Rust

Rust pairs the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H with the AMD Radeon 890M, a combination that lands near the bottom of the tested hierarchy. The data places this combo at rank 2783 out of 2953 tested configurations, putting it in the lower 6% of all results. This is not a setup built for high-refresh survival gameplay; the measurements show a system that struggles to maintain playable frame rates even at 1080p with reduced settings. The following analysis breaks down the measured FPS data, the roles of the CPU and GPU, and which settings offer the least compromised experience.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average FPS is 68, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration in the dataset that crosses the 60 FPS threshold.

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

A: It ranks 2783 out of 2953 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 5.8% of all configurations, indicating very poor performance relative to the broader test pool.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS drops from 68 on Low to 29 on Ultra. This represents a 57.4% reduction in average frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon 890M a discrete or integrated GPU?

A: The data classifies it as an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) with a 15 W TDP. Its memory is "System Shared," meaning it uses the system's main memory rather than dedicated VRAM.

Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 9 185H than its nearest CPU rival?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 35670, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350's score of 35719. The difference is negligible, effectively making them performance peers.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded in the measured data?

A: The lowest average is 12 FPS, recorded at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is the only configuration in the dataset that falls below 15 FPS on average.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is the primary bottleneck in this configuration. The GPU's benchmark profile shows a percentile rank of 45 among all tested GPUs, placing it in the lower half of the performance distribution. Its average benchmark score of 9210 is 0.1% below the AMD Radeon Vega 8, which is a direct competitor. The 890M's architecture is RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm process, with a boost clock of 2900 MHz and a base clock of 400 MHz. The GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its FP32 compute is listed at 5.939 TFLOPS.

The memory configuration is critical to understanding the performance. The 890M uses "System Shared" memory, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means performance will vary based on the system's RAM configuration. This is a significant constraint for Rust, a game that can be memory-intensive. The lack of dedicated video memory forces the GPU to compete with the CPU for system memory bandwidth, which likely contributes to the low frame rates observed in the data.

The GPU's clock behavior shows a wide range between base and boost (400 MHz to 2900 MHz). In practice, the sustained clock speed during gaming will depend on thermal and power limits, but the data shows that even with a high boost potential, the 890M cannot deliver playable performance at higher resolutions. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 12 on Ultra to 28 on Low. The drop from Low to Ultra at 4K represents a 57.1% reduction in performance, which is a clear sign that the GPU's compute and memory bandwidth are exhausted.

The 890M's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) is present, and it supports Vulkan 1.4, but these API features do not translate into usable performance in Rust. The PassMark G3D score of 8076 and DirectX 12 score of 37 further illustrate the GPU's limited capabilities. The data suggests that the 890M is only suitable for the lowest settings at 1080p, where it manages 68 FPS on Low. Every other preset at 1080p falls below 50 FPS, and all 1440p and 4K configurations fall below 50 FPS as well.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H is a high-end mobile processor that is far more capable than the GPU it is paired with. The CPU has 16 cores and 22 threads, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its architecture is Meteor Lake, built on a 7 nm process. The cache hierarchy includes 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU's percentile rank among all tested CPUs is 85, placing it in the top 15% of processors.

Benchmark results confirm the CPU's strength. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 17984.5, and the single-core score is 1810.5. Geekbench scores are 11657 multi-core and 1794 single-core. The PassMark multi-thread score is 29376, and the single-thread score is 3697. The CPU's average benchmark score is 35670, which is nearly identical to its nearest rivals. The closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 with a score of 35719 (0.1% higher), followed by the Intel Core 7 250H at 35728 (0.2% higher).

In Rust, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics, and the simulation of the persistent world. The Core Ultra 9 185H has ample processing power for these tasks. However, the measured FPS data shows that the CPU's capabilities are largely wasted because the GPU cannot keep up. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 68 FPS, which is the highest in the dataset. This suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU is able to feed frames to the GPU at a reasonable rate, but the GPU is still the limiting factor.

The CPU's 45 W TDP is typical for a mobile H-series processor, and its memory support is DDR5. The dual-channel memory bus provides a theoretical bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, which is shared with the GPU. This shared memory architecture is a double-edged sword: the CPU has fast memory access, but the GPU's performance is directly tied to the same memory subsystem. The data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck; even at 4K Ultra, where the average FPS is 12, the CPU is likely idle waiting for the GPU to complete rendering tasks.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2783 out of 2953 is a stark indicator of where this hardware stands. This places the configuration in the bottom 5.8% of all tested combos in Rust. To put this in perspective, the top 10% of combos would likely achieve frame rates several times higher than what this setup delivers. The rank is not a reflection of the CPU's quality, but rather the GPU's inability to handle the game's rendering demands.

The data shows a clear mismatch: the CPU ranks in the 85th percentile, while the GPU ranks in the 45th percentile. This imbalance means that the system's overall performance is dragged down by the integrated graphics. The combo rank suggests that most other tested configurations, even those with older or lower-end discrete GPUs, outperform this setup. The nearest GPU rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (0.1% higher score) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (0.7% higher score), both of which are older parts but still manage to outperform the 890M in synthetic benchmarks.

In practical terms, this rank means that users of this combo will be at a significant disadvantage in Rust. The game's large map and complex interactions require consistent frame delivery, which this hardware cannot provide. The rank also suggests that any upgrade to a discrete GPU, even a modest one, would move the combo up substantially in the rankings. The CPU has enough headroom to support a much faster GPU, but as configured, the system's potential is unrealized.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the combo scales across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 68. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 47, a 30.9% decrease. At 4K Low, the average is 28, a 58.8% decrease from 1080p. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario: as resolution increases, the GPU's workload grows, and frame rates drop accordingly.

The scaling is even more pronounced at higher settings. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 29 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 20 FPS (31.0% decrease), and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 12 FPS (58.6% decrease from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings indicates that the GPU is the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see smaller differences between 1080p and 1440p, as the CPU's workload does not scale linearly with resolution.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (68 FPS) and Ultra (29 FPS) is 39 FPS. At 4K, the difference is 16 FPS (28 vs 12). This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so overwhelmed that even lowering settings has a diminished return. The 4K Low result of 28 FPS is still below the 1080p Ultra result of 29 FPS, which illustrates how resolution has a greater impact on performance than settings at this level of GPU capability.

The minimum FPS data is only available for Medium settings. At 1080p Medium, the min FPS is 39, and at 1440p Medium, it is 27. At 4K Medium, the min FPS is 16. These minimums are well below the average, indicating frame time spikes that could cause stuttering. The gap between average and minimum is 7 FPS at 1080p, 4 FPS at 1440p, and 3 FPS at 4K. This suggests that the frame pacing is relatively consistent, but the overall performance is too low for a smooth experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the combo's performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings yield an average of 68 FPS, Medium yields 46 FPS (with a min of 39 and max of 52), High yields 38 FPS, and Ultra yields 29 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline, with each higher preset costing roughly 10-20% of the previous tier's performance.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 47 FPS, Medium at 31 FPS (min 27, max 36), High at 26 FPS, and Ultra at 20 FPS. The 1440p results show that even Low settings cannot maintain a 60 FPS average, and the Medium preset is the only one with a minimum above 25 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is most severe on Low settings (21 FPS lost), while the drop on Ultra is 9 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 28 FPS, Medium at 19 FPS (min 16, max 21), High at 16 FPS, and Ultra at 12 FPS. The 4K results are uniformly unplayable, with no configuration reaching even 30 FPS on average. The Medium preset at 4K has a minimum of 16 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth animation. The data shows that this combo is not viable for 4K gaming in Rust under any settings.

The settings progression at each resolution is consistent: Low is always the fastest, followed by Medium, High, and Ultra. The only configuration with min/max data is Medium, which shows that the variance is manageable but the absolute values are low. The max FPS at 1080p Medium is 52, which is still below the average of 68 on Low. This indicates that even the best-case frame delivery on Medium is worse than the average on Low.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable settings for a playable experience are at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This configuration achieves an average of 68 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold often considered acceptable for smooth gameplay. The Low preset at 1080p is the only tested configuration that does not fall below 60 FPS on average. All other settings at 1080p, including Medium (46 FPS), High (38 FPS), and Ultra (29 FPS), are below this threshold.

At 1440p, the data shows that no settings provide a consistently playable experience. The Low preset at 47 FPS is the best option, but it falls short of 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 31 FPS is borderline, but the minimum of 27 FPS could cause noticeable stuttering in busy scenes. For users who must play at 1440p, Low settings are the only reasonable choice, but the experience will be compromised.

At 4K, the data is clear: this combo is not suitable for gaming at this resolution. The highest average FPS is 28 on Low, which is well below playable thresholds. The Ultra preset at 12 FPS is effectively a slideshow. Users should avoid 4K entirely with this hardware.

The best experience per the measured rows is unequivocally 1080p Low. This is the only configuration that delivers a playable frame rate. The data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor, so reducing settings has a more significant impact than reducing resolution. For example, 1080p Low (68 FPS) is significantly better than 1440p Low (47 FPS) and 4K Low (28 FPS). The recommendation is to play at 1080p with Low settings and accept that higher presets will result in sub-60 FPS performance. The Medium preset at 1080p, while 46 FPS on average, may be acceptable for users who prefer visual quality over frame rate, but the Low preset is the only one that provides a smooth experience.