Rust

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is a capable desktop combination for Rust, but its performance headroom varies significantly across resolutions. The database places this combo at rank 2160 out of 3723 tested combinations, placing it in the upper-middle tier of systems evaluated for this title. This ranking suggests the hardware is more than adequate for standard play, but it is not optimized for maximum fidelity at higher resolutions. The recorded data indicates a clear pattern: the system scales well at 1080p, becomes more constrained at 1440p, and struggles to maintain fluid frame rates at 4K with higher presets. The analysis below breaks down the measured performance, compares it to similar hardware, and provides specific guidance on settings for each resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3723 tested CPU and GPU combinations in the database for Rust, this pairing sits at rank 2160. This percentile placement, roughly in the 58th percentile of all tested combos, indicates that while it is not a top-tier configuration, it outperforms a significant majority of systems. The ranking reflects a balance between the Ryzen 5 7400F, which falls in the 83rd percentile against all CPUs, and the RTX 2070 SUPER, which is in the 65th percentile against all GPUs. The CPU is clearly the stronger component relative to its peers, while the GPU anchors the system's overall position.

The data suggests that the combo's rank is primarily limited by the GPU. The 7400F's strong single-thread and multi-thread scores, such as a Cinebench R23 score of 21765, provide ample headroom for game logic and physics. However, the RTX 2070 SUPER's performance in Rust, as seen in its measured FPS, becomes the deciding factor at higher resolutions. This is a classic example of a CPU that can push well beyond the GPU's limits, meaning the graphics card is the bottleneck in most scenarios. For users looking to upgrade, improving the GPU would yield the most significant gains in this specific game.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to run Rust smoothly?

A: At 1920x1080, all four presets (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra) achieve an average FPS above 60. The Ultra preset runs at 65 FPS average, making 1080p the only resolution where maximum settings are fully playable.

Q: Can this system handle Rust at 2560x1440?

A: Yes, but only with lower presets. The database shows that Low and Medium presets are playable, with Medium achieving a 70 FPS average. High settings drop to 59 FPS average, which is just below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this hardware?

A: Only with minimal settings. At 3840x2160, the Low preset produces a 62 FPS average, which clears the playable threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra presets all fall below 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging only 27 FPS.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7400F compare to its closest rivals?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 32750. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-14600T, scores 32707, which is a 0.1% difference. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scores 32812, which is 0.2% higher. Performance is effectively identical among these processors.

Q: What GPU is most similar to the RTX 2070 SUPER in terms of raw performance?

A: The Intel Arc B570 has an average score of 20556, which is 1.3% lower than the RTX 2070 SUPER's 20282. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534, a 1.2% difference. These cards would deliver very similar frame rates in Rust.

Q: Does the data show any frame drops for this combo?

A: Yes, the measured FPS data includes minimum FPS values for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1080p, the minimum is 87 FPS; at 1440p, it is 60 FPS; and at 4K, it is 35 FPS. This shows that even playable presets can have dips.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at how this combo performs across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system shows strong performance across the board. The Low preset delivers an average of 152 FPS, which is exceptionally high and indicates the GPU is not a limiting factor at this resolution. Medium settings produce an average of 102 FPS, with a minimum of 87 FPS and a maximum of 117 FPS. High settings average 86 FPS, and Ultra settings average 65 FPS. All presets at this resolution maintain an average above the 60 FPS threshold, making 1080p the most comfortable environment for this hardware.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably but remains playable for lower presets. The Low preset averages 104 FPS, still a very smooth experience. Medium settings average 70 FPS, with a minimum of 60 FPS and a maximum of 81 FPS, which means it just barely holds onto the playable threshold with some dips at the exact boundary. High settings average 59 FPS, which is technically just below the 60 FPS line, and Ultra settings fall to an average of 45 FPS. This resolution shows the GPU starting to struggle with higher fidelity, as the gap between Low and Ultra widens.

At 3840x2160, the performance is heavily constrained. The Low preset averages 62 FPS, which is the only playable option at this resolution. Medium settings drop to an average of 41 FPS, with a minimum of 35 FPS and a maximum of 48 FPS, showing significant frame time inconsistency. High settings average 35 FPS, and Ultra settings average just 27 FPS. The data clearly shows that 4K is only viable for users who are willing to sacrifice visual quality for a playable frame rate. The jumps between presets are significant, with Ultra being less than half the performance of Low at this resolution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU, users can find hardware that would behave similarly in Rust. For the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F, the closest alternatives are the Intel Core i5-14600T and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H. The i5-14600T has an average score of 32707, which is a 0.1% delta from the 7400F's 32750. The Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scores 32812, a 0.2% delta. These processors are effectively interchangeable in terms of game performance, so a system with either would produce nearly identical FPS numbers in this benchmark. The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 are also close, with deltas of 0.2% and 0.3% respectively.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER, the nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, and the Intel Arc B570. The Quadro M4000M has an average score of 20480, which is 1% lower than the RTX 2070 SUPER's 20282. The RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534, a 1.2% delta, and the Arc B570 scores 20556, a 1.3% delta. The Intel Arc A750 is also very close with a score of 20582, a 1.5% delta. In practice, all of these GPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Rust, meaning the choice between them would come down to other factors like driver support or features, not raw performance. Users with these alternative components can expect the same settings recommendations and FPS outcomes as described in this analysis.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database provides a clear verdict on the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS for each resolution. At 1920x1080, the best settings are set to Ultra, which achieves an average of 65 FPS. This is the only resolution where the highest quality preset is playable, allowing users to experience the full visual fidelity of Rust without sacrificing smoothness. The system has enough headroom at this resolution to handle the most demanding settings.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are Medium, which achieves an average of 70 FPS. While High settings are close at 59 FPS, they do not meet the 60 FPS threshold, so Medium is the recommended choice for a consistent experience. The minimum FPS for Medium at this resolution is 60, which means it stays right at the playable line even during demanding scenes. Users who prefer higher fidelity could try High, but they would experience occasional dips below 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the best settings are Low, which achieves an average of 62 FPS. This is the only preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold at 4K. The jump from Low to Medium at this resolution is steep, with Medium averaging only 41 FPS, so there is no middle ground for users who want better visuals. The recommendation is to stick with Low settings to maintain a stable frame rate, accepting the visual compromises that come with it.

The Verdict

The question of whether this PC can run Rust is answered clearly by the verdictByResolution data. At 1920x1080, the system is fully capable, with all four presets (High, Low, Medium, and Ultra) clearing the 60 FPS playable threshold. The Ultra preset at 65 FPS average is the best choice for this resolution, providing both high quality and smooth performance. This is the ideal environment for this combo.

At 2560x1440, the system is playable, but with limitations. The playable settings are Low and Medium, with Medium achieving a 70 FPS average. The High preset at 59 FPS is just below the threshold, so it is not officially playable. Users at this resolution should expect to use Medium settings for a reliable experience, but they cannot max out the game.

At 3840x2160, the system barely meets the playable standard. The only playable setting is Low, which averages 62 FPS. This is a marginal pass, and users should be aware that frame rates may dip below 60 in heavy scenes. The Medium, High, and Ultra presets are all unplayable, with averages ranging from 27 to 41 FPS. In summary, this PC can run Rust, but the experience is highly dependent on the resolution and preset. It excels at 1080p, is acceptable at 1440p, and is only barely viable at 4K with minimal settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals an interesting dynamic between the CPU and GPU in this game. At 1920x1080, the GPU is likely the primary bottleneck, as the CPU's strong single-thread performance (a Passmark single-thread score of 3689) is more than enough to feed the GPU. The fact that the system achieves 152 FPS on Low settings suggests the GPU is not fully saturated, and the 65 FPS on Ultra shows the GPU working harder. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows a 57% performance drop, which is a typical pattern for a GPU-bound scenario.

As resolution increases to 2560x1440, the GPU's role becomes more dominant. The performance drop from 1080p Low (152 FPS) to 1440p Low (104 FPS) is a 32% reduction, which is proportional to the increase in pixel count. This indicates the GPU is being pushed harder, while the CPU remains relatively idle. At 1440p, the gap between Low and Ultra is 57%, similar to 1080p, but the absolute numbers are lower, showing that the GPU is the limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmingly the bottleneck. The performance drop from 1440p Low (104 FPS) to 4K Low (62 FPS) is a 40% reduction, which is less than the pixel count increase, but the absolute frame rates are very low. The Ultra preset at 4K averages 27 FPS, which is a 74% drop from 1080p Ultra. This pattern shows that the CPU's performance headroom is irrelevant at 4K, as the GPU cannot keep up with the pixel fill rate demands. The data suggests that users with this combo should prioritize GPU upgrades to improve 4K performance, while the CPU is sufficient for all tested scenarios. The CPU's 83rd percentile ranking versus the GPU's 65th percentile confirms this assessment, as the processor has more relative headroom than the graphics card.