Rust

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is a capable mid-range combination for Rust, but its playability depends heavily on the resolution and quality preset you choose. The recorded data shows that this system clears the 60 FPS playable threshold at 1080p and 1440p with the right settings, but it falls short at 4K across all tested presets. At 1080p, the combo delivers a strong 137.7 FPS on Low settings, while at 1440p it manages 62.7 FPS on Medium, which is the best playable setting at that resolution. For 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS, with the highest average being 52.7 FPS on Low. This analysis breaks down the exact measured performance, the role of each component, and how this pairing compares to other tested configurations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this CPU and GPU combination in Rust is recorded across three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160) and four quality presets (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra). The results show a clear pattern: higher resolutions and higher presets both reduce the average frame rate, with the most demanding configuration producing only 26 FPS, while the least demanding reaches 137.7 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best performance. On Low settings, the average FPS is 137.7, which is the highest score recorded for this combo in any configuration. Moving to Medium settings, the average drops to 94.1 FPS. High settings produce an average of 75.8 FPS, which remains well above the 60 FPS playable threshold. Ultra settings are the only preset at this resolution that dips below the threshold, with an average of 58.1 FPS. This means that for 1080p gaming, users can comfortably run High settings and still have a significant margin above the playable line.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably compared to 1080p. Low settings produce an average of 95.7 FPS, which is still very strong. Medium settings yield 62.7 FPS, barely clearing the 60 FPS threshold. High settings at 1440p produce 53.4 FPS, which falls short of the target. Ultra settings drop further to 37.7 FPS, which is the lowest score at this resolution. The data indicates that at 1440p, the system is playable only on Low and Medium presets, with Medium being the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, performance drops significantly across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 52.7 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution but still below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings average 37.8 FPS, High settings average 33.8 FPS, and Ultra settings average 26 FPS. None of these configurations are playable according to the 60 FPS threshold, and the gap between the best and worst preset is substantial, with a 26.7 FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings.

The data does not include minimum or maximum frame rate figures, so the analysis relies solely on the average FPS values. This means that users may experience frame dips below the averages, but the overall trend is consistent. The measured results indicate that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can handle High settings with ease, and it can manage 1440p only with reduced presets.

CPU and GPU Roles

To understand which component matters more for Rust with this combination, the data shows a clear difference in the scaling between resolutions and presets. The FPS drops are larger when moving from 1080p to 1440p than from 1440p to 4K, which suggests that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher settings and resolutions, but the CPU also plays a role at lower settings.

Looking at the 1080p results, the difference between Low and High presets is 61.9 FPS, from 137.7 down to 75.8. This large gap indicates that the GPU is being taxed by the increased graphical workload, as the CPU has enough headroom to keep up at this resolution. The CPU, an Intel Core i5-10400F with 6 cores and 12 threads, has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz and a PassMark multithread score of 12115. Its performance in 3DMark 16-thread tests is 4748, and single-thread score is 688. These numbers are sufficient for 1080p gaming, but the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, with a PassMark G3D score of 16277, becomes the limiting factor as settings increase.

At 2560x1440, the gap between Low and High presets narrows to 42.3 FPS, from 95.7 down to 53.4. This indicates that the GPU is now under more stress, and the CPU is no longer able to compensate for the increased resolution. The GPU's memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s and boost clock of 1905 MHz are being pushed harder, and the 8 GB VRAM is sufficient but the pixel rate of 121.9 GPixel/s starts to show limitations. The FPS difference between 1440p Low and 4K Low is 43 FPS, from 95.7 to 52.7, showing that the resolution increase has a massive effect, which is a classic sign of GPU-bound rendering.

At 3840x2160, the performance is consistently low across all presets, with only a 26.7 FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings. This small spread at 4K suggests that both the CPU and GPU are struggling, but the GPU is the primary constraint. The CPU, with a percentile of 68 against all CPUs, is not the weakest link, but the GPU's percentile of 59 against all GPUs puts it lower in the hierarchy. The data shows that at 4K, even at Low settings, the GPU cannot deliver 60 FPS, which means the GPU is the dominant factor at this resolution.

The role of the CPU becomes more apparent at lower resolutions and lower presets. At 1080p Low, the CPU can run at its 4.30 GHz boost clock, and the 12 threads help with the game's simulation and physics tasks. The CPU's passmark single-thread score of 2541 and 3dmark single-thread score of 688 influence the ability to handle draw calls and game logic. At 4K, the CPU is less stressed relative to the GPU, but the data shows it still cannot overcome the GPU's limitations.

In summary, the GPU is the dominant component for Rust at 1440p and 4K, while the CPU is sufficient for 1080p and can keep up with the GPU's output at that resolution. The scaling between presets is more dramatic at 1080p because the GPU has headroom, while at 4K the GPU is already saturated, and the difference between presets is smaller.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is ranked 2723 out of 3723 tested combos in the database for Rust. This puts it in the lower-middle tier of all configurations, indicating that while it is not a top-tier system, it is not at the bottom either. The percentile for the CPU is 68, meaning it outperforms 68 percent of all CPUs in the database, while the GPU percentile is 59, outperforming 59% of all GPUs.

This ranking suggests that the combo is below average for Rust, which is a demanding survival game with large open-world maps and complex physics. The rank of 2723 out of 3723 means that a significant number of combos perform better, likely due to stronger GPUs or newer CPUs. The data does not provide specific scores for this game, but the overall benchmark scores for the CPU and GPU can give context. The CPU has an average benchmark score of 14185, and the GPU has an average score of 16361, which are moderate values.

Compared to other combos, this system is not a high-end outlier. It is a mainstream setup that can handle the game at moderate settings, as shown by the measured FPS. The ranking is a global measure that includes combos with much more powerful hardware, so the position of 2723 is not surprising. The combo's performance in Rust specifically is better than what the ranking might suggest, because the game is not extremely demanding at lower resolutions, but it does struggle at 4K.

The data is measured, and the rank is based on actual performance across a wide range of hardware. For users with this combo, the ranking means that they are in the lower 73% of all tested combos, but that does not mean the game is unplayable. It means that most other combos will deliver higher FPS, but the actual playability is determined by the threshold of 60 FPS, not the rank. The combo can run Rust at 1080p High with 75.8 FPS, which is above the threshold, and at 1440p Medium with 62.7 FPS, which is just above the threshold. This shows that despite the rank, the system is capable of delivering a playable experience at specific settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide insight into what other hardware would behave similarly to this combo. For the CPU, the Intel Core i5-10400F has a benchmark score of 14185. The nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6756E with an average score of 14163, the Intel Core 7 160UL with a score of 14232, the AMD EPYC 7552 with a score of 14115, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C with a score of 14277. The delta percentages are very small, ranging from -0.6% to 0.5%. This means that any of these CPUs would provide nearly identical CPU-bound performance in Rust. The Intel Core 2 160UL and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C are slightly faster (by 0.3% and 0.6% respectively), while the Intel Xeon 6756E and AMD EPYC 7552 are slightly slower (by 0.2% and 0.5% respectively). In practical terms, the difference in frame rates would be negligible, often less than 1 FPS.

For the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT has an average benchmark score of 16361. The nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M with a score of 16351 (0.1% lower), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell with a score of 16408 (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 with a score of 16415 (0.3% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 with a score of 16504 (0.9% higher). These deltas are all under 1%, meaning the GPU performance in Rust would be nearly identical. The NVIDIA RTX 5090 D V2 is the fastest of the group, but the 0.9% difference is so small that it would not change the overall playability verdict.

If a user were to swap the CPU or GPU for any of these alternatives, the measured FPS in Rust would stay within a very tight margin, likely 1 to 2 FPS at most. For example, at 1080p Medium, the 5700 XT delivers 94.1 FPS. Using the RTX 5090 D V2 might push that to 95 FPS, but it would not change the setting that can be played. The verdict at 2560x1440 would remain Medium as the best playable setting, because the delta is too small to push High settings above the 60 FPS threshold. The same goes for the CPU: swapping to the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C would not change the 4K result, which is still unplayable.

These alternatives are relevant for users who might have one of these components in their system. For example, a user with an AMD EPYC 7552 CPU and a RX 5700 XT GPU would see the same performance as the combo tested here. The data shows that the CPU and GPU are well matched in terms of their benchmark scores, with the CPU being slightly above the GPU in percentile. This balance means that the combo is not bottlenecked by one component at lower resolutions, but the GPU becomes the limit at higher resolutions.

Best Settings per Resolution

The best setting is defined as the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS without any dips below that threshold. The data shows that this combo cannot reach 60 FPS at 4K at any preset, so no setting is considered playable. At 2560x1440, the system can play on Low and Medium, but only Medium is the best because it is the highest quality that still meets the threshold. At 1920x1080, the system can play on High, Low, and Medium, with High being the best because it is the most demanding preset that stays above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, there is no playable setting. The highest average FPS is 52.7 on Low, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium produces 37.8 FPS, High produces 33.8 FPS, and Ultra produces 26 FPS. No preset is playable at this resolution, regardless of visual quality. The verdict for 4K is that the game is not playable at this resolution with this combo.

At 2560x1440, the best setting is Medium with an average FPS of 62.7. This is just above the 60 FPS threshold, but it is the highest quality setting that can be played. Low settings produce 95.7 FPS, which is also playable, but Medium is the best because it offers a better visual quality while still meeting the FPS target. High and Ultra are not playable, with scores of 53.4 and 37.7 respectively.

At 1920x1080, the best setting is High with an average FPS of 75.8. This is a solid margin above the 60 FPS threshold, allowing for a smooth experience. Low settings produce 137.7 FPS, and Medium produces 94.1 FPS, but High is the best because it is the most demanding preset that stays above 60 FPS. Ultra is not playable, with an average of 58.1 FPS, which is below the threshold.

The data shows a clear pattern: at each resolution, the best setting is the one that balances quality and performance. For 1080p, High is the optimal choice. For 1440p, Medium is the optimal choice. For 4K, no setting is optimal. This is a useful guideline for users who want to play Rust with this combo.

The Verdict

The verdict on whether this PC can run Rust depends on the resolution and settings. The data shows that the system is playable at 1080p and 1440p with certain presets, but not at 4K. The 60 FPS threshold is used as the playable threshold, and the verdict is clear.

At 3840x2160, the system is not playable at any setting. The lowest preset, Low, only produces 52.7 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The verdict for 4K is that no settings can achieve the playable threshold, and the game should not be played at this resolution with this combo. The user would need to lower the resolution to 1440p or 1080p to get a playable experience.

At 2560x1440, the system is playable on Low and Medium settings. The best playable setting is Medium, with an average FPS of 62.7. This just clears the 60 FPS line, so the game is playable at 1440p, but only with moderate settings. High and Ultra are not playable, so the user must compromise on visual quality to maintain a smooth frame rate. The verdict for 1440p is that it is playable on Low and Medium, with Medium being the recommended setting.

At 1920x1080, the system is playable on High, Low, and Medium settings. The best playable setting is High, with an average FPS of 75.8. This is a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold, and it allows for a good visual experience. Ultra is the only setting that is not playable, with an average of 58.1 FPS, which is just below the threshold. The verdict for 1080p is that the game is playable on High, Low, and Medium, with High being the recommended setting.

In summary, this combo can run Rust, but the playability is conditional. The system is fully playable at 1080p with High settings, and it can handle 1440p with Medium settings. At 4K, the game is not playable at any setting. The data is clear that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions, and the CPU is sufficient for moderate settings. For a user with this combo, the best experience is at 1080p High, where the FPS is well above the playable threshold.