Rust

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Rust at 1920x1080?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 with Low settings the system averages 69 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. Higher presets at this resolution fall below 60 FPS, with Medium at 46 FPS, High at 39 FPS, and Ultra at 30 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 2560x1440?

A: The recorded data shows no playable settings at 2560x1440. Even the lowest preset, Low, averages only 48 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 20 FPS.

Q: Is 3840x2160 viable for this game with this hardware?

A: No. At 4K, the Low preset averages 28 FPS, Medium averages 19 FPS, High averages 16 FPS, and Ultra averages 12 FPS. All of these are far below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-10400F compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The CPU sits in the 68th percentile of all tested CPUs. Its average benchmark score is 14185. The nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6756E, scores 14163, which is 0.2% lower. The AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, which is 0.6% higher. Performance is effectively within a 1% band of these alternatives.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GPU sits in the 5th percentile of all tested GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 1184. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower. This indicates very low overall graphics performance relative to the wider database.

Q: What is the CPU's multi-threaded performance profile?

A: In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 10283 in multi-core and 1451 in single-core. In 3DMark, it scores 4748 with 16 threads, 3929 with 8 threads, 2560 with 4 threads, and 1350 with 2 threads. The single-thread score is 688, and the max-thread score is 4735.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-10400F sits in a tightly clustered group of CPUs. The Intel Xeon 6756E is 0.2% lower in average score (14163 vs 14185), the Intel Core 7 160UL is 0.3% higher (14232), the AMD EPYC 7552 is 0.5% lower (14115), and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C is 0.6% higher (14277). For CPU-bound scenarios in Rust, any of these processors would deliver nearly identical frame pacing and physics simulation performance. The differences are well within run-to-run variance, so users upgrading from any of these CPUs to another would see no meaningful change.

The Intel Arc B370 is a low-end graphics part, ranking in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all older or lower-tier parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (0.2% higher score), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (0.7% higher), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (1.4% lower). In practice, this means the Arc B370 behaves like a legacy entry-level discrete GPU or an integrated-class solution. For Rust, this GPU is the primary bottleneck, and swapping it for any of these rivals would produce nearly unchanged frame rates.

For users seeking a smoother experience, the data suggests the CPU is not the limiting factor. The Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate are modest figures, and its 20 ROPs and 1280 shading units are low by modern standards. The GPU's nearest rivals all have similar benchmark scores, which means the entire class of GPUs around this performance level will struggle with Rust at higher presets.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data shows a clear pattern: the GPU is the dominant bottleneck at every resolution and preset. Consider the scaling from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at Low settings. The frame rate drops from 69 FPS to 48 FPS, a 30% reduction. From 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 at Low, the frame rate drops from 48 FPS to 28 FPS, another 42% reduction. This steep scaling with resolution is characteristic of GPU-bound workloads.

Preset scaling reinforces the same conclusion. At 1920x1080, moving from Low (69 FPS) to Medium (46 FPS) costs 23 FPS, and from Medium to High (39 FPS) costs another 7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 39 FPS, meaning Ultra delivers less than half the frame rate of Low. At 2560x1440, the spread is similar: Low at 48 FPS, Medium at 32 FPS, High at 27 FPS, and Ultra at 20 FPS. At 3840x2160, the spread narrows to 12 FPS at Ultra versus 28 FPS at Low, but all values are far below playable.

The CPU has 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283 and single-core score of 1451 are respectable for a desktop part. In 3DMark, the 16-thread score of 4748 is nearly identical to the max-thread score of 4735, indicating the CPU scales well with additional threads. For Rust, which is known to use multiple cores for world simulation and entity updates, this CPU should not be the primary constraint at these frame rates.

The evidence points to the Arc B370 being the limiting factor. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking and its proximity to legacy parts like the Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% higher score) make it clear that the graphics card cannot sustain high frame rates in modern games. At 1080p Low, the CPU has enough headroom to push 69 FPS, but the GPU cannot handle higher presets or resolutions.

The Verdict

This PC can run Rust, but only at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The verdict data lists 1920x1080 Low as the only playable configuration, with an average of 69 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440, there are no playable settings; the best case is Low at 48 FPS, which is 12 FPS short of the target. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse, with Low averaging only 28 FPS.

For users who prioritize frame rate, the system requires the lowest preset at 1080p to be playable. Medium at 1080p averages 46 FPS, which is below the threshold but may be acceptable for some players who prefer visual quality over smoothness. However, the recorded data classifies only Low at 1080p as playable.

The system cannot handle higher resolutions. At 1440p, even Low fails to reach 60 FPS, and at 4K, every preset is well below playable. Users with 1440p or 4K monitors would need to reduce the render scale or accept sub-60 FPS gameplay, but the data does not include such settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3437 out of 3723 tested combos in Rust. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, which is consistent with the GPU's 5th percentile ranking. The CPU's 68th percentile ranking does little to offset the GPU's weakness.

The rank indicates that the vast majority of tested hardware combinations deliver better Rust performance. The system is closer to the bottom of the database than to the middle, and it is far from the top. For context, the CPU's nearest rivals are all within 0.6% of its average score, so swapping the CPU for any of them would not change the rank meaningfully. The GPU's nearest rivals are also similar in score, meaning the entire class of hardware around this level performs comparably.

The 3437th rank out of 3723 combos means roughly 286 other combinations perform worse. This places the system in the lower tail of the distribution, appropriate for a GPU that ranks in the 5th percentile. The CPU is not the differentiator here; the GPU determines the system's position.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 69 FPS. This is the only playable configuration in the entire dataset. Medium averages 46 FPS, High averages 39 FPS, and Ultra averages 30 FPS, all below the threshold.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest average is Low at 48 FPS, followed by Medium at 32 FPS, High at 27 FPS, and Ultra at 20 FPS. The verdict data lists no playable settings at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low averages 28 FPS, Medium averages 19 FPS, High averages 16 FPS, and Ultra averages 12 FPS. The verdict data lists no playable settings at this resolution.

The takeaway is clear: for a playable experience, users must run at 1080p with Low settings. Any increase in resolution or preset quality results in frame rates below 60 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full set of measurements is as follows. Low: average 69 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Medium: average 46 FPS, minimum 39 FPS, maximum 53 FPS. High: average 39 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Ultra: average 30 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded.

At 2560x1440, the measurements are: Low at 48 FPS average, Medium at 32 FPS average with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 37 FPS, High at 27 FPS average, and Ultra at 20 FPS average. The Medium preset at this resolution shows the only recorded frame time variance at 1440p, with a 10 FPS spread between minimum and maximum.

At 3840x2160, the measurements are: Low at 28 FPS average, Medium at 19 FPS average with a minimum of 16 FPS and a maximum of 22 FPS, High at 16 FPS average, and Ultra at 12 FPS average. The Medium preset at 4K shows a 6 FPS spread between minimum and maximum.

The data shows a consistent pattern: frame rates drop by roughly 30% to 40% when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and another 40% when moving from 1440p to 4K, at the same preset. Preset changes at the same resolution cost between 7 and 23 FPS per step, with the largest drop occurring between Low and Medium at 1080p. The minimum frame rates, where recorded, are close to the averages, indicating relatively stable frame pacing at Medium settings, though all values are far below the 60 FPS target except for 1080p Low.