Rust

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 in Rust shows a clear performance hierarchy across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates range from 55.9 FPS at Ultra settings to 125.3 FPS at Low settings. The Medium preset delivers 86.5 FPS, while High lands at 71.3 FPS. This spread indicates that the GPU has enough headroom at 1080p to handle substantial visual upgrades, though the Ultra preset drops below the 60 FPS threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages scale down predictably. Low settings produce 88.2 FPS, which remains comfortably above the playable threshold. Medium drops to 56.2 FPS, High to 51.4 FPS, and Ultra falls to 34.4 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at this resolution is significant, a 32 FPS difference, suggesting that the render load increases steeply once settings move past the lowest tier. At 3840x2160, the situation becomes more constrained. Low settings average 48.5 FPS, Medium 35.4 FPS, High 29.9 FPS, and Ultra 22 FPS. No preset at 4K reaches the 60 FPS target, and even Low sits 11.5 FPS short of it.

The data contains no min or max frame values, so the analysis relies entirely on average FPS. The averages themselves are consistent across the resolution steps, with each higher resolution reducing performance by a similar proportion when holding settings constant. For example, Low at 1080p yields 125.3 FPS, at 1440p it yields 88.2 FPS, and at 4K it yields 48.5 FPS. That is a 30% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a further 45% drop from 1440p to 4K. The Ultra preset shows even steeper declines: 55.9 FPS at 1080p, 34.4 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 4K.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the database identifies the most demanding preset that still maintains an average of at least 60 FPS. At 1920x1080, the High preset qualifies with 71.3 FPS. Medium also clears the threshold with 86.5 FPS, and Low runs at 125.3 FPS, but High is the best visual option that stays above the playable line. Ultra at 55.9 FPS falls just below the 60 FPS mark, so it is excluded despite being only 4.1 FPS short.

At 2560x1440, only Low settings achieve the 60 FPS target, averaging 88.2 FPS. Medium is the closest alternative but comes in at 56.2 FPS, which is below the threshold. High at 51.4 FPS and Ultra at 34.4 FPS are progressively further away. The verdict data confirms that Low is the best playable setting at this resolution, with no other preset meeting the requirement.

At 3840x2160, no settings preset reaches 60 FPS. The best average is Low at 48.5 FPS, followed by Medium at 35.4 FPS, High at 29.9 FPS, and Ultra at 22 FPS. The verdict for 4K lists no playable settings, meaning this combination cannot sustain smooth gameplay at that resolution under any of the measured presets. The playable settings list for each resolution is as follows: 1080p supports High, Low, and Medium; 1440p supports only Low; 4K supports none.

CPU and GPU Roles

The interaction between the Intel Core i5-10400F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 in Rust can be assessed by examining how frame rates scale with resolution and preset changes. The CPU provides 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the GPU features 1920 shading units and 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. The benchmark results show that resolution has a dominant effect on performance, which points to the GPU as the primary bottleneck at higher pixel counts.

At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is 69.4 FPS (125.3 down to 55.9). That is a 55% reduction from the lowest to the highest preset. At 2560x1440, the same comparison yields a 53.8 FPS difference (88.2 down to 34.4), a 61% reduction. At 4K, the difference is 26.5 FPS (48.5 down to 22), a 55% reduction. The consistency of these percentage drops across resolutions suggests that the GPU is scaling with the render workload in a predictable manner, and the CPU is not introducing a variable limit at lower resolutions.

However, the 1080p results do hint at some CPU headroom. Low settings at 1080p reach 125.3 FPS, which is high enough that the CPU's single-thread performance (a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1451) may be the constraining factor if the game's logic thread becomes saturated. But since the data does not include separate CPU and GPU utilization metrics, the evidence is indirect. The 4K results, where even Low settings only reach 48.5 FPS, clearly indicate that the RTX 2060's pixel throughput is the limiting factor there, as the CPU would have far less work relative to the GPU at that resolution.

The preset scaling further supports this interpretation. At 1440p, moving from Low to Medium costs 32 FPS (88.2 to 56.2), while moving from Medium to High costs only 4.8 FPS (56.2 to 51.4). The diminishing returns at higher presets are typical of GPU-bound scenarios where additional shading and texture work outweigh the CPU's role. At 1080p, the scaling is more linear: Low to Medium costs 38.8 FPS, Medium to High costs 15.2 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 15.4 FPS. This more even distribution suggests that at 1080p, both components contribute meaningfully to the overall frame rate, with the GPU still carrying the larger share of the load.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database lists nearest rivals for both the CPU and GPU based on average benchmark scores. For the Intel Core i5-10400F, the closest matches are the Intel Xeon 6756E with an average score of 14163 and a delta of 0.2% relative to the i5-10400F's avgBenchmarkScore of 14185. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, a 0.5% difference, while the Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232, a -0.3% difference, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, a -0.6% difference. These four alternatives are all within a narrow band of roughly 1% of the i5-10400F's overall CPU performance, so in Rust, any of them would likely produce similar frame rates at the same GPU and settings, assuming the game does not rely on features unique to one architecture.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060, the nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 with an average score of 15283 and a delta of 0%, the AMD Radeon 680M at 15270 with a 0.1% delta, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM at 15199 with a 0.6% delta, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 at 15171 with a 0.8% delta. The RTX 2060's avgBenchmarkScore is 15290, so all four rivals sit within 0.8% of its aggregate performance. In practical terms, swapping in any of these GPUs would yield nearly identical FPS numbers in Rust, with differences likely limited to a few frames per second. The GTX 580 is an older card, but its benchmark score aligns closely with the RTX 2060, which suggests that in this specific title, the two would behave similarly despite their architectural differences.

Combining these rivals, a user could expect that pairing the i5-10400F with an RTX 3050 OEM or an RX 7600 would produce results very close to what the measured data shows, since both the CPU and GPU alternatives are within 1% of the original components' scores. The same applies to the EPYC 7552 or Xeon 6756E as CPU replacements, though those are server-class parts that would not typically be used in a gaming desktop. The key takeaway is that the performance envelope of this combo is not unique; several other combinations would land in the same FPS ranges.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this specific CPU and GPU combination at rank 2889 out of 3723 tested combos for Rust. That puts it in the lower half of all tested systems, specifically at the 22nd percentile among the database's full set of combinations. The percentileVsAllCpus for the i5-10400F is 68, meaning it outperforms 68% of all CPUs in the database, while the RTX 2060's percentileVsAllGpus is 58, outperforming 58% of all GPUs. Yet the combo rank is much lower than either individual percentile, which indicates that Rust's performance demands lean heavily on the GPU, and the RTX 2060 is not strong enough to boost the combination into the upper ranks even with a competent CPU.

The rank of 2889 out of 3723 means that 834 tested combos perform worse, while 2888 perform better. This places the system firmly in the mid-to-low tier for Rust specifically, even though the individual components are not bottom-tier in their respective databases. The gap between the CPU's percentile (68) and the combo's percentile (22) is 46 points, which is a substantial divergence. This suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor for this game, and that upgrading the CPU alone would not meaningfully improve the combo's rank. A stronger GPU would be required to move the needle significantly.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Rust? The answer depends entirely on the target resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the system is capable of smooth gameplay on High settings with an average of 71.3 FPS, and it can push to 86.5 FPS on Medium or 125.3 FPS on Low. The Ultra preset at 55.9 FPS is just below the 60 FPS threshold, so it is not recommended for consistent 60 FPS play, but it is close enough that minor tweaks might get it there. The verdict data confirms that High is the best playable setting at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the system can run the game only on Low settings, achieving 88.2 FPS. Medium at 56.2 FPS and High at 51.4 FPS are both playable in a casual sense but do not meet the 60 FPS standard. For a 1440p monitor, the user would need to accept Low settings for a fully smooth experience, or tolerate occasional dips below 60 FPS on Medium. At 3840x2160, the system cannot maintain 60 FPS on any preset, with the best case being Low at 48.5 FPS. The verdict lists no playable settings for 4K.

The practical conclusion is that this combination is a solid 1080p machine for Rust, capable of high-quality visuals at a smooth frame rate. It is marginal at 1440p, requiring the lowest settings to hit the 60 FPS target, and it is not suitable for 4K gaming. Users with a 1440p display may find the Low preset acceptable, but those expecting Medium or High at that resolution will be disappointed. The GPU is the primary constraint, as the CPU has ample headroom based on its individual benchmark scores, so any upgrade path should focus on the graphics card first.