60/100+ FPS machine for Rust? What system specs?

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Hi. A guy on a forum want a machine to play Rust, first he asked for 100+ FPS but since the recommended system requirements says GTX 980 (really? Because of the old engine? Long view distance?) and I've read before how it supposedly had gotten slower and slower with more add-ons and someone talking about 30 FPS (and his i7 laptop ran it at 15-20) what system is needed for good performance?

I would had imagined that possibly the processorer needed to be more powerful but the system requirements wasn't very helpful there, it's not demanding for processor but only graphics card?

What limits performance, how far can you go in making it perform better (by throwing better hardware at it) and what is needed for a 60+ FPS experience?

[Zombiewarpig]

Well for one what ever the machine it needs to be balanced. You can't just throw a GTX 970 on an old AMD athlon. If you want the best bang for your buck performance wise then I would recommend a intel i5 with a gtx 970.. I am running a LG 34 ultra wide at 3440 x 1440 on a single gtx 980ti at 70 - 90fps. Rust is on the newest Unity engine as well and the game looks amazing to me.

[Maxpeinas]

i7-6700k, GTX 980Ti, 16GB ram runs on 70-100fps everything maxed out on 2k monitor.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by Zombiewarpig:

Well for one what ever the machine it needs to be balanced. You can't just throw a GTX 970 on an old AMD athlon. If you want the best bang for your buck performance wise then I would recommend a intel i5 with a gtx 970.. I am running a LG 34 ultra wide at 3440 x 1440 on a single gtx 980ti at 70 - 90fps. Rust is on the newest Unity engine as well and the game looks amazing to me.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be "balanced" in some magical generic / generational way.

The game could be super-heavy on graphics or generic computing-power. That's why I ask.
I know what people usually would consider somewhat balanced builds but I ask what will help the gun run at 60+ FPS in Rust not something generic.

Rise of the triad for instance will run like crap on more or less any AMD gear. You don't need all that powerful graphics card for it though. So that game isn't in line with whatever you consider balanced.

Ok, on YouTube videos I've seen how people have some pixelized flickering shading.

If anyone don't necessarily know but want to tell it would be appreciated if they could run MSI Afterburner while playing at some setting and then report back with what settings and hardware they have and what load they had on average and peak on both processor cores and the graphics card.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by Maxpeinas:

i7-6700k, GTX 980Ti, 16GB ram runs on 70-100fps everything maxed out on 2k monitor.

With 2k you mean Full-HD?

It is heavy on the graphics card then?

GTX 970 would do ~(50-)60 FPS?

[Zombiewarpig]

Originally posted by Etnopluralism:

Originally posted by Zombiewarpig:

Well for one what ever the machine it needs to be balanced. You can't just throw a GTX 970 on an old AMD athlon. If you want the best bang for your buck performance wise then I would recommend a intel i5 with a gtx 970.. I am running a LG 34 ultra wide at 3440 x 1440 on a single gtx 980ti at 70 - 90fps. Rust is on the newest Unity engine as well and the game looks amazing to me.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be "balanced" in some magical generic / generational way.

The game could be super-heavy on graphics or generic computing-power. That's why I ask.
I know what people usually would consider somewhat balanced builds but I ask what will help the gun run at 60+ FPS in Rust not something generic.

Rise of the triad for instance will run like crap on more or less any AMD gear. You don't need all that powerful graphics card for it though. So that game isn't in line with whatever you consider balanced.

Ok, on YouTube videos I've seen how people have some pixelized flickering shading.

If anyone don't necessarily know but want to tell it would be appreciated if they could run MSI Afterburner while playing at some setting and then report back with what settings and hardware they have and what load they had on average and peak on both processor cores and the graphics card.

I think you are missing the point. Even if it is heavy on the gpu what do you think processes all of that? This is where the term bottlenecking comes into play. now days cpu's aren't all about speed but also instructions on the die. With newer game engines these instructions become vital and having a ♥♥♥♥ cpu with a good gpu would be a waste. Running my 3k screen pushes my card to the max and if you had a gtx 970 on a 1920 x 1080 screen with all the settings up and at 60fps you would too. The crappier you cpu is the more it has to work and the greater negative effect on the gpu it will be. Balance is key and I have built over a 100 gaming rigs.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by Zombiewarpig:

I think you are missing the point. Even if it is heavy on the gpu what do you think processes all of that?

What is that even supposed to mean? If it's heavy on the GPU then of course the GPU process that .. (I assume you mean draw-instructions but the answer is just useless anyhow.)

Originally posted by Zombiewarpig:

This is where the term bottlenecking comes into play.

Afterburner would tell what bottlenecked and what I'm asking is if the main-stream up to quad-core main-stream CPUs always sets a limit or say a GTX 980 but on such a build or whatever. If the game really was so balanced as you state then most people don't have GTX 980s and if that's what is recommended then recommendedf would kinda be i7 6700K or better and I don't know what performance one could had expected from that.

Originally posted by Zombiewarpig:

now days cpu's aren't all about speed but also instructions on the die.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Zombiewarpig:

With newer game engines these instructions become vital and having a ♥♥♥♥ cpu with a good gpu would be a waste.

There's a reason I ask... So far you've given a build suggestion for a resonable "gamer" PC and the other guy has explained what performance he got with his setup (though I don't know what limits the performance.

Originally posted by Zombiewarpig:

and the greater negative effect on the gpu it will be.

Yet another thing which make no sense. What you mean is that things would had to be restrained and draw calls reduced to preserve processor power for other things (or draw calls for less graphical effects but more frames)? The CPU deals with more in the game than processing draw calls. Since I havent't played the game I don't know where the balance would be.

Originally posted by Zombiewarpig:

Balance is key

But that's no answer because the balance could be anything.

It could had been an Athlon X4 860K and a GTX 980Ti which was a balanced build for Rust.
Or it could had been an Xeon E5-2699 v3 with a GTX 750Ti.

Of course one could had assumed that it would had made sense for the developers to focus on restricting and making the game run good on whatever machines people actually had, then again if they wanted to add lots of complex environments or AI which used a lot of processing power and everything was allowed to look like crap that would be what it was.. And if it was all about showing all sorts of things shiny but not doing anything else then that would be something else.

[Maxpeinas]

Originally posted by Etnopluralism:

Originally posted by Maxpeinas:

i7-6700k, GTX 980Ti, 16GB ram runs on 70-100fps everything maxed out on 2k monitor.

With 2k you mean Full-HD?

It is heavy on the graphics card then?

GTX 970 would do ~(50-)60 FPS?

By 2k i mean 1440p. You should be fine on high/medium and 1080p i think, since i get low/mid 60-80fps on laptop gtx960m and 1080p.

[The Rock God]

I max out everything but shadows. 5960X, GTX 980s (Rust doesn't support SLI though). You can see Afterburner w/CPU info in some of my more recent screenshots.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=571438160

Also worth noting it's impossible to build a system that will always get 60+ fps, since it's heavily influenced by the number of objects near you in the game.

For example, this building (around 20k parts) used to drag me down to 10fps depending on which direction I was looking:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=438646885
And that was a while back when framerates were better than they are these days.

Sill, the game is better optimised than in Legacy:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=260280598
That's with a 3930K and GTX 680s. Less than 6 fps. In Legacy. People get all nostalgic and forget about how bad legacy really was/is with light sources.

[Moe]

my main rig is running a 4770k + R9 390 8gb keeps a steady 60fps quite easily (Vsyn on) my 2nd PC does just about the same i7 960 + GTX 970 (cough) 4gb. with Vsync off last i checked it was anywhere from 70-100+fps? on the R9 390.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by Maxpeinas:

Originally posted by Etnopluralism:

With 2k you mean Full-HD?

It is heavy on the graphics card then?

GTX 970 would do ~(50-)60 FPS?

By 2k i mean 1440p. You should be fine on high/medium and 1080p i think, since i get low/mid 60-80fps on laptop gtx960m and 1080p.

2560x1440 = WQHD

Twice that of 1280x720 (HD), it may be kinda confusing because half FHD 960x540 is called qHD whereas half 720p HD (640x360) is called nHD (never seen that one used though..), double 1920x1080 FHD is called UHD.

I don't know if there exist a definition for something such as 2K, in my view since 4K means the display has a horisontal resolution of ~4000 pixels it would had made sense for 2K to mean ~2000 pixels which would fit 1920x1080. But then 2K would just sound like a buzzword / unnecessary word / whatever.

For 2560x1440 I think 1440p is "better" but since there's no interlaced version of the resolution and there's also other aspect ratios like 21:9 3440x1440 I don't know whatever it's a good one, maybe 16:9 1440p and 21:9 1440p? Guess that work. With WQHD it's clear what it is though.

I don't know what the logic would be to call 2560x1440 for 2K, the horisontal resolution is 2.5K (average out to 3K? ..), I guess at best one could view 4K as four times the number of pixels of FHD and since WQHD is 1.78 times the amount of pixels of FHD round that off to 2K but that's not how it work. Also the term 5K is used for a horisontal resolution of 5K pixels (5120×2880) which is in line with how 4K is used and to call WQHD/2.5K for 2K just isn't in line with that, 2K should be 2048 or so pixels wide, not 2560, and in HD terms FHD.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by Moe:

my main rig is running a 4770k + R9 390 8gb keeps a steady 60fps quite easily (Vsyn on) my 2nd PC does just about the same i7 960 + GTX 970 (cough) 4gb. with Vsync off last i checked it was anywhere from 70-100+fps? on the R9 390.

Thank you. All the rest seem to have ~monster-rigs and yours "just" a "good/gamer one", anyway - seems like it need a good machine to perform well then even though in my view it doesn't look spectacular. A guy on a forum wanted a "cheap" machine to play Rust at 100+ FPS - guess he can forget that then.

Games which doesn't followed the "balanced" formula of say an i3 + GTX 750Ti/950/960 + 8 GB of RAM, i5 + GTX 960/970/980 + 8 GB of RAM or i7 + GTX 970/980/980Ti/SLI + 8/16 GB of RAM would had been say Rise of the Triad but especially something like CS:GO but for different reasons. ROTT because it run like crap on a weak CPU and CS:GO because people have huge demands of frame-rates and for most people the processor seem to be the limiting factor, of course more frames demand more from the GPU there too but not necessarily enough on said "balanced" build.

[Rolandas Paksas]

I use gtx770 (2gb vram), i7-4770k, 16gb of ram and I get 40-60 (usually about 57) fps. Resolution is 1920x1080

[Moe]

here is what to expect from an i5 + 390 8gb card on GTA5. Smoooooooth!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVYWVjqQomA

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by Moe:

here is what to expect from an i5 + 390 8gb card on GTA5. Smoooooooth!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVYWVjqQomA

In case you wonder GTA V isn't Rust.

[洛斯奇叶子]

goodd