Rust

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the data shows this combination can handle every preset above the 60 FPS threshold. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which delivers an average of 61.9 FPS. That means the full visual feature set, maximum draw distances, and highest texture quality are all within reach at standard 1080p. The margin is thin, only 1.9 FPS above the playable line, so users should expect occasional dips in dense scenes, but the average remains playable.

At 2560x1440, the ceiling drops. The most demanding preset that clears 60 FPS is Medium, producing an average of 64.9 FPS. High settings fall short at 52.5 FPS, and Ultra sits at 39.3 FPS. Medium is the sweet spot here: it preserves a comfortable frame rate while keeping visual quality above the Low preset. The 4.9 FPS headroom above the threshold is modest, but the average stays clear.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest playable setting cannot be found, as even Low only manages 54.7 FPS. High runs at 28.4 FPS, Medium at 36.7 FPS, and Ultra at 26.3 FPS. The gap from Low to the threshold is 5.3 FPS, which means 4K is effectively out of reach for this combination if a smooth 60 FPS experience is required. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist at this resolution.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets reveals how the workload shifts. At 1920x1080, the GPU is often the limiting factor, but the CPU contributes enough headroom that even Ultra stays above 60 FPS. Moving from Low to Ultra at 1080p, the average frame rate drops from 138.7 to 61.9, a reduction of 55.4%. That is a steep cost for visual fidelity, and it signals that the GPU’s raw compute is being stressed as settings climb.

At 2560x1440, the resolution increase of 1.78 times the pixel count of 1080p (the exact pixel ratio is not in the data, but the measured FPS drop tells the story) reduces headroom. The gap between Low and Medium is 25.9 FPS (90.8 down to 64.9), and then it falls to 52.5 on High and 39.3 on Ultra. The CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads can still feed the GPU, but the GPU’s memory bandwidth and shader throughput become the binding constraint. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are fixed resources, and the higher resolution demands more fill rate.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is unambiguously the dominant component. The CPU’s single-thread and multi-thread scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14340 and a single-core score of 2024, show strong processing capability, but the frame rates collapse to 54.7 on Low and 26.3 on Ultra. That pattern indicates the GPU cannot keep up with the pixel count. The CPU is waiting on the GPU constantly. The recorded data show that the performance gap between Low and Ultra widens at 4K: 28.4 FPS on High, 36.7 on Medium, and 54.7 on Low. The GPU’s 9.754 TFLOPS FP32 and 121.9 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply outmatched.

The role split is clear. At 1080p, both components share the load, but the CPU’s 12 threads are sufficient to keep frame rates above 138 on Low. At 1440p, the GPU begins to dominate the frame time budget, and at 4K, the GPU is the sole bottleneck. The CPU’s 4.40 GHz boost clock and 12 MB L3 cache keep it ahead of the GPU’s demands in all measured settings.

FAQ

Q: Can this combination run Rust at 60 FPS on Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows an average of 61.9 FPS at 1920x1080 on Ultra, which clears the 60 FPS threshold by 1.9 FPS.

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

A: Medium. It is the highest preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, with an average of 64.9 FPS. High falls to 52.5 FPS and Ultra to 39.3 FPS.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only reach 54.7 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The best recorded average at 4K is 54.7 FPS on Low, so no preset satisfies the playability condition.

Q: How much does raising settings from Low to Ultra cost in frame rate at 1080p?

A: The frame rate drops from 138.7 FPS on Low to 61.9 FPS on Ultra, a reduction of 76.8 FPS. That is a 55.4% decrease.

Q: Which component is more important at 1440p?

A: The GPU. The CPU’s multi-thread score (Cinebench R23 multicore of 14340) and single-thread score (2024) are strong, but the frame rate drops from 90.8 on Low to 64.9 on Medium, a 25.9 FPS fall, which reflects GPU workload. At 1440p, the GPU’s memory bandwidth and shading units are the limiting factor.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest performance rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17177. The AMD EPYC 7H12 scores 17120, which is 0.3% slower. The Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239, which is 0.4% faster. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, which is 0.6% faster, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U scores 17074, which is 0.6% slower. The i5-11400F sits right in the middle of that group.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The GPU, the Radeon RX 5700 XT, has an average benchmark score of 16361. Its closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, which scores 16351, only 0.1% slower. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell scores 16408, which is 0.3% faster. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 scores 16415, also 0.3% faster. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 scores 16504, which is 0.9% faster. The performance difference between these four GPUs is within 1%, meaning that any of them would produce nearly identical frame rates in Rust. A user with a Radeon Pro 5600M would see essentially the same average FPS as the RX 5700 XT, and the NVIDIA PRO W7500 would be only a hair faster.

On the CPU side, the i5-11400F has a benchmark score of 17177, with rivals spread across a narrow 1% band. The AMD EPYC 7H12 (17120, 0.3% slower) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (17074, 0.6% slower) would be marginally slower, while the Intel Core i5-12450H (17239, 0.4% faster) and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (17278, 0.6% faster) would be slightly quicker. In practice, the game’s FPS would vary by less than one frame per second with any of these CPUs, because the GPU is the bottleneck at most settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The database records 3723 tested CPU and GPU combinations for Rust. This specific pairing, the Intel Core i5-11400F with the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, ranks 2715th. That places it in the lower middle of the field. The 3723 total combinations include high-end parts that achieve much higher frame rates, but the rank reflects the overall sample, not just the 60 FPS threshold. A rank of 2715 out of 3723 means there are 1008 combinations that perform worse, and 2714 that perform better.

The percentile comparison is informative. The CPU’s percentileVsAllCpus is 71, meaning it outperforms 71% of all CPUs in the database’s test suite. The GPU’s percentileVsAllGpus is 59, so it sits above 59% of all GPUs. Yet in Rust specifically, the combination ranks in the 73rd percentile of combinations (2715 divided by 3723 yields roughly 73%, but that is not a direct percentile). The game’s frame rate is more heavily dependent on the GPU than the CPU, so the GPU’s lower percentile brings the overall combo down.

The rank confirms that this is not a top-1000 combination, but it is not a bottom-tier system either. The 1080p Ultra playable result shows that the combo is well suited for standard resolution gaming. The 1440p Medium result also clears 60 FPS. The gap to 4K playability is large, as no preset reaches 60 FPS. The rank reflects this balance: capable at 1080p and 1440p, but not at 4K.

The Verdict

The data provides a clear answer: this PC can run Rust at 60 FPS, but only at specific resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, all four presets are playable, with the best being Ultra at 61.9 FPS. That is the maximum visual quality available. At 2560x1440, the best playable preset is Medium, delivering 64.9 FPS. High and Ultra fall below the threshold. At 3840x2160, no settings achieve 60 FPS, so 4K is not a viable option.

The verdict by resolution confirms this. The 1920x1080 entry lists High, Low, Medium, and Ultra as playable, with the best settings as Ultra at 61.9 FPS. The 2560x1440 entry lists Low and Medium as playable, with Medium at 64.9 FPS. The 3840x2160 entry has no playable settings. The playable threshold is exactly 60 FPS, and the data shows that the system crosses that line at 1080p Ultra and 1440p Medium, but not at 4K even on Low.

Users who want to play at 1080p can enjoy the full visual experience. Users at 1440p must compromise to Medium. The difference between 1080p Medium and 1440p Medium is 94.0 FPS versus 64.9 FPS, which shows that the resolution increase carries a 31% penalty. The difference between 1080p Ultra and 1440p Medium is 61.9 versus 64.9, which is favorable. The system can deliver a smooth 60 FPS at 1440p with Medium, but not at High.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded frame rates are all below the playable threshold. High averages 28.4 FPS, Low averages 54.7 FPS, Medium averages 36.7 FPS, and Ultra averages 26.3 FPS. The minimum and maximum are not recorded, so only the average is meaningful. The order from fastest to slowest is Low (54.7), Medium (36.7), High (28.4), Ultra (26.3). The gap between Low and Medium is 18 FPS, which indicates that the first step up from Low is very costly at 4K.

At 2560x1440, the measurements show a wider spread. Low reaches 90.8 FPS, Medium 64.9 FPS, High 52.5 FPS, and Ultra 39.3 FPS. The 25.9 FPS difference between Low and Medium is the largest relative step, and from Medium to High it drops 12.4 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra is 13.2 FPS. The Low setting is comfortably above 60 FPS, but the only other playable setting is Medium, which is 4.9 FPS above the threshold.

At 1920x1080, the results are the strongest. Low runs at 138.7 FPS, Medium at 94.0 FPS, High at 78.5 FPS, and Ultra at 61.9 FPS. Every setting is above 60 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 76.8 FPS, but even the slowest setting keeps a 1.9 FPS cushion. The data shows that the GPU is most efficient at 1080p, and the CPU’s 12 threads are not limiting. The measured average FPS at 1080p Ultra is 61.9, which is the lowest average across all 1080p presets, but still playable.

The database does not include minimum or maximum frame times for any resolution, so only averages are available. The absence of min/max data means the stability is unknown, but the averages at 1080p and 1440p Medium suggest a consistent experience. The 4K averages are all below 60, so no further analysis is needed for that resolution.

The summary is that this combination provides a playable experience at 1080p and 1440p, with the best settings being Ultra at 1080p (61.9 FPS) and Medium at 1440p (64.9 FPS). 4K is not playable. The CPU’s strong multi-thread score, 14340 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and the GPU’s 9.754 TFLOPS are enough for the game’s survival mechanics at standard resolutions, but the GPU’s 8 GB frame buffer and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for 4K. The rank of 2715 out of 3723 reflects the middle-of-the-road position.