Rust

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 combination delivers a broad range of performance in Rust, scaling from 185 FPS at 1080p Low to 32 FPS at 4K Ultra. The data shows a system that is clearly capable of smooth gameplay at standard resolutions, but which encounters hard limits at 4K with higher presets. The measured results are decisive: this combo clears the 60 FPS playability threshold at 1080p and 1440p for most settings, while 4K requires a significant compromise.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 80 FPS. This is the full visual experience, and the headroom above the 60 FPS threshold is substantial, indicating the GPU and CPU are not fully saturated at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the best playable preset is High, averaging 72 FPS. This is the highest fidelity option that maintains a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS line. The data shows that Ultra at this resolution drops to 55 FPS, which fails the playability threshold.

At 3840x2160, the only preset that clears 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 75 FPS. Medium falls to 50 FPS, and High drops to 43 FPS. The 4K Ultra setting is the most demanding configuration tested, yielding just 32 FPS, which is far below the playable mark.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Rust at 1080p with the highest settings?

A: Yes. The benchmark results show an average of 80 FPS at 1920x1080 with the Ultra preset, which exceeds the 60 FPS playable threshold by a significant margin.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p gaming?

A: The High preset is the most demanding option that remains playable, producing an average of 72 FPS at 2560x1440. The Ultra preset at this resolution averages 55 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: Is 4K resolution viable with this hardware?

A: Only with the Low preset, which averages 75 FPS at 3840x2160. Medium averages 50 FPS, High averages 43 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS, all of which fail to reach the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How much performance difference exists between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: The difference is substantial. The Low preset averages 185 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 80 FPS. This represents a drop of 105 FPS, or roughly 57% less performance when moving from the lowest to the highest visual quality settings.

Q: What are the minimum FPS values recorded for the Medium preset?

A: At 1920x1080, the minimum FPS is 106. At 2560x1440, the minimum is 73. At 3840x2160, the minimum is 43. These values indicate frame pacing stability, with the 1080p and 1440p results staying well clear of the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM capacity of the RTX 3070 limit performance at higher resolutions?

A: The benchmark data shows a steep decline from 1440p High (72 FPS) to 4K High (43 FPS), a 40% drop. While the data does not isolate VRAM capacity as the cause, the pattern at 4K presets indicates the GPU is the primary constraint at that resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across resolutions and presets.

At 1920x1080, the system demonstrates its peak capability. The Low preset averages 185 FPS, which is the highest score recorded in the entire dataset. Medium averages 124 FPS, with a minimum of 106 FPS and a maximum of 143 FPS. High averages 105 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 80 FPS. All presets at this resolution maintain averages well above the 60 FPS threshold, with even the minimum FPS at Medium (106) far exceeding the playable mark.

At 2560x1440, performance remains strong but shows the expected scaling penalty. The Low preset averages 127 FPS. Medium averages 85 FPS, with a minimum of 73 FPS and a maximum of 98 FPS. High averages 72 FPS. The Ultra preset drops to 55 FPS, which is the first configuration in the dataset to fall below the 60 FPS threshold. The data shows a clear inflection point between High and Ultra at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the hardware struggles with higher fidelity settings. The Low preset averages 75 FPS, barely clearing the playable threshold. Medium averages 50 FPS, with a minimum of 43 FPS and a maximum of 58 FPS. High averages 43 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 32 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is severe: at High settings, performance drops from 72 FPS to 43 FPS, a 40% reduction.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide context for what other hardware would behave similarly in this combination.

For the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F, the closest comparable processors are the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, with a score of 24964 and a delta of 0.2%, and the Intel Core i7-11850H, with a score of 24935 and a delta of 0.3%. The Intel Core i7-13620H scores 24911, a delta of 0.4%. On the higher side, the AMD EPYC 9474F scores 25103, a delta of -0.4%. These deltas are negligible, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame pacing and physics simulation results in Rust, assuming the GPU remains the same.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, the nearest GPU rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT, with a score of 17083 and a delta of 0.7%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690, with a score of 17037 and a delta of 1%. The AMD Radeon HD 7970M scores 17019, a delta of 1.1%. The NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17468, a delta of -1.5%. In practical terms, swapping the RTX 3070 for an RX 7600 XT would yield nearly identical FPS at all tested resolutions and presets, since the average benchmark scores are within 1% of each other.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 ranks 1580th out of 3723 tested combos for Rust. This places the system in the upper-middle tier of all configurations tested. The percentile data supports this positioning: the CPU sits at the 77th percentile against all CPUs, while the GPU is at the 61st percentile against all GPUs. The rank of 1580 suggests that while this combo is not a top-tier enthusiast build, it outperforms the majority of systems tested for this game.

The discrepancy between the CPU percentile (77) and GPU percentile (61) indicates that the CPU has more relative headroom than the GPU. In Rust, which is known for heavy single-threaded and physics workloads, this balance suggests the GPU will be the limiting factor in most scenarios, particularly at higher resolutions and presets.

The Verdict

This PC can run Rust, and it does so with considerable success at the two most common gaming resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold with every preset, including Ultra at 80 FPS. This is a fully playable experience at maximum visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the system remains playable at High (72 FPS), Medium (85 FPS), and Low (127 FPS). The Ultra preset at 55 FPS falls short of the 60 FPS target, so players seeking max quality at this resolution would need to accept a slight drop in fluidity.

At 3840x2160, the system is only playable at Low settings, averaging 75 FPS. The Medium (50 FPS), High (43 FPS), and Ultra (32 FPS) presets all fail the 60 FPS threshold. For 4K gaming, the user must choose between playable frame rates with minimal visual fidelity or high fidelity with compromised performance.

The verdict is clear: this is a strong 1080p and capable 1440p gaming system for Rust, but it is not a 4K machine for this title beyond the lowest settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor between the CPU and GPU across resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the CPU plays a more prominent role. The jump from Low (185 FPS) to Medium (124 FPS) shows a 33% performance drop, and the further drop to Ultra (80 FPS) indicates that the GPU is becoming increasingly stressed. However, the very high frame rates at Low suggest that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU well beyond the 60 FPS threshold. The CPU's 77th percentile ranking and strong multi-threaded scores (Cinebench R23 multi-core of 20851) support the notion that it is not the bottleneck at 1080p, even at Low settings where the GPU workload is light.

At 2560x1440, the scaling pattern shifts. The difference between Low (127 FPS) and High (72 FPS) is a 43% reduction, and Ultra (55 FPS) falls below the threshold. This steeper decline compared to 1080p indicates the GPU is becoming the dominant constraint. The CPU's workload does not scale significantly with resolution, so the diminishing returns at higher presets point directly to the RTX 3070's capabilities.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is decisively the limiting factor. The performance curve from Low (75 FPS) to Ultra (32 FPS) shows a 57% reduction, and even Medium (50 FPS) fails the playability threshold. At this resolution, the CPU's role is largely relegated to maintaining minimum frame rates; the data shows the 4K Medium minimum FPS is 43, which is higher than the 4K High average of 43 FPS. This suggests the CPU maintains consistent frame delivery, but the GPU simply cannot render the scene fast enough to keep up with the demand of higher presets.

In summary, the CPU matters most at 1080p where frame rates are high and the GPU has spare capacity. As resolution increases, the GPU becomes the primary determinant of performance, with the CPU providing stable, if not limiting, support.