[SOLVED] Lower than expected FPS on Rust

[2000394888]

R9 3900X Water Cooled
32 GB DDR4 3200MHz RAM
Rust installed on SSD
3070 TI FE
I've upgraded my pc about 2 months ago from a 1050 TI, i5 4th gen and I have realised that my fps is very low considering the hardware I have, on rust lowest settings 1080 I get ~90 fps and on highest settings I get ~70 fps with usage below 50% on the GPU and 20% on the CPU with both temps on 70c. I have been told perhaps rust is just not optimised for the 30 series so is that the case or do I have another larger issue I have to worry about?

 

[alceryes]

Please run 3DMark Time Spy and Userbenchmark and post a link to the results.
What makes you think your FPS is 'very low'?

 

[2000394888]

I consider it very low as even though I do not know much about computers, assuming the 2080 TI is slightly worse than a 3070 TI then I can confirm on a 2080 TI rust runs at around 200 fps

I scored 14 063 in Time Spy

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 11}

www.3dmark.com

https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/48599439
These results weren't done in the best conditions but seeing my pc looks to be a bit above average id expect at least above 120 fps on 1080

 

[ecolcpu]

I pretty much only play Rust and I only do so casually. You can read through my post just a few lines down from this on (titled, "should I upgrade my rig or build a new one") but essentially my CPU (a 3770) was holding back my 1660ti. I'm running an 11400, 32gb ram, and 1660ti now (see post for additional specs) and I am getting 110-115 fps on low-medium pop with high graphic settings and this is at 1080p also. My GPU utilization never maxes out (although while in the game but in the option screen I will see 90-95% utilization). I will see the utilization fluctuate from 60-85% for the GPU while the CPU typically remains around 20% (the 3770 was running around 40-50% and holding the GPU back to a max of 50-60%).

I would definitely believe your 3070ti should be able to run high settings above the 115 fps my 1660ti can get. Your CPU is a great current generation processor and doesn't look to be bottlenecks the GPU by the utilization. What servers are you getting those FPS numbers from? I used a build server with the same load outs for a bit of consistency for testing. Keep in mind Rust is not optimized well from my research. Even guys with 11900k or 5900x CPUs could not max out utilization of mid range cards.

 

[2000394888]

I pretty much only play Rust and I only do so casually. You can read through my post just a few lines down from this on (titled, "should I upgrade my rig or build a new one") but essentially my CPU (a 3770) was holding back my 1660ti. I'm running an 11400, 32gb ram, and 1660ti now (see post for additional specs) and I am getting 110-115 fps on low-medium pop with high graphic settings and this is at 1080p also. My GPU utilization never maxes out (although while in the game but in the option screen I will see 90-95% utilization). I will see the utilization fluctuate from 60-85% for the GPU while the CPU typically remains around 20% (the 3770 was running around 40-50% and holding the GPU back to a max of 50-60%).

I would definitely believe your 3070ti should be able to run high settings above the 115 fps my 1660ti can get. Your CPU is a great current generation processor and doesn't look to be bottlenecks the GPU by the utilization. What servers are you getting those FPS numbers from? I used a build server with the same load outs for a bit of consistency for testing. Keep in mind Rust is not optimized well from my research. Even guys with 11900k or 5900x CPUs could not max out utilization of mid range cards.

My FPS is very consistent, however due to school I don't really play much so I've just been training my recoil. On recoil training servers you usually see a massive improvement of fps (I'd guess about double from a med pop server) however even on a aim training server I'm seeing maximum of 100 when all settings on lowest and in a very isolated area. when I did play however my fps would be very consistent and I got 70 on the settings I used to play in even when loading in massive clan bases.
I do have the feeling that rust is just extremely not optimised and if that is a case, do you expect facepunch will fix this or just leave me with my 70 fps?

 

[lordmogul]

20% load on a 24 thread CPU like the 3900X is about 5 threads under load (100%÷ 24× 5=20.38%) That doesn't mean task manager shows 5 fully loaded, as Windows will move the load around.
(if we assume some is background task, that would mean around 4 cores for the game, which also correlates pretty well with a 3770 at around 50% load)
Just because you have that many cores and threads doesn't mean software will use all of that.

My guess is not that it "isn't optimised for the 30 series" but that the game simply doesn't make use of more cores/threads on the CPU. Less, but faster cores would perform better in that case.

 

[alceryes]

I consider it very low as even though I do not know much about computers, assuming the 2080 TI is slightly worse than a 3070 TI then I can confirm on a 2080 TI rust runs at around 200 fps

I scored 14 063 in Time Spy

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 11}

www.3dmark.com

https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/48599439
These results weren't done in the best conditions but seeing my pc looks to be a bit above average id expect at least above 120 fps on 1080

How are you confirming that a 2080Ti runs Rust at 200fps?

This doesn't look bad, per se.
Maybe a little unoptimized but not even close to a 100fps difference.

 

[2000394888]

How are you confirming that a 2080Ti runs Rust at 200fps?

This doesn't look bad, per se.
Maybe a little unoptimized but not even close to a 100fps difference.

The friend I used to play with had an average of 200 fps, I no longer have contact with them so I cant say what settings but they were fairly high. If you look up some rust 2080 TI benchmarks you can see the rough performance

 

[2000394888]

20% load on a 24 thread CPU like the 3900X is about 5 threads under load (100%÷ 24× 5=20.38%) That doesn't mean task manager shows 5 fully loaded, as Windows will move the load around.
(if we assume some is background task, that would mean around 4 cores for the game, which also correlates pretty well with a 3770 at around 50% load)
Just because you have that many cores and threads doesn't mean software will use all of that.

My guess is not that it "isn't optimised for the 30 series" but that the game simply doesn't make use of more cores/threads on the CPU. Less, but faster cores would perform better in that case.

Looking at the thread usage on HWMonitor I can see that 8/24 threads have usage above 50% so that could be a reason why or a limitation of VRAM as on rust I'm using 6.9/8 GB VRAM but since its not something like 7.8/8 then I'm not too sure if that's the bottleneck

 

[alceryes]

The friend I used to play with had an average of 200 fps, I no longer have contact with them so I cant say what settings but they were fairly high. If you look up some rust 2080 TI benchmarks you can see the rough performance

There may be a Rust setting somewhere doing this. Is everything at low with all eye candy OFF?
Are you using vsync? Check GPU settings to see if you have an FPS limiter, Gsync, or any other setting that may keep your FPS low. What's the exact model number of your monitor?

 

[2000394888]

There may be a Rust setting somewhere doing this. Is everything at low with all eye candy OFF?
Are you using vsync? Check GPU settings to see if you have an FPS limiter, Gsync, or any other setting that may keep your FPS low. What's the exact model number of your monitor?

My friend just got a 3080 and he's saying "only" 120 fps so honestly I think its a 3000 series thing. I have no idea what monitor I have but its 144 hz electriq 27"? Something like that. And no I don't use V sync but I've tried using it to fix my fps issues with no success. On rust there are some commands which give .1 more fps usually for lower end pcs but when I say lowest settings I'm only changing all the in game settings to lowest. Changing the resolution lower than 1080 does not gain much fps at all which could be something to note

 

[lordmogul]

Maybe your friend says "only" 120 FPS because he expected more from a 3080 in a game with early access in 2013 and full release in 2018.
Think of it in the way of "My brand new high end card should totally do 400 fps in a 3 year old game. But it does only 120"

Reducing resolution but keeping the same framerate again suggests it is not the GPU that is the limiting factor. Changing resolution (unlike many post effects) should only affect the load on the GPU.

But as mentioned, there might be just a single weird setting that totally screws with performance.
I remember some older bus driving sim that ran absolutely awful with one specific setting enabled, even on high end systems at the time. And the game had neither breathtaking visuals nor a complex open world or something like that. It was just one post effect that was totally unoptimized.