Rust

This analysis examines the measured performance of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER in Rust, based exclusively on the provided benchmark data. The dataset includes average, minimum, and maximum frame rates across four settings presets at three resolutions, offering a clear picture of how this combination handles the survival title.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate data shows a steep decline as resolution increases, which is typical for a GPU-bound scenario at higher pixel counts. At the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 152 at 1920x1080 to 104 at 2560x1440, a reduction of 48 FPS, and then further to 62 at 3840x2160, another 42 FPS decline. This pattern indicates that the rendering load scales significantly with pixel count, and the RTX 2070 SUPER becomes the primary limiting factor as resolution rises.

The Medium preset tells a similar story with slightly lower absolute numbers: 102 FPS at 1080p, 70 FPS at 1440p, and 41 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 32 FPS, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 29 FPS, showing a fairly consistent scaling penalty per resolution step. At High settings, the averages are 86, 59, and 35 FPS respectively, with the 1440p to 4K transition costing 24 FPS. The Ultra preset yields the lowest figures: 65, 45, and 27 FPS across the three resolutions.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU still has headroom to feed the GPU, as the frame rates are high enough that the GPU is likely the bottleneck. However, the gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 87 FPS, which is substantial. At 4K, the differences between presets narrow in absolute terms: Low hits 62 FPS, Medium 41, High 35, and Ultra 27. The 35 FPS gap between Low and Ultra at 4K versus the 87 FPS gap at 1080p indicates that at higher resolutions, the GPU's raw throughput dominates performance, and settings tweaks have a smaller relative impact.

For competitive play, the 1080p Low preset at 152 FPS average provides the smoothest experience, while 1440p Low at 104 FPS is still viable. At 4K, only the Low preset approaches playable territory at 62 FPS, but the minimum frame rates are not recorded for that row, so consistency cannot be verified from the data. The overall trajectory confirms that this combo is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming, with 4K reserved for less demanding settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture with a TU104 chip, featuring 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. Its memory configuration consists of 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The base clock is 1605 MHz with a boost clock of 1770 MHz, and the card has a TDP of 215 W.

In Rust, the GPU's role becomes more pronounced as resolution increases, which aligns with the resolution scaling data. At 1080p, the GPU can push high frame rates, but the gap between Low (152 FPS) and Ultra (65 FPS) shows that the card's compute resources are heavily taxed by higher quality settings. The 4K Ultra result of 27 FPS average suggests the GPU is overwhelmed at that combination, likely due to the combination of pixel count and shading complexity.

The VRAM capacity of 8 GB is a consideration for Rust at high resolutions. The data does not include VRAM usage figures, but the frame rate collapse at 4K Ultra (27 FPS) relative to 4K Low (62 FPS) could be influenced by memory pressure, though this is speculative. The 448.0 GB/s bandwidth appears adequate for 1080p and 1440p, as evidenced by the playable frame rates, but at 4K the card's overall throughput becomes limiting.

The GPU's benchmark scores provide context. Its PassMark G3D score is 18169, and it ranks in the 65th percentile among all GPUs. Compared to its nearest rivals, it performs within a narrow band: it is 1% slower than the Quadro M4000M, 1.2% slower than the RTX 3070 Mobile, 1.3% slower than the Arc B570, and 1.5% slower than the Arc A750. These small deltas suggest that the RTX 2070 SUPER is positioned in a competitive mid-range tier, which matches its observed behavior in Rust where it delivers solid 1080p performance but struggles at 4K.

The FP32 compute rating of 9.062 TFLOPS and texture rate of 283.2 GTexel/s are relevant for Rust's rendering workload. The pixel rate of 113.3 GPixel/s helps explain why higher resolutions cause significant frame rate drops, as more pixels must be processed per frame. The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) ensures compatibility with modern rendering features, though the game's engine may not fully utilize all of them.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor from the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

In Rust, the CPU's role is most evident at lower resolutions where frame rates are higher. At 1080p Low, the average of 152 FPS indicates that the CPU can feed the GPU sufficiently, but the question is whether higher settings reveal a CPU bottleneck. The data shows that at 1080p, going from Low to Medium drops the average from 152 to 102 FPS, a 50 FPS reduction. This is a larger drop than the GPU alone would explain if the CPU were the limiting factor, suggesting that the GPU is still the primary bottleneck even at 1080p.

The CPU's multithreaded performance is strong, as shown by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and single-core score of 7303. Its PassMark multithread score is 60860, and it ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. Compared to its nearest rivals, it is 0.2% ahead of the Core Ultra 9 285K, 1.1% ahead of the EPYC 4584PX, and 1.2% ahead of the EPYC 9135, while being 1.3% behind the EPYC 7F72. This places it at the top of its peer group, which is consistent with its high single-thread performance.

The 24 cores and 24 threads are more than sufficient for Rust's typical usage, which is not known to be heavily multithreaded. The high boost clock of 5.80 GHz helps with the single-threaded aspects of the game's simulation and physics. However, the data does not indicate that the CPU is limiting performance at any resolution in this test setup, as the frame rates scale consistently with GPU load across settings.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 interface is adequate for feeding the GPU at 1080p, but the 8 GB GPU VRAM may be a more pressing constraint at higher resolutions. The CPU's integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU) are irrelevant for this discrete GPU configuration. Overall, the CPU provides ample headroom, and the benchmark results suggest that the RTX 2070 SUPER is the component that dictates frame rates in Rust.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain 60 FPS or higher?

A: At 1920x1080, all four settings presets exceed 60 FPS average, with Low at 152, Medium at 102, High at 86, and Ultra at 65 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low (104 FPS) and Medium (70 FPS) stay above 60 FPS, while High (59 FPS) and Ultra (45 FPS) fall below. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS; the best is Low at 62 FPS.

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

A: At 1080p, the drop from Low to Ultra is 87 FPS (152 to 65). At 1440p, the drop is 59 FPS (104 to 45). At 4K, the drop is 35 FPS (62 to 27). The relative penalty for Ultra shrinks as resolution increases, indicating GPU-bound behavior at higher pixel counts.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus a bottleneck in Rust?

A: The data does not indicate a CPU bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs with a PassMark multithread score of 60860. Frame rates scale consistently with GPU load across resolutions, suggesting the RTX 2070 SUPER is the limiting component, especially at 1440p and 4K.

Q: What is the minimum frame rate recorded at Medium settings?

A: The Medium preset has recorded minimum FPS values at all three resolutions: 87 FPS at 1080p, 60 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K. These minimums show that 1440p Medium maintains a 60 FPS floor, while 4K Medium dips below playable levels.

Q: How does this GPU compare to its nearest rivals in general benchmarks?

A: The RTX 2070 SUPER has a PassMark G3D score of 18169. It is 1% slower than the Quadro M4000M, 1.2% slower than the RTX 3070 Mobile, 1.3% slower than the Arc B570, and 1.5% slower than the Arc A750. These deltas are small, indicating similar overall performance.

Q: Can this combo achieve 144 FPS in Rust?

A: At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 152, which exceeds 144. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 102 FPS, so only the Low preset at 1080p achieves that threshold. No other resolution or settings combination reaches 144 FPS based on the measured data.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER ranks 1650 out of 2953 tested combos in Rust. This places it in the 44th percentile of all combinations, meaning it outperforms roughly 44% of tested systems but falls behind the majority. Given the CPU's high percentile ranking (96th among all CPUs) and the GPU's mid-range position (65th percentile among all GPUs), this ranking reflects the GPU's limiting role in this game.

The rank of 1650 indicates that while the CPU is top-tier, the GPU holds the combo back relative to systems with faster graphics cards. The RTX 2070 SUPER's position among its rivals (within 1.5% of four similar GPUs) suggests that swapping it for a slightly faster card would improve the ranking, but the data does not specify how many combos sit between 1650 and the top. The large number of combos (2953) means there is a wide distribution of performance, and this pairing sits slightly below the middle.

For context, the CPU alone is within 1.3% of its nearest rivals, so the processor is not the source of the mid-pack ranking. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 18169 and its 65th percentile rank point to it as the differentiator. In Rust, where frame rates at higher resolutions drop sharply, a stronger GPU would push this combo higher in the rankings. The measured FPS data supports this: at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 152 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it falls to 27 FPS, which is a significant spread that reflects the GPU's limitations.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1080p, the High preset at 86 FPS average offers a balanced experience, while the Medium preset at 102 FPS provides smoother gameplay with only a moderate visual compromise. The Ultra preset at 65 FPS is still above 60 FPS, so it is viable for players prioritizing visual quality over headroom.

For 1440p, the Medium preset at 70 FPS average is the best choice, as it maintains a comfortable frame rate above 60 FPS while offering better visuals than Low. The High preset at 59 FPS is close to 60 but not consistently above, so it may result in occasional dips. The Low preset at 104 FPS is the smoothest option for competitive play, though it sacrifices visual fidelity.

For 4K, the Low preset at 62 FPS average is the only setting that approaches playable levels, but it is borderline. The Medium preset at 41 FPS is too low for smooth gameplay, and High (35 FPS) and Ultra (27 FPS) are not recommended. Players targeting 4K should accept the Low preset or consider lowering the resolution to 1440p for a better experience.

The data shows that the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and frame rate across resolutions. At 1080p, it provides 102 FPS with minimums of 87 FPS, ensuring consistent performance. At 1440p, it delivers 70 FPS with a 60 FPS minimum, which is the minimum threshold for smooth play. At 4K, even Medium falls to 41 FPS, so the Low preset is the only reasonable option there.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are 152 for Low, 102 for Medium, 86 for High, and 65 for Ultra. The Medium preset also records a minimum FPS of 87 and a maximum of 117, providing a consistency range. The other presets at this resolution do not have recorded minimum or maximum values in the dataset.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset achieves 104 FPS average, Medium hits 70 FPS with a minimum of 60 and maximum of 81, High reaches 59 FPS, and Ultra drops to 45 FPS. The 1440p Medium minimum of 60 FPS is notable as it matches the refresh rate of many monitors, indicating stable performance.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 62 FPS, Medium averages 41 FPS with a minimum of 35 and maximum of 48, High averages 35 FPS, and Ultra averages 27 FPS. The 4K Medium range shows significant variance, from 35 to 48 FPS, which may result in noticeable frame pacing issues.

The full dataset shows a clear hierarchy: frame rates decrease as resolution increases, and decrease as settings quality increases. The Low preset always provides the highest FPS, followed by Medium, High, and Ultra. The gaps between presets are largest at 1080p and narrow at 4K, consistent with GPU-bound behavior at higher resolutions. The Medium preset is the only one with complete minimum and maximum data across all resolutions, allowing for a detailed consistency analysis: it ranges from 87 to 117 FPS at 1080p, 60 to 81 FPS at 1440p, and 35 to 48 FPS at 4K.