Rust

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the Intel Arc B370 in Rust represents a system at the very bottom of the performance spectrum for this title. With a combo rank of 2710 out of 2953 tested combinations, this pairing places itself in the 8th percentile of all tested hardware, meaning roughly 92% of other configurations deliver higher frame rates. The data shows a platform that is heavily constrained by the graphics solution, which sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. This analysis breaks down what the measured FPS numbers mean for actual gameplay, how the CPU’s specifications relate to the results, and what settings offer the most playable experience.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU features 24 MB of shared L3 cache, along with 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. Memory support includes dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The processor also includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units, though the measured FPS data uses the separate Intel Arc B370 GPU.

The CPU’s benchmark scores indicate solid mainstream performance. In Cinebench R23, it scores 14769 in multi-core and 2085 in single-core. PassMark results show a multi-thread score of 37816 and a single-thread score of 4516. The processor’s percentile vs all CPUs is 89, meaning it outperforms most desktop processors in synthetic workloads. The nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 with an average score of 46030 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i9-13900HX at 46098 (0.1% lower), and AMD EPYC parts at 45970 and 45960 (0.2% higher).

In Rust, the CPU’s role is significant because the game relies heavily on single-thread performance for physics, entity updates, and world simulation. The 5.00 GHz boost clock and the strong single-core Cinebench R23 score of 2085 suggest the CPU is not the primary bottleneck in this configuration. However, the measured FPS values tell a different story: at 1080p Low settings, the system reaches 69 FPS average, which is the highest result across all tested settings. This indicates that even at low settings, the CPU can feed the GPU enough data to maintain playable frame rates, but the GPU’s limitations become apparent as resolution and settings increase.

The 14-core configuration with 14 threads (no hyperthreading) provides adequate parallel processing for Rust’s background tasks, such as terrain generation and server communication. The L3 cache size of 24 MB is sufficient for the game’s working set, and the DDR5 memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s ensures data can flow to the GPU without a memory-side bottleneck. The data suggests that the CPU is capable of supporting much higher frame rates than what the Arc B370 can deliver, as evidenced by the fact that the FPS drops steeply when settings are raised, rather than remaining flat due to a CPU limit.

The integrated graphics on the CPU are irrelevant for this benchmark since the discrete Arc B370 is active. The CPU’s 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide ample bandwidth for the GPU, though the Arc B370 uses system shared memory, which may introduce latency. Overall, the CPU’s specifications and benchmark scores place it well above the GPU in capability, meaning the measured FPS results reflect GPU-bound performance across all settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Rust?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 69, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration that breaks the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that playable performance requires significant compromises.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 compare to its nearest rivals in CPU benchmarks?

A: The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 235 is 46062. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 scores 46030 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098 (0.1% lower), and the AMD EPYC 4364P and EPYC 7303 score 45970 and 45960 respectively (both 0.2% lower). The differences are negligible, placing this CPU in a tight performance cluster.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B370 have any competitive GPU benchmarks?

A: The Arc B370’s only benchmark is 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 1184. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186 (0.2% higher), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192 (0.7% higher). The GPU sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce an average of 48 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 20 FPS. This represents a 28 FPS reduction (58% lower) when moving from the lowest to the highest preset, showing a severe performance penalty for visual fidelity.

Q: Is there a resolution where the system maintains 60 FPS?

A: The only measured configuration that reaches 60 FPS or higher is 1920x1080 with Low settings, averaging 69 FPS. At 1440p Low, the average drops to 48 FPS, and at 4K Low it falls to 28 FPS. No other settings at any resolution reach 60 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank compare to other tested systems?

A: This combo ranks 2710 out of 2953 tested combinations for Rust. This means it is in the bottom 8.2% of all tested combos, indicating that the vast majority of systems will deliver better performance in this game.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2710 out of 2953 tested combinations places this system in the 91.8th percentile of the worst-performing combos, meaning only 243 tested combinations perform worse. This is a profoundly low ranking for a game like Rust, which has moderate hardware requirements compared to modern titles. The ranking reflects not just the GPU’s limitations but also the specific pairing dynamics: a strong CPU (89th percentile) with a very weak GPU (5th percentile) creates a severe imbalance.

To contextualize the rank, consider that the GPU’s average benchmark score is 1184, which matches the performance of integrated graphics from over a decade ago. The nearest GPU rivals include the ATI Radeon HD 5770, a card from 2009, and the AMD FirePro M2000, a professional mobile GPU. This places the Arc B370 in a performance tier that is fundamentally inadequate for 3D gaming at modern resolutions. The CPU, by contrast, scores 46062 on average, placing it in the same league as the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Intel Core i9-13900HX, both of which are high-end laptop processors.

The rank of 2710 is not surprising given the measured FPS data. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 69 FPS, which is playable but far from smooth for a competitive survival game. At 1080p High, the average drops to 39 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target most players prefer. At 1440p and 4K, the system falls into unplayable territory for most presets, with 4K Ultra averaging just 12 FPS. The data indicates that this combo is only suitable for 1080p gaming at the lowest settings, and even then, the frame rate is not consistently high.

The rank also reflects the fact that Rust is a CPU-intensive game, but the GPU bottleneck dominates here. If the GPU were stronger, the CPU could likely push much higher FPS, given its strong single-thread performance. However, the Arc B370’s 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, along with its 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, are simply too limited for the game’s rendering demands. The 25 W TDP and IGP form factor further confirm that this is not a gaming-oriented discrete GPU but rather an integrated-class solution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), providing a total of 12 data points. All measurements are averages, with only the Medium preset reporting minimum and maximum FPS values.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows:

• Low: 69 FPS average
• Medium: 46 FPS average, with min 39 and max 53
• High: 39 FPS average
• Ultra: 30 FPS average

The 1080p results show a clear pattern: each step up in settings costs roughly 8-10 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is 23 FPS (69 to 46), which is the largest drop. From Medium to High, the drop is 7 FPS (46 to 39), and from High to Ultra, it is 9 FPS (39 to 30). The Medium preset’s min-max range of 39-53 FPS indicates significant frame time variance, which could cause noticeable stuttering in gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the results are:

• Low: 48 FPS average
• Medium: 32 FPS average, with min 27 and max 37
• High: 27 FPS average
• Ultra: 20 FPS average

The 1440p results show a similar pattern but with lower absolute values. The drop from Low to Medium is 16 FPS (48 to 32), from Medium to High is 5 FPS (32 to 27), and from High to Ultra is 7 FPS (27 to 20). The Medium preset’s min of 27 FPS and max of 37 FPS show a narrower range than at 1080p, but the average of 32 FPS is below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the results are:

• Low: 28 FPS average
• Medium: 19 FPS average, with min 16 and max 22
• High: 16 FPS average
• Ultra: 12 FPS average

The 4K results are uniformly poor, with even Low settings only achieving 28 FPS. The Medium preset’s min of 16 FPS and max of 22 FPS indicate that the frame rate is not only low but also inconsistent, which would result in a very choppy experience. The Ultra preset at 12 FPS is effectively a slideshow.

The data also shows that the Medium preset is the only one with recorded min/max values across all resolutions, which may indicate that this setting was tested with additional frame time logging. The min values are consistently about 15-17% below the average, while the max values are about 15-20% above the average, showing moderate frame time variance.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and reveals the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 69 at 1080p to 48 at 1440p (a 30% drop) and then to 28 at 4K (a 59% drop from 1440p and a 59% drop from 1080p). At High settings, the progression is 39 (1080p) to 27 (1440p) to 16 (4K), representing a 31% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 41% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Ultra settings, the values are 30 (1080p), 20 (1440p), and 12 (4K), with drops of 33% and 40% respectively.

This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound system. When the resolution increases, the number of pixels that need to be rendered grows exponentially, and the GPU’s fill rate and shading power become the limiting factor. The Arc B370’s pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are simply insufficient for 4K rendering, even at Low settings. The 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is about one-tenth of what a modern mid-range GPU offers, and the 20 ROPs are far too few for 4K output.

The data indicates that the CPU is not the bottleneck at any resolution. If the CPU were limiting, the FPS would remain relatively constant across resolutions, as the CPU workload (physics, AI, world updates) does not scale with resolution. Instead, the FPS drops by roughly 30% from 1080p to 1440p and another 40% from 1440p to 4K, which is consistent with a GPU that is overwhelmed by pixel count. The CPU’s strong single-thread performance (2085 in Cinebench R23) and its 89th percentile ranking support the conclusion that it has headroom that the GPU cannot exploit.

The fact that the FPS at 4K Low (28) is lower than the FPS at 1080p Ultra (30) further confirms the GPU bottleneck. Even at the lowest settings, the sheer number of pixels at 4K (8.3 million) overwhelms the GPU, while at 1080p (2.1 million pixels), the GPU can handle the workload with headroom. The system shared memory configuration of the Arc B370 may also contribute to the scaling issues, as memory bandwidth is system-dependent and likely not optimized for high-resolution rendering.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS data, the only viable settings for this combo are 1080p with Low presets. At 1920x1080 Low, the system averages 69 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS target for most players. The 1080p Medium preset averages 46 FPS, which is playable but may feel sluggish during busy moments, especially given the min of 39 FPS. The 1080p High preset at 39 FPS and Ultra at 30 FPS are below the playability threshold for a game like Rust, where quick reactions are often necessary.

At 1440p, the Low preset averages 48 FPS, which is acceptable for slower-paced gameplay but not ideal for combat. The Medium preset at 32 FPS and below is not recommended, as the frame rate dips into the 20s during stress. At 4K, no settings are playable; even Low averages only 28 FPS, and Ultra drops to 12 FPS. Players using this combo should avoid 4K entirely.

For the best experience, the data suggests using 1080p Low settings, which provides the highest average FPS and the most headroom for frame time spikes. If visual quality is a priority, 1080p Medium offers a 46 FPS average but requires accepting occasional drops to 39 FPS. The Medium preset at any resolution also provides min/max data, showing that the frame time variance is moderate (about 15% below and above the average), which may cause minor stutter.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution, as it provides the lowest FPS and the largest performance penalty without a correspondingly large visual benefit in Rust. The difference between High and Ultra is 9 FPS at 1080p (39 to 30) and 8 FPS at 1440p (27 to 20), which is not worth the additional load. Similarly, High settings are only marginally better than Medium, with a 7 FPS difference at 1080p (46 to 39) and 5 FPS at 1440p (32 to 27).

For players who prioritize frame rate over visuals, 1080p Low is the clear choice. For those who want a balance, 1080p Medium is the highest preset that maintains an average above 45 FPS. Any resolution above 1080p should be avoided, as the FPS drops below 50 even at Low settings. The data also suggests that the system’s performance is so constrained by the GPU that lowering resolution has a more significant impact than lowering settings, as evidenced by the fact that 1080p Ultra (30 FPS) outperforms 4K Low (28 FPS). Therefore, the recommendation is to prioritize resolution reduction over settings reduction if the player has a 1440p or 4K display.