Rust

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 compare to its closest CPU rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 posts an average benchmark score of 46062. This places it within 0.2% of the AMD EPYC 4364P (45970) and AMD EPYC 7303 (45960), 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030), and 0.1% behind the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46098). The data shows a tightly clustered group where no meaningful performance gap exists.

Q: What is the GPU's standing relative to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014, which is 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16129). It sits 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15862) and AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15852), and 2.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15679). The RX 9060 occupies the 59th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: What is the best measured average frame rate for this combo in Rust, and at which settings?

A: The highest measured average is 151 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At the same resolution, Medium produces 102 FPS, High produces 86 FPS, and Ultra produces 65 FPS. This shows a clear scaling pattern where lower settings unlock higher frame rates at 1080p.

Q: How does the combo rank overall in the Rust benchmark database?

A: This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and AMD Radeon RX 9060 ranks 1665 out of 2953 tested combos in Rust. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the database, indicating that while it can play the game, many other combinations deliver higher performance.

Q: What are the core and clock specifications of the CPU in this test?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 features 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. It has a 65 W TDP and uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process from TSMC.

Q: What are the memory specifications of the GPU in this test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. Its base clock is 1700 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz and boost clock of 2990 MHz.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 drives this combo with 14 cores and 14 threads, operating at a base clock of 3.40 GHz and reaching 5.00 GHz under boost. This configuration is notable for having equal core and thread counts, meaning no hyper-threading is employed. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide substantial on-die storage for game data, which is relevant for Rust's complex world simulation and entity tracking.

Benchmark data places this CPU in the 89th percentile among all processors, with an average score of 46062. The nearest rivals show a remarkably tight spread: the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 scores 46030 (0.1% behind), the Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098 (0.1% ahead), and both AMD EPYC parts score within 0.2%. This suggests that in CPU-bound scenarios, the Ultra 5 235 performs equivalently to a range of high-end mobile and server processors.

In Rust specifically, the CPU's role becomes apparent when examining frame rates across different resolutions. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 151 FPS, but this drops to 104 FPS at 2560x1440 and 62 FPS at 3840x2160 at the same settings. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings shows a 31% reduction, which is substantial and suggests the CPU is being pushed hard even at lower graphical loads. The single-thread score of 2085 in Cinebench R23 and 4516 in PassMark single-thread tests indicates strong per-core performance, which matters for Rust's main thread that handles game logic.

The 14 threads are all physical cores, which can be advantageous in Rust's multi-threaded rendering and physics tasks. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system is likely CPU-limited, as the GPU has headroom to render more frames than the CPU can feed. This is evidenced by the fact that increasing resolution to 1440p at Low settings only reduces FPS to 104, a smaller proportional drop than the pixel count increase would suggest — the CPU is the constraining factor.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1700 MHz, a game clock of 2400 MHz, and a boost clock of 2990 MHz. With 1792 shading units and 64 ROPs, this is a mid-range part that ranks in the 59th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 16014.

The nearest GPU rivals show the RX 9060's position clearly. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti by 0.7% (16129 vs 16014), while leading the AMD Radeon R9 370X by 1% (15862) and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 by 1% (15852). The 2.1% lead over the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15679) is the largest margin in this group. These small deltas indicate that the RX 9060 performs in a tight competitive band.

In Rust, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM capacity becomes a critical factor at higher resolutions. The measured data shows that at 3840x2160, the combo achieves 62 FPS on Low settings but only 35 FPS on High and 27 FPS on Ultra. This steep decline suggests that VRAM capacity or memory bandwidth is being saturated at 4K with higher quality settings. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is modest for 4K workloads, and the 128-bit bus limits how quickly data can be fed to the GPU cores.

At 1920x1080, the GPU performs more comfortably. The jump from Low (151 FPS) to Medium (102 FPS) represents a 32% drop, while High (86 FPS) and Ultra (65 FPS) continue the downward trend. The GPU's pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 334.9 GTexel/s provide the raw throughput needed for 1080p gaming, but these figures become insufficient for maintaining high frame rates at 4K Ultra settings.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and AMD Radeon RX 9060 ranks 1665 out of 2953 tested combos in Rust. This position places it in the 56th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning roughly 44% of combos perform worse and 56% perform better. The ranking reflects the mid-range nature of both components.

The CPU's 89th percentile standing among all processors is significantly higher than the GPU's 59th percentile, indicating an imbalance where the CPU has more headroom than the GPU can utilize in most scenarios. This is particularly evident in Rust, where the game's optimization can be demanding on both components.

The combo rank of 1665 suggests that while this system is capable of running Rust, it does not excel in the overall database. The data shows that at 1080p, the system can achieve playable frame rates across all settings, with Low hitting 151 FPS and Ultra at 65 FPS. However, at 4K, only Low settings (62 FPS) remain above the 60 FPS threshold, with Medium dropping to 41 FPS and Ultra falling to 27 FPS.

This ranking is consistent with the GPU's position relative to its rivals. The RX 9060 sits just below the RTX 3060 Ti in synthetic benchmarks, and the measured FPS data in Rust reflects a similar competitive position. The CPU's strong performance does not compensate for the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions, which is why the combo lands in the lower-middle portion of the database.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce 151 FPS average, which is the highest measured value across all configurations. Medium settings yield 102 FPS with a minimum of 86 FPS and maximum of 117 FPS. High settings achieve 86 FPS, and Ultra drops to 65 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 57% reduction in frame rate, indicating that GPU load increases substantially with each quality tier.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decrease noticeably. Low settings still deliver a respectable 104 FPS, but this is 31% lower than at 1080p. Medium settings produce 70 FPS (with a range of 59 to 80 FPS), High achieves 59 FPS, and Ultra falls to 45 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 57%, consistent with the 1080p scaling pattern.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain high frame rates. Low settings produce 62 FPS, which is barely above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings drop to 41 FPS (with a minimum of 35 FPS and maximum of 47 FPS), High falls to 35 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 27 FPS. The 4K results show a 56% reduction from Low to Ultra, but the absolute values are much lower across the board.

The data reveals that the step from Medium to High at 4K costs only 6 FPS (41 to 35), while the step from High to Ultra costs 8 FPS (35 to 27). This suggests that the GPU is running out of resources at 4K, and additional quality settings have diminishing returns in terms of visual fidelity versus frame rate cost.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, all settings are playable, with Low at 151 FPS, Medium at 102 FPS, High at 86 FPS, and Ultra at 65 FPS. For competitive play or high-refresh monitors, Low or Medium are the best choices, as they provide frame rates well above 100 FPS. For a balance of visual quality and performance, High at 86 FPS is a solid choice, while Ultra remains viable at 65 FPS for those prioritizing visuals.

At 2560x1440, the options narrow. Low settings at 104 FPS are the only configuration above 100 FPS, making them ideal for fast-paced gameplay. Medium at 70 FPS provides a good balance, while High at 59 FPS dips just below the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra at 45 FPS is playable but may feel less smooth, especially in combat situations where frame timing matters.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings at 62 FPS clear the 60 FPS bar. Medium at 41 FPS and High at 35 FPS are playable for slower-paced exploration but will struggle in intense firefights. Ultra at 27 FPS is the only configuration that falls below 30 FPS, making it the least desirable option for any serious gameplay.

The measured data suggests that Medium settings provide the best overall experience across all resolutions. At 1080p, Medium delivers 102 FPS with a minimum of 86 FPS, ensuring consistent performance. At 1440p, Medium offers 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS, which is acceptable for most players. At 4K, Medium at 41 FPS is the highest quality setting that remains playable, though it requires a compromise on resolution or accepting lower frame rates.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data shows clear scaling patterns as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 151 FPS at 1080p to 104 FPS at 1440p (a 31% reduction) and then to 62 FPS at 4K (a 59% reduction from 1080p). This scaling is not linear with pixel count, indicating that the CPU begins to bottleneck at lower resolutions while the GPU takes over as the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

At Medium settings, the progression is from 102 FPS at 1080p to 70 FPS at 1440p (a 31% drop) and then to 41 FPS at 4K (a 60% drop from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and Medium settings suggests that the limiting component shifts predictably with resolution.

High settings show a similar pattern: 86 FPS at 1080p, 59 FPS at 1440p (a 31% drop), and 35 FPS at 4K (a 59% drop from 1080p). Ultra settings follow the same trend: 65 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p (a 31% drop), and 27 FPS at 4K (a 58% drop from 1080p).

The uniform 31% reduction from 1080p to 1440p across all settings strongly suggests that the CPU is the primary limiting factor at 1080p. When the resolution increases, the GPU becomes more heavily utilized, and the frame rate drops proportionally. The 58-60% reduction from 1080p to 4K indicates that the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient to maintain high frame rates at 4K, regardless of quality settings.

This analysis points to a system where the CPU has more headroom than the GPU can exploit. At 1080p, the CPU can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them, but at 4K, the GPU's memory bandwidth and capacity become the bottleneck, capping performance well below what the CPU could support.