and the page is based strictly on the supplied fact pack. This pairing lands at rank #2640 out of 3723 tested combos in the database, placing it in the lower-middle part of the ranking, but its behavior across resolutions and presets reveals where each component sits as the bottleneck.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is the first consumer desktop CPU from the Arrow Lake architecture, built on TSMC's 3 nm process. It offers 10 cores / 10 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The L3 cache is 20 MB shared; L2 is 3 MB per core and L1 is 192 KB per core. Memory support is dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The CPU's TDP is 65 W, so it fits easily into a typical gaming build. You can bolt it into any LGA 1851 motherboard and ignore integrated graphics, because the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU is present but irrelevant for gaming.

Looking at its synthetic performance, the Ultra 5 225 scores 36,938 average benchmark points, which puts it at the 85th percentile among all tested CPUs. That means it outperforms a clear majority of desktop chips, while also sitting just below the very top tier. Its closest companions in the database are the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (average 36,945, delta 0%), the Ryzen 5 5500X3D (37,018, –0.2%), the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (37,093, –0.4%), and the Intel Core i9-12900T (37,112, –0.5%). A delta of only a fraction of a percent against those chips shows the Ultra 5 truly sits at the same performance level as those mid-range contenders, not ahead of them.

The game’s measured data shows the CPU is not the limiting factor at lower graphics settings. At 1080p Low, the current frame rate is 138 FPS — that's far above 60. Even at 1440p Low it maintains 95 FPS. These numbers indicate a powerful CPU in single‑threaded tasks. The single‑core scores reinforce: 3655 in Cinebench R23 single and a PassMark single-thread of 4412. Multi‑threaded throughput is decent too, with Cinebench R23 multi‑core 25,891 and PassMark multithread of 30,459. That muscle translates into Rust’s ability to feed the GPU quickly at high refresh rates before the GPU becomes the restriction.

Curious CPU features from the fact pack: it has a 3 nm node with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, and a L3 of 20 MB — a modest cache that might be a nuance for some games, but the result here shows it is sufficient for Rust. The CPU also supports PCIe Gen5 (20 lanes) and it's not multiplier‑unlocked, so it’s a locked part, but the boost clock of 4.90 is already high.

How this relates to Rust: Rust’s largest performance bottlenecks are often on the CPU, particularly with large player counts, bases, and server simulation. The measured data supports the CPU being a à robust way to reach for 60+ FPS at 1080p and 1440p, as long as graphics settings are kept at Medium or lower.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is a Turing‑architecture GPU built on 12 nm TSMC. It is now end‑of‑life and sits just below the current‑gen cards. It carries 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256‑bit bus, with a total bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. The chip has 136 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 34 RT cores, 272 tensor cores, and 2176 shading units. Base clock is 1470 MHz, boost clock 1650 MHz; the memory runs at a 1750 MHz base, which translates to 14 Gbps effective. The FP32 rate is 7.181 TFLOPS and it draws a very moderate 175 W, requiring a single 8‑pin power connector and a 450 W PSU.

In the benchmark database, the RTX 2060 SUPER has a PassMark G3D score of 16,462 and an average benchmark score of 18,093 – that places it in the 62nd percentile among all GPUs. Its closest rivals are especially telling: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18,159, -0.4%), AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18,189, -0.5%), AMD Radeon RX 460 (18,373, -1.5%), and Intel Arc A770M (18,383, -1.6%). The difference to the RTX 3060 Mobile is essentially nothing, indicating that amongst laptops and slightly older cards it still holds its own. However, it is now a sub‑target for 4K Ultra, as will become clear from the measured FPS.

Research the FPS at 4K Ultra, which sa., is a mere 24 fps average, and even 4K Low only reaches 56 – so the GPU clearly becomes the main roadblock at higher resolutions and graphics quality. The 8 GB VRAM is adequate for 1080p and 1440p, but with 4K plus high-quality textures it likely runs into capacity and bandwidth limits. The 256‑bit bus and 448 GB/s bandwidth are decent, yet not sufficient to feed high-end ultra quality at 4K resolution.

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

When moving from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K, the FPS patterns expose the bottleneck. Start with the Low preset: 1080p achieves 138 avg FPS, 1440p drops to 95, and 4K lands at 56. The step‑down from 1080p to 1440p is about a 31% decrease, but from 1440p to 4K another 43% decrease. That shows that even on Low settings, as pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, the frame rate doesn’t scale proportionally (it drops only 59%). That’s typical of a CPU‑limited scenario at the lower resolutions, but as the resolution climbs, the GPU begins to catch up.

The Medium preset tells the same story but with stronger absolute numbers: 1080p = 92 fps, 1440p = 64, 4K = 38. That's a 30% drop (1080→1440) then a 40% drop (1440→4K). Still, at 4K Medium, a min of 32 and max 43 clarify that even the lowframe time as heavy framestamps.

High preset shows the difference more clearly: 1080p 78, 1440p 54, 4K 32. Now the drop from 1440p to 4K is 41% but 1080p to 1440p is only 31%. This is a sign that, as quality and resolution increase, the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor. The same holds for Ultra: 1080p 59, 1440p 41, 4K 24 (with a drop of ~30% and 42% respectively).

The takeaway: at 1080p – 1440p all presets are not GPU‑bound (especially Low and Medium), because the CPU can push a high frame count, and the GPU is the one that struggles at 4K or Ultra. If you’re targeting 60 + FPS, you have to stay within the 1080p/1440p regions, since 4K never exceeds 56.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Working from the database measurements, we can determine which settings for a smooth, apart from frame-pacing experience:

• 1080p – For a comfortable 60+ FPS margin, all presets Low, Medium, and High deliver: Low is 138, Medium is 92, High is 78. High is the sweet spot – it reaches 78, keeps visuals above Low, and leaves enough in reserve. Only Ultra goes below 60 (59 average) and is not recommended if you want to avoid dips.

• 1440p – Looking for 60 FPS average, the Medium preset is the only setting that is safely above (64 average). Low (95) is even faster, Low, but Medium is the best visual-correct option. High (54) and Ultra (41) are below the threshold; if you absolutely demand High, you’ll be averaging <60.

• 4K – The highest average even with Low is 56, so no preset can hit 60. If you still want to play at 4K, the only playable way is Low at 56; Medium (38) and High (32) are very choppy, and Ultra (24) is nearly unplayable. In practical terms, keep at 1440p or lower.

The Medium preset also provides the only rows where min/max are recorded: 1080p Medium shows min 79 and max 106, 1440p Medium min 54 and max 73, and 4K Medium min 32 and max 43. That means that at Medium the frame times are quite stable relative to the average (variation roughly ±15% around the mean), which is better than the utterly likely spread for Ultra.

If you play on a 60Hz monitor, the strongest recommendation is 1080p High (78 fps average) or 1440p Medium (64 fps). If you have a 144Hz monitor at 1080p, then 1080p Low gives you 138 fps, almost hitting 144Hz, so you can use it for esports or speedplay.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: Can this combo run Rust at 1080p at 60 FPS?

A: Yes. At 1080p, the Medium preset delivers 92 fps average, High gives 78 fps, and even Ultra maintains 59 fps. Only Low is overkill at 138, but Medium and High both remain above 60.

Q: Is 1440p viable for Rust with this GPU?

A: Yes, but you need to use the Medium preset (avg 64 fps) or Low (95 fps). High falls to 54 fps, so it’s not consistently above 60, and Ultra is at 41. For a comfortable 60+ experience, stick to Medium.

Q: Respecting 4K – what’s the best I can get?

A: The absolute maximum avg FPS at 4K is 56, achieved with the Low preset. That is just below 60, so you could play it, but closely, there will be occasional dips. Any higher preset – Medium (38), High (32), Ultra (24) – is not steady enough for smooth action.

Q: How does the processor compare to its rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225’s average score of 36938 is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (36945, 0% difference), and it’s only fewer than 1% slower than the Ryzen 7 5 5500X3D (-0.2%), Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (-0.4%), and Core i9-12900T (-0.5%). So in raw CPU power it’s a very tight pack.

Q: Is 8 GB VRAM enough for Rust?

A: At 1080p and 1440p, the VRAM works fine – the GPU’s bandwidth (448 GB/s) and 8 GB capacity are not the limiting factor at those resolutions. At 4K, the low FPS indicates the GPU is probably hitting both VRAM capacity and bandwidth limits, as even Low only yields 56 fps.

Q: What’s the overall ranking of this combo in the database?

A: The combo ranks #2440 out of 3723 combos, meaning it stays slightly above the mid‑point of all tested configurations. This indicates a system capable of playing Rust at 1080p and 1440p comfortably, but not designed for 4K.

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

The following table lists the exact measured frame rate values for every resolution and preset. There were no min/max values recorded for Low, High, or Ultra, so those cells are left blank.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|-----------|:-------:|:-------:|:-------:|

| 3840x2160 | High | 32 | | |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 56 | | |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 38 | 32 | 43 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 24 | | |

| 2560x1440 | High | 54 | | |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 95 | | |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 64 | 54 | 73 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 41 | |