Rust

Rust with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER delivers a dataset that clearly illustrates the scaling behavior of a high-end pairing across three resolutions and four quality presets. The measured FPS values show a consistent pattern: the CPU and GPU combination remains capable at every tested configuration, but the performance curve indicates where each component takes on the primary workload. The data points to a system that excels at high refresh rates on lower resolutions and maintains playable frame rates even at 4K with maximum settings.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 and then to 3840x2160 reveals a classic shift in bottleneck behavior. At 1080p with Low settings, the pair produces an average of 287.7 FPS, which is the highest measured figure in the entire dataset. This result strongly indicates that the processor and graphics card are both operating with significant headroom, and the frame rate is not being limited by either component in a restrictive manner. Moving to 1440p at the same Low preset, the average drops to 195.9 FPS, a reduction of roughly 32% from the 1080p figure. This substantial decline suggests the graphics card is beginning to take on more work, though the absolute numbers remain very high for competitive play.

At 4K with Low settings, the average FPS falls to 118.7, which is a further 39% decrease from the 1440p result. This pattern of diminishing returns as resolution increases is typical for a system where the GPU starts to become the limiting factor. However, the scaling across the Low preset is not uniform with the other settings. For the High preset, the frame rates are 161.5 FPS at 1080p, 114.3 FPS at 1440p, and 68.8 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops here are 29% and 40% respectively, showing a similar relative decline. The Ultra preset follows the same trajectory, with 125.2 FPS at 1080p, falling to 82.8 FPS at 1440p (a 34% drop), and then to 50.7 FPS at 4K (a 39% drop from 1440p).

The key observation from this scaling data is that the frame rate penalty for moving from 1080p to 1440p is consistently in the 29-34% range across all four presets, while the penalty for moving from 1440p to 4K is in the 39-40% range for low and high settings and 39% for ultra. This consistency implies that the rendering workload is scaling predictably with pixel count, and the system does not exhibit any unusual bottlenecks that would cause a disproportionate drop at a specific resolution. The fact that the 4K-to-1440p drop is slightly larger than the 1440p-to-1080p drop suggests the GPU is being pushed harder at the highest resolution, which is expected given the 16 GB GDDR6X memory and 736.3 GB/s bandwidth are being utilized more fully.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS achieved with this CPU and GPU combination?

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 287.7 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: How does the system perform at 4K with the highest quality settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset, the average FPS drops to 50.7, which is the lowest figure recorded in the dataset. This is still a playable frame rate for a survival game, but it represents a significant reduction from the 1080p Ultra result of 125.2 FPS.

Q: Is there a large performance gap between the Medium and High presets at 1440p?

A: Yes, the data shows a difference of 20.6 FPS between the two settings at 2560x1440. The Medium preset averages 134.9 FPS, while the High preset averages 114.3 FPS.

Q: Which resolution provides the best balance of high frame rate and visual quality based on the measured data?

A: The 2560x1440 resolution with High settings appears to be a sweet spot, producing an average of 114.3 FPS. This is a substantial frame rate that remains above the 100 FPS threshold while offering better visual fidelity than the Low or Medium presets.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to the Low preset in terms of frame rate at 1080p?

A: The difference is substantial. The Low preset produces 287.7 FPS, while the Ultra preset produces 125.2 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset imposes a 56% performance penalty relative to the lowest settings.

Q: Does the system maintain a consistent frame rate across all settings at a single resolution?

A: No, the variation is significant. At 1440p, the frame rates range from 195.9 FPS on Low to 82.8 FPS on Ultra, showing a spread of 113.1 FPS between the most and least demanding presets.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is the dominant component in this pairing for determining the upper limits of performance at higher resolutions. Its role becomes clearer when examining the frame rates relative to the graphics settings. The GPU features a base clock of 2295 MHz and a boost clock of 2550 MHz, with a memory clock of 1438 MHz running on 16 GB of GDDR6X memory across a 256-bit bus. This configuration provides a memory bandwidth of 736.3 GB/s, which is a critical factor for a game like Rust that relies on streaming large amounts of terrain and texture data.

The measured FPS data shows that the GPU is not the limiting factor at 1080p with lower settings. At 1080p Low, the average of 287.7 FPS is well above what most displays can show, indicating that the processor is capable of feeding the GPU enough data to maintain high output. However, as the resolution increases to 1440p and then 4K, the GPU's workload grows, and the frame rates drop accordingly. The 4K High result of 68.8 FPS and the 4K Ultra result of 50.7 FPS demonstrate that the RTX 4080 SUPER is being fully utilized at this resolution, with the pixel fill rate of 285.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 816.0 GTexel/s being pushed to their limits.

The GPU's 52.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance appears sufficient to handle the game's visual effects at 4K, but the frame rate scaling suggests that the memory bandwidth and shading units are the primary constraints at the highest settings. The data shows that the RTX 4080 SUPER is a capable card for Rust, but the performance envelope is clearly defined by the resolution and preset combinations. The 88th percentile ranking for this GPU among all tested GPUs indicates it is a high-performing part, and the benchmark results confirm it can deliver smooth gameplay in most scenarios, with the exception of the most demanding 4K Ultra configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER combination holds a rank of 51 out of 1717 tested combos in Rust. This places the pairing in the top 3% of all tested configurations, which is an excellent result for a system aiming at high-refresh-rate gaming. The rank is determined by the measured FPS across all tested resolutions and settings, and the data shows that this combo consistently outperforms the vast majority of other CPU-GPU pairings.

Looking at the processor's performance relative to its nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has an average benchmark score of 79102, which is 0.2% lower than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF and the Intel Core i9-14900KF, both of which score around 79240. The Intel Core i9-14900K scores 79824, which is 0.9% higher than the 265K, and the AMD EPYC 7413 scores 80041, which is 1.2% higher. These deltas are small, indicating that the 265K is essentially on par with the previous generation's top-end chips in synthetic benchmarks, though the gaming performance in Rust is what ultimately determines the combo rank.

On the GPU side, the RTX 4080 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 53610, which places it slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT by 0.2% and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M by 0.4%. It is 2.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7700S and 2.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti. These comparisons show that the RTX 4080 SUPER is a top-tier graphics card in terms of raw compute, and the measured FPS data in Rust confirms that this performance translates into strong frame rates. The combination of a top-3% CPU and a top-tier GPU results in a combo rank that reflects the synergy of these two components.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the system produces an average FPS of 287.7 on Low settings, 189.6 on Medium, 161.5 on High, and 125.2 on Ultra. This shows a clear progression where each step up in quality reduces the frame rate by a meaningful margin. The difference between Low and Medium at 1080p is 98.1 FPS, which is the largest gap between any two adjacent presets in the dataset. This indicates that the Medium preset introduces a substantial increase in rendering complexity compared to Low.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS figures are 195.9 on Low, 134.9 on Medium, 114.3 on High, and 82.8 on Ultra. The relative differences between presets are smaller than at 1080p, but the absolute frame rates remain high. The Medium to High transition at 1440p results in a 20.6 FPS drop, while the High to Ultra transition results in a 31.5 FPS drop. This pattern suggests that the Ultra preset is significantly more demanding than High, likely due to additional effects such as ambient occlusion and shadow quality.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS figures are 118.7 on Low, 79.5 on Medium, 68.8 on High, and 50.7 on Ultra. The 4K results show that the system is capable of maintaining playable frame rates even at Ultra, though it falls below the 60 FPS threshold. The Low preset at 4K produces a very acceptable 118.7 FPS, indicating that players who prioritize frame rate over visuals can achieve a smooth experience at the highest resolution. The data shows no min or max FPS values recorded, so only the average figures are available for analysis.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's display resolution and performance priorities. For 1080p displays, the High preset offers an excellent balance with an average of 161.5 FPS, which is well above the refresh rate of most standard monitors. The Ultra preset at 1080p produces 125.2 FPS, which is still very high and would be suitable for users with high-refresh-rate displays looking for maximum visual quality. The Low preset at 1080p is overkill for most scenarios, as the 287.7 FPS figure far exceeds what any consumer monitor can display, but it demonstrates the headroom available in less demanding scenes.

For 1440p displays, the High preset is the recommended choice, delivering 114.3 FPS. This provides a smooth experience on most 1440p monitors that have a 144Hz refresh rate. The Medium preset at 134.9 FPS is also a viable option for users who want a larger frame rate buffer, while the Ultra preset at 82.8 FPS is still playable and offers the best visual fidelity. The 4K resolution presents a more challenging scenario. The Medium preset at 79.5 FPS is the best option for maintaining a frame rate above 60 FPS, while the High preset at 68.8 FPS is a close second. The Ultra preset at 50.7 FPS is the only configuration that drops below 60 FPS, and it is only recommended for users who prioritize visuals over frame rate and have a VRR display to mitigate the lower frame rate.

The data suggests that the system is well-suited for high-refresh-rate gaming at 1080p and 1440p, and it remains capable at 4K with appropriate settings adjustments. Players should consider the High preset as the default choice for most scenarios, as it offers a consistent frame rate that is high enough for competitive play while providing a significant visual upgrade over Medium and Low.