Rust

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded measurements for this combination of Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B570 show a clear performance gradient across resolutions and quality presets. At 3840x2160, the system delivers an average of 27 FPS on High settings, 48 FPS on Low, 32 FPS on Medium, and 21 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset at this resolution also recorded a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 37 FPS, indicating that frame times remain relatively consistent even when the average sits below the playable threshold. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is substantial: Low nearly doubles the Ultra average, which points to the rendering load scaling heavily with preset complexity at this pixel count.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages improve considerably. Low settings produce 81 FPS on average, which is the only preset at this resolution to clear the 60 FPS playable threshold. High averages 46 FPS, Medium averages 54 FPS with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS, and Ultra drops to 35 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p shows a narrower frame range than the 4K Medium result, suggesting that the GPU has more headroom to maintain steadier frame pacing when pixel count decreases. The jump from Low to High at this resolution is a loss of 35 FPS on average, while the jump from High to Ultra costs another 11 FPS, showing that the most demanding presets exact a heavy toll.

At 1920x1080, the combination performs much more comfortably. Low settings average 118 FPS, Medium averages 79 FPS with a minimum of 67 FPS and a maximum of 91 FPS, High averages 67 FPS, and Ultra averages 51 FPS. The 1080p Medium result is particularly notable because its minimum of 67 FPS still exceeds the 60 FPS playable threshold, meaning even dips stay above the cutoff. The High preset at 1080p sits right at 67 FPS on average, with no recorded minimum, but the average alone indicates that this preset is viable for sustained play. Ultra at 1080p falls below 60 FPS, which mirrors the pattern seen at higher resolutions where Ultra consistently underperforms relative to the playable standard.

Across all three resolutions, the scaling from Low to Ultra follows a consistent pattern: Low is always the fastest, Medium sits roughly midway, High drops further, and Ultra is the slowest. The gap between Low and Ultra widens as resolution increases, from a 67 FPS difference at 1080p to a 27 FPS difference at 4K. This indicates that the GPU becomes more of a limiting factor at higher pixel counts, while at 1080p the CPU has more influence on the upper bounds of performance.

Best Settings per Resolution

The playable threshold for this analysis is 60 FPS on average. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches that level. The closest is Low at 48 FPS, which falls 12 FPS short of the threshold. Medium at 32 FPS, High at 27 FPS, and Ultra at 21 FPS are all significantly below the playable mark. Therefore, the database records no playable settings for 4K, and the best settings field is left empty. Users targeting 4K on this hardware would need to accept frame rates well below the standard for smooth play, or reduce resolution entirely.

At 2560x1440, only the Low preset clears 60 FPS, with an average of 81 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at this resolution, and it is the only playable option. Medium averages 54 FPS, High averages 46 FPS, and Ultra averages 35 FPS, all below the threshold. The database records Low as the best settings at 1440p, with an average FPS of 81. This means that while 1440p is playable, it requires sacrificing most visual quality features to achieve smooth performance.

At 1920x1080, three presets clear 60 FPS: Low at 118 FPS, Medium at 79 FPS, and High at 67 FPS. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is High, with an average of 67 FPS. This is the recommended configuration for 1080p play, as it offers substantially better visual fidelity than Medium or Low while still maintaining a comfortable margin above the playable threshold. Ultra at 51 FPS falls below 60 FPS and is not considered playable. The database records High as the best settings at 1080p, with an average FPS of 67.

The pattern across resolutions is straightforward: 1080p supports High settings, 1440p supports Low settings, and 4K supports no settings. This reflects the GPU's memory bandwidth and compute capacity being stretched progressively thinner as pixel count rises. The 10 GB of GDDR6 memory and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for 1080p High and 1440p Low, but not for higher presets at those resolutions or any preset at 4K.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data shows that the Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B570 interact differently depending on resolution. At 1920x1080, the CPU has more influence on performance because the GPU can render frames quickly enough that the processor's thread scheduling and per-core throughput become relevant. The 6-core, 12-thread configuration with a 2.90 GHz base clock and 4.30 GHz boost clock provides enough compute for most game logic, but the benchmark results indicate that at 1080p Low, the average of 118 FPS is likely near the CPU's practical limit for this title. The drop from Low to Medium at 1080p is 39 FPS, which is larger than the drop from Medium to High at 20 FPS, suggesting that the GPU begins to take on more of the load as preset complexity increases.

At 2560x1440, the GPU becomes more dominant. The average FPS drops from 118 at 1080p Low to 81 at 1440p Low, a reduction of 37 FPS, which is a 31% decrease. This scaling is steeper than what would be expected if the CPU were the primary bottleneck, because the GPU is now processing roughly 78% more pixels. The Medium preset at 1440p averages 54 FPS, which is 25 FPS lower than the 1080p Medium average of 79 FPS. This 32% reduction further confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor at this resolution. The CPU's role is still present, but the Arc B570's fill rate and shading capacity dictate the upper bound.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is almost entirely responsible for the performance ceiling. Low settings average 48 FPS, which is 33 FPS lower than the 1080p Low average of 118 FPS, a 72% reduction. The Ultra preset at 4K averages 21 FPS, which is 30 FPS lower than the 1080p Ultra average of 51 FPS, a 59% reduction. These large percentage drops indicate that the GPU's pixel throughput is saturated well before the CPU becomes a concern. The CPU still needs to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations, but the data shows that at 4K, even Low settings cannot reach 60 FPS, which points squarely at the GPU's 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 200.0 GPixel/s pixel rate as the binding constraint.

The scaling between presets also reveals the division of labor. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 67 FPS, while at 1440p that difference narrows to 46 FPS, and at 4K it narrows to 27 FPS. This compression of the preset delta at higher resolutions means that the GPU is so heavily loaded that even reducing visual quality has diminishing returns. Conversely, at 1080p, the CPU can keep up with lower preset demands, allowing the GPU to stretch its legs and produce higher frame rates. For this game, the data indicates that the CPU is the primary driver of performance at 1080p Low and Medium, while the GPU takes over as the main constraint at 1440p and 4K, and at higher presets within each resolution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-10400F sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 14185. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6756E, which scores 14163, a difference of 0.2% in favor of the i5-10400F. The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232, which is 0.3% higher than the i5-10400F. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, putting it 0.5% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, which is 0.6% higher. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning that a system using any of these CPUs would exhibit nearly identical CPU-bound performance in Rust. The i5-10400F's 12 threads and 12 MB of shared L3 cache are comparable to these alternatives in aggregate throughput, so the choice among them would not meaningfully change frame rates.

For the Intel Arc B570, the GPU sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20556. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, which scores 20534, a difference of 0.1% in favor of the Arc B570. The Intel Arc A750 scores 20582, which is 0.1% higher than the B570. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480, putting it 0.4% lower, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662, which is 0.5% higher. Again, these deltas are minimal, so a system with any of these GPUs would produce very similar frame rates in Rust at the same settings and resolution. The Arc A750 is particularly close, with a score difference of only 26 points, suggesting that swapping between these two Intel cards would yield no perceptible change in gameplay smoothness.

In practical terms, the database shows that this CPU and GPU combination behaves like a cluster of similar hardware. If the i5-10400F were replaced with a Ryzen 3 7320C, the CPU-bound portions of Rust at 1080p Low would run at nearly the same speed. If the Arc B570 were replaced with an RTX 3070 Mobile, the GPU-bound portions at 1440p and 4K would also remain nearly identical. This means that the measured FPS values in this analysis are representative of a wider set of configurations, not just the specific pair tested.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Rust at 1920x1080 with High settings?

A: Yes. The recorded average FPS at 1080p High is 67, which exceeds the 60 FPS playable threshold. The database lists High as the best playable setting at this resolution.

Q: What is the highest resolution this PC can play Rust at?

A: The highest playable resolution is 2560x1440, but only on Low settings, which average 81 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS, so 4K is not playable.

Q: How does the Arc B570 compare to the Arc A750?

A: The Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20556, while the Arc A750 scores 20582. The A750 is 0.1% higher, meaning the two GPUs perform almost identically in aggregate benchmarks.

Q: Is the i5-10400F a strong CPU for this game?

A: The i5-10400F sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, with an average score of 14185. Its nearest rival, the Ryzen 3 7320C, scores 14277, which is 0.6% higher, so the CPU provides adequate processing power for Rust's demands.

Q: What frame rate does the Medium preset achieve at 1440p?

A: The Medium preset at 2560x1440 averages 54 FPS, with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS. This falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Are there any settings at 4K that reach 60 FPS?

A: No. The highest average at 3840x2160 is 48 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 21 FPS, all well below the playable threshold.

The Verdict

This PC can run Rust at 1920x1080 with High settings, delivering an average of 67 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold with a small margin. Medium at 1080p averages 79 FPS, and Low averages 118 FPS, giving users flexibility to prioritize visual quality or frame rate. Ultra at 1080p averages 51 FPS, which is below the threshold, so it is not recommended for smooth play. The verdict for 1080p is positive: High is the best playable preset, and the margin above 60 FPS is sufficient for stable gameplay in most scenarios.

At 2560x1440, the system is playable only on Low settings, with an average of 81 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold, but it requires sacrificing most graphical features. Medium at 1440p averages 54 FPS, which is below the threshold, and High averages 46 FPS, while Ultra averages 35 FPS. The verdict for 1440p is conditional: it can run the game, but only at the lowest visual quality preset.

At 3840x2160, the system cannot run Rust at a playable frame rate on any preset. The best result is 48 FPS on Low, which falls 12 FPS short of the threshold. The verdict for 4K is negative: this hardware is not capable of maintaining 60 FPS at this resolution, regardless of settings. Overall, the combination of i5-10400F and Arc B570 is suitable for 1080p High and 1440p Low, but it is not a 4K gaming solution for Rust.

How This Combo Ranks

Among all tested combinations in the database, this CPU and GPU pairing ranks 2996 out of 3723 combos, placing it in the lower portion of the distribution, roughly at the 20th percentile from the bottom. This ranking reflects the fact that Rust is a demanding title, and the Arc B570, while competent at 1080p, does not have enough raw throughput for higher resolutions at high presets. The rank of 2996 out of 3723 indicates that a substantial majority of tested systems outperform this one, which is consistent with the GPU sitting at the 65th percentile and the CPU at the 68th percentile. Many combinations with newer or higher-tier components will achieve higher frame rates at the same settings.

However, the ranking also shows that this combo is not at the very bottom, meaning there are over 700 tested combinations that perform worse. The playable results at 1080p High and 1440p Low demonstrate that this system is viable for mainstream gaming at standard resolutions. The rank is a useful reference for comparing against other builds, but the measured FPS data provides the more actionable insight: users with this hardware should target 1080p for the best balance of visual quality and performance, and they should avoid 4K unless they are willing to accept sub-60 FPS frame rates. The database's recorded measurements give a clear picture of what to expect, and the ranking confirms that this configuration is a mid-to-lower tier option within the broader ecosystem of tested hardware.