Rust

Rust pairs the 24-core Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, a combination that ranks 2520th out of 2953 tested combos in this title. The benchmark data reveals a system dominated by its graphics card: the GTX 1660 SUPER, which sits at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, becomes the clear limiting factor as resolution climbs. The CPU, by contrast, ranks in the 96th percentile overall and delivers massive multi-threaded headroom that Rust simply does not tax. The measured FPS across resolutions and presets tells a consistent story of GPU-bound performance, where even the fastest desktop processor cannot compensate for the 6 GB GDDR6 memory and 5.027 TFLOPS of compute on offer.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across every preset, confirming that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the bottleneck in this pairing. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 106 FPS at 1920x1080 to 73 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 43 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 59 percent reduction from 1080p to 4K, a scaling pattern typical of a mid-range GPU being asked to drive four times the pixel count. The Medium preset shows a similar trajectory: 71 FPS at 1080p, 49 FPS at 1440p, and 29 FPS at 4K. The High preset drops from 60 FPS to 41 FPS to 24 FPS across the same resolution ladder.

What this scaling indicates is that the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is never the limiting component. The CPU’s 24 cores and 24 threads, with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, are far beyond what Rust requires at any of these settings. The evidence lies in the frame rate behavior: if the CPU were the constraint, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU workload stays constant. Instead, the FPS collapses with resolution, which is the signature of a GPU-bound system. The Ultra preset at 4K produces just 19 FPS, while the same preset at 1080p manages 46 FPS — a 27 FPS gap that has nothing to do with the processor.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution drops, which further isolates the GPU as the primary constraint. At 1080p, Low delivers 106 FPS versus Ultra’s 46 FPS, a 60 FPS spread. At 4K, the same spread narrows to 24 FPS (43 vs 19). This compression at higher resolutions is the classic behavior of a GPU that is already saturated at 4K regardless of settings, whereas at 1080p the settings dictate how much work the GPU must do per frame. The data shows that users targeting 4K will not recover meaningful performance by lowering settings — the jump from Ultra to Low at 3840x2160 only nets 24 FPS, still far below playable thresholds.

How This Combo Ranks

With a combo rank of 2520 out of 2953 tested combinations, this pairing sits in the bottom 15 percent of all CPU-GPU combos tested in Rust. That rank reflects the GPU’s modest standing far more than the CPU’s strength. The GTX 1660 SUPER’s average benchmark score of 12986 places it at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon RX 580 (score 12928, delta 0.4 percent) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (score 12940, delta 0.4 percent). The GPU is essentially tied with those parts, trailing the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 by 0.7 percent and leading the AMD Radeon 740M by 0.9 percent.

The CPU, meanwhile, is in a different league entirely. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus posts an average benchmark score of 84003, placing it at the 96th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (score 83807, delta 0.2 percent), the AMD EPYC 4584PX (score 83090, delta 1.1 percent), and the AMD EPYC 9135 (score 82980, delta 1.2 percent). The 290K Plus edges out the 285K by a razor-thin margin, but that competitive positioning is irrelevant in Rust, where the GPU governs the outcome.

The rank of 2520 is a direct consequence of the GPU bottleneck. In a game like Rust, which is known for its demanding rendering and large world persistence, a GPU at the 53rd percentile will always cap the experience. The CPU’s high percentile does not lift the combo rank because the frame rate is determined by the slower component. Benchmark results indicate that even pairing this CPU with a stronger GPU would move the combo rank dramatically, but as configured, the data places this system firmly in the lower tier of tested hardware.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows point to 1080p Low as the only preset that delivers a consistently high frame rate, with an average of 106 FPS. This is the sole configuration in the entire dataset that exceeds 100 FPS, making it the clear choice for competitive play or high-refresh-rate monitors. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 71 FPS with a minimum of 60 FPS, which is still playable but leaves less headroom. The 1080p High preset averages 60 FPS exactly, which is acceptable for a 60 Hz display but offers no margin for demanding scenes.

For 1440p users, the Low preset is the only option that stays above 60 FPS, averaging 73 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p drops to 49 FPS with a minimum of 42 FPS, which is borderline for smooth gameplay. The High preset at 1440p averages 41 FPS, and Ultra falls to 31 FPS. The data suggests that 1440p is only viable on Low settings, and even then, the 73 FPS average is modest by modern standards. At 4K, no preset achieves playable frame rates: Low averages 43 FPS, Medium 29 FPS, High 24 FPS, and Ultra 19 FPS.

The optimal experience per the measured rows is 1080p Low, which provides the highest average FPS and the best margin above the 60 FPS threshold. If visual fidelity is a priority, 1080p Medium at 71 FPS is a reasonable compromise, as it maintains a 60 FPS minimum in the recorded data. For users willing to tolerate lower frame rates, 1440p Low at 73 FPS is the only 1440p option that clears 60 FPS. The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution, as it never exceeds 46 FPS even at 1080p, and the 19 FPS average at 4K is effectively unplayable.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows a wide range of performance across presets. Low settings deliver an average of 106 FPS, the highest figure in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 71 FPS, with a minimum of 60 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS. High settings average 60 FPS, while Ultra drops to 46 FPS. The 1080p results demonstrate that the GTX 1660 SUPER has enough headroom at this resolution to benefit from lower settings, but the Ultra preset already shows the GPU struggling to keep up with the CPU’s potential.

At 2560x1440, the averages decline across the board. Low settings produce 73 FPS, which is the only 1440p configuration above 60 FPS. Medium settings average 49 FPS, with a minimum of 42 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS. High settings average 41 FPS, and Ultra falls to 31 FPS. The 1440p data shows that the GPU’s 192-bit memory bus and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient to maintain high frame rates at this resolution, even on Low settings.

At 3840x2160, the performance is uniformly poor. Low settings average 43 FPS, Medium averages 29 FPS with a minimum of 25 FPS and a maximum of 33 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 19 FPS. The 4K results are consistent with a GPU that is overwhelmed by pixel count, as the frame rates cluster in a narrow band regardless of settings. The data indicates that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combination, with even the lowest preset failing to reach 45 FPS.

GPU Role

The GTX 1660 SUPER is the decisive component in this pairing, and its specifications explain the measured performance. The GPU features 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock of 1785 MHz and base clock of 1530 MHz drive 1408 shading units, producing 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The 48 ROPs and 88 TMUs handle rasterization, with a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s. These figures place the GPU at the 53rd percentile overall, and its average benchmark score of 12986 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 580, which scores 12928.

In Rust, the GPU’s limitations are most apparent in the VRAM and bandwidth constraints. The 6 GB frame buffer is sufficient for 1080p but becomes a liability at higher resolutions, where texture data and geometry demand more memory. The 336.0 GB/s bandwidth is also modest, which explains why the frame rate drops so sharply from 1080p to 1440p. The benchmark results show that the GPU is the bottleneck at every resolution above 1080p, as the CPU’s performance headroom is never utilized.

The GPU’s Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process with 6,600 million transistors, offers DirectX 12 support and 1.4 Vulkan support, which are relevant for Rust’s rendering pipeline. However, the absence of tensor cores and RT cores means that any ray-traced or AI-enhanced features are not available, though Rust does not rely on those technologies. The GPU’s end-of-life production status and its predecessor/successor relationship to the GeForce 10 and GeForce 20 series further contextualize its mid-range positioning.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a formidable processor that is vastly underutilized in this configuration. With 24 cores and 24 threads, a base clock of 3.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, the CPU offers compute capabilities far beyond what Rust requires. Its 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 125 W TDP are indicative of a high-end desktop part. The CPU’s benchmark scores are exceptional: it posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303, along with a PassMark multi-thread score of 60860. Its average benchmark score of 84003 places it at the 96th percentile, with a 0.2 percent lead over the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K.

In Rust, the CPU’s role is to handle game logic, world simulation, and entity management, which are typically single-threaded or lightly threaded tasks. The 290K Plus’s high single-core performance, evidenced by its 4823 PassMark single-thread score, is more than adequate for these tasks. The measured FPS data confirms that the CPU is not the limiting factor: frame rates scale inversely with resolution, which is the opposite of what would happen if the CPU were the constraint. Even at 1080p Low, where the CPU would be most likely to bottleneck, the 106 FPS average suggests the GPU is still the primary limitation.

The CPU’s architecture, Arrow Lake Refresh on a 3 nm process, with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size, represents a modern high-end design. Its PCIe Gen 5 support with 20 CPU lanes and dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth provide ample platform bandwidth. However, these features have no measurable impact on Rust’s frame rates in this configuration, as the GPU’s 6 GB memory and 192-bit bus are the binding constraints. The data shows that this CPU would pair better with a more powerful GPU, but in this specific combination, its performance is effectively untapped.