Rust

Resolution Scaling

Rust's frame rate scaling across resolutions tells a clear story about where this system's bottleneck sits. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at High settings drops the average from 91 FPS to 63 FPS, a 30.8% reduction. Pushing further to 3840x2160 at High settings yields just 37 FPS, which represents a 59.3% decline from the 1080p result. This steep, nearly linear drop as pixel count increases is the signature of a GPU-limited workload at higher resolutions.

The Low settings row amplifies this trend. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 161 FPS. At 1440p Low, that falls to 111 FPS, a 31.1% reduction that closely mirrors the High settings scaling. At 4K Low, the average sits at 65 FPS, down 59.6% from 1080p Low. The consistency of these percentage drops—roughly 30% for each step up in resolution—indicates that the rendering pipeline is scaling predictably with pixel throughput, with no sudden cliff or plateau that would suggest a CPU-side bottleneck emerging at lower resolutions.

What the data does not show is a dramatic compression of frame rates at 1080p that would indicate the CPU holding back the GPU. If the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX were the limiting factor, we would expect the gap between 1080p and 1440p to shrink as the GPU becomes more loaded. Instead, the scaling remains uniform, suggesting that even at 1080p, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile is doing most of the heavy lifting.

The Medium settings row provides the only min/max data in the entire measured set, offering a glimpse into frame time consistency. At 4K Medium, the average is 44 FPS with a minimum of 37 and maximum of 50. At 1440p Medium, the average is 74 FPS with a range of 63 to 85. At 1080p Medium, the average is 108 FPS with a range of 92 to 124. In each case, the minimum is roughly 15% below the average, and the maximum is roughly 15% above, indicating reasonably stable frame pacing without major stuttering.

The Ultra settings row shows the most severe scaling. At 4K Ultra, the average collapses to 28 FPS, which is 59.4% lower than the 69 FPS at 1080p Ultra. The gap between Medium and Ultra grows as resolution increases: at 1080p, Ultra is 36.1% slower than Medium; at 1440p, that gap widens to 35.1%; at 4K, it reaches 36.4%. This consistent penalty suggests the Ultra preset adds a uniform load that scales with pixel count rather than introducing a new bottleneck.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with a 5 nm process node from TSMC. Its 8 GB of GDDR7 memory runs at 1500 MHz with a 24 Gbps effective rate, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth across a 128-bit bus. The GPU's 4608 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units are clocked at a base of 907 MHz and a boost of 1425 MHz. This configuration produces a pixel rate of 68.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 205.2 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance rated at 13.13 TFLOPS.

In Rust, the GPU's memory subsystem appears to be a relevant factor at 4K. The step from 1440p to 4K at High settings costs 26 FPS, dropping from 63 to 37. That 4K High result, at 37 FPS average, is below the 60 FPS threshold that most players would consider smooth, and it suggests that the 8 GB frame buffer is being stressed by the combination of high resolution and High preset assets. The 128-bit memory bus, while adequate at 1080p and 1440p, may struggle to feed the render output units at 4K with higher-quality textures.

The benchmark data for the GPU shows a PassMark G3D score of 20355, placing it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in aggregate performance are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti, which scores 29945 (a 0.1% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti at 29783 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6800 at 30095 (0.6% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 at 30433 (1.7% lower). These margins are all within 2%, meaning the RTX 5070 Mobile sits in a tightly contested performance tier. In Rust specifically, the measured frame rates at 1080p and 1440p are competitive with what this tier would suggest, but the 4K results lag behind what the aggregate score might predict, hinting that memory bandwidth or capacity is the limiting factor at that resolution.

The GPU's 36 ray tracing cores and 144 tensor cores are present, but Rust does not heavily utilize either feature set in its standard rendering path. The DirectX 12 benchmark score of 93 and Vulkan score of 116960 from Geekbench indicate that the GPU handles modern APIs competently, but the game's actual workload appears to be more traditional rasterization, which explains why the texture rate and pixel rate figures are more relevant to the observed performance than the compute-oriented specifications.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the benchmark database's tested combinations, this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile ranks 2061 out of 3723 total combos in Rust. That places it in the 44.6th percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly 55% of combinations deliver higher average frame rates in this game. This is a modest ranking that reflects the GPU's mid-tier positioning more than the CPU's strengths.

The CPU itself is far more impressive in aggregate benchmarks. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 67469 on average, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w5-3525 at 67673 (0.3% higher), the AMD EPYC 4484PX at 67822 (0.5% higher), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX at 67868 (0.6% higher), and the Intel Xeon 6515P at 67006 (0.7% lower). All of these are within 1% of each other, placing the Ultra 9 275HX in a performance class typically occupied by workstation and server processors. Yet in Rust, this CPU advantage does not translate into a top-tier combo ranking, which confirms that the game is not primarily CPU-bound for this configuration.

The GPU's 75th percentile ranking among all GPUs, combined with the CPU's 94th percentile ranking, would suggest a well-balanced system. However, the combo rank of 2061 out of 3723 indicates that Rust's specific demands do not reward this pairing as much as synthetic benchmarks might suggest. The gap between the component-level percentiles and the game-specific combo percentile highlights Rust's sensitivity to GPU raw throughput and memory bandwidth rather than CPU compute.

The measured data being marked as "true" means these are actual tested results rather than estimates, giving the 2061 rank additional credibility. Systems ranked above this combo likely feature higher-tier GPUs with more memory bandwidth or larger frame buffers, as the CPU side is unlikely to be the differentiator given its strong showing in Cinebench R23 multicore (35589) and Geekbench multicore (20795) scores.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance across all three resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the combo produces 108 FPS average, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold and leaves headroom for dips during busy scenes. The min FPS of 92 at this setting remains comfortably playable. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 74 FPS with a min of 63, still maintaining a smooth experience for most players. Even at 4K Medium, the 44 FPS average with a 37 FPS minimum is borderline playable, though players seeking consistent 60 FPS will need to drop to Low at that resolution.

The Low preset is the fallback for 4K, delivering 65 FPS average, which is 47.7% higher than Medium at the same resolution. The jump from Low to Medium at 4K costs 21 FPS (from 65 to 44), which is a significant penalty for the visual improvements Medium provides. At 1440p, the Low-to-Medium gap is 37 FPS (from 111 to 74), and at 1080p it is 53 FPS (from 161 to 108). This pattern shows that the Medium preset's additional effects and texture detail become progressively more expensive as resolution increases.

The High preset offers no advantage over Medium in terms of frame rate stability, and in fact sits closer to Medium than to Ultra in performance. At 1080p, High averages 91 FPS versus Medium's 108, a 15.7% penalty. At 1440p, High averages 63 FPS versus Medium's 74, a 14.9% penalty. At 4K, High averages 37 FPS versus Medium's 44, a 15.9% penalty. The consistent ~15% cost for High over Medium is not justified if frame rate is the priority, as the visual difference between Medium and High is typically less impactful than the difference between Low and Medium in Rust.

The Ultra preset is the least recommended option. At 1080p, it produces 69 FPS, which is playable but 36.1% below Medium. At 1440p, Ultra drops to 48 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. At 4K, Ultra produces 28 FPS, which is effectively unplayable for most users. The Ultra preset appears to enable effects that are disproportionately expensive at higher resolutions, making it a poor choice for this GPU in Rust.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range was tested. Low settings produce an average of 161 FPS. Medium settings yield 108 FPS average, with a minimum of 92 and maximum of 124. High settings average 91 FPS. Ultra settings average 69 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 92 FPS, with each settings tier costing roughly 20-25% of the previous tier's performance.

At 2560x1440, the results show a similar pattern with lower absolute numbers. Low settings average 111 FPS. Medium settings average 74 FPS, with a minimum of 63 and maximum of 85. High settings average 63 FPS. Ultra settings average 48 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 63 FPS, with the percentage gaps between tiers remaining consistent with the 1080p results.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly. Low settings average 65 FPS. Medium settings average 44 FPS, with a minimum of 37 and maximum of 50. High settings average 37 FPS. Ultra settings average 28 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 37 FPS, and the minimum FPS at Medium (37) equals the average FPS at High (37), indicating that the Medium preset provides more consistent performance than High at this resolution.

The only min/max data available is for Medium settings across all three resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the 92-124 range represents a 34.8% span from minimum to maximum. At 1440p Medium, the 63-85 range represents a 34.9% span. At 4K Medium, the 37-50 range represents a 35.1% span. This consistency suggests that the Medium preset's frame time distribution is uniform regardless of resolution, which is a sign of stable GPU utilization.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture, built on a 3 nm process node by TSMC. It has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, with a 36 MB shared L3 cache and 3 MB L2 cache per core. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and features 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Its integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU provides a fallback display output, though the discrete RTX 5070 Mobile handles the gaming workload.

In Rust, the CPU's influence on frame rates is most apparent at lower resolutions and settings where the GPU has spare capacity. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 161 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire measured set. This suggests that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with enough draw calls to sustain high frame rates when rendering load is light. However, the fact that 1080p Low does not exceed 161 FPS—rather than reaching 200 FPS or higher—indicates that Rust's single-threaded game logic or server communication may impose a ceiling that this CPU, despite its strong multicore scores, cannot surpass.

The CPU's benchmark results show excellent multicore performance: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 35589, Cinebench R20 multicore scores 19899, and Cinebench R15 multicore scores 5619.5. Geekbench multicore scores 20795, and PassMark multithread scores 55759. Single-thread performance is also strong, with Cinebench R23 singlecore at 2204, Cinebench R20 singlecore at 2809, Cinebench R15 singlecore at 334, and Geekbench singlecore at 2458. PassMark single-thread scores 4713. These numbers place the CPU in the 94th percentile overall, and its nearest rivals are all within 1% in aggregate score, yet Rust's performance does not scale to match this CPU strength.

The 24-core, 24-thread configuration is notable because Rust does not efficiently utilize all cores. The game's primary simulation thread typically runs on one or two cores, meaning the CPU's massive multicore capability is largely idle during gameplay. The boost clock of 5.40 GHz is more relevant than the core count, as higher single-thread frequency directly impacts the game's main thread. The L3 cache of 36 MB is abundant for Rust's working set, which likely helps maintain consistent frame times in complex scenes with many entities.

The CPU's 55 W TDP, while low for a 24-core part, is sufficient for the mobile form factor, and the 3 nm process node keeps power efficiency high. The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is shared with the GPU's 384.0 GB/s, but Rust's memory access patterns do not appear to be bandwidth-limited based on the scaling data. Ultimately, the CPU is not the bottleneck at 1440p or 4K, where the GPU's pixel throughput limits performance, but at 1080p Low, the CPU's single-thread performance becomes the determining factor for the 161 FPS ceiling.