Rust

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 running Rust shows a clear pattern: performance drops sharply as resolution and settings increase. At 3840x2160 (4K), the average frame rates are uniformly low across all presets. The Low preset averages 26.0 FPS, while Medium drops to 19.6 FPS, High falls to 17.1 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 14.1 FPS. None of these 4K results come close to the 60 FPS playability threshold, and the gap between Low and Ultra is roughly 12 FPS, indicating that even the least demanding preset leaves substantial headroom unutilized at this resolution.

Moving down to 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains far from smooth. Low settings average 44.1 FPS, Medium averages 31.4 FPS, High averages 26.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 17.7 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs over 12 FPS, and from Medium to High another 5 FPS. The scaling here suggests that the GPU is the primary constraint, as the frame rate responds strongly to changes in rendering load. Even at the lowest settings, 1440p falls short of 60 FPS by nearly 16 FPS, which means the hardware cannot maintain a fluid experience at this resolution regardless of preset.

At 1920x1080, the data finally shows a playable result. Low settings average 68.3 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 45.2 FPS, High averages 38.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 30.7 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is about 23 FPS, a significant penalty for one step up in quality. From Medium to High the loss is roughly 7 FPS, and from High to Ultra another 8 FPS. This pattern indicates that the GTX 1650 has enough headroom only at the absolute minimum settings; any increase in visual fidelity pushes the average below the playable mark. The min and max FPS values are not recorded in the database, so the analysis relies solely on averages, but the averages alone tell a consistent story of diminishing returns at higher presets.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database verdict defines playable as maintaining an average of at least 60 FPS. At 3840x2160, no settings preset achieves this. The recorded playable settings list is empty for 4K, and the best settings field is null, meaning there is no configuration that reaches the target. The closest result is Low at 26.0 FPS, which is less than half of the required threshold. At 2560x1440, the same situation applies: no preset reaches 60 FPS, and the verdict marks the playable settings list as empty. The best recorded average at this resolution is Low at 44.1 FPS, still 16 FPS shy of playable.

At 1920x1080, the only preset that clears 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 68.3 FPS. This is the single playable configuration across all tested resolutions. Medium at 45.2 FPS, High at 38.6 FPS, and Ultra at 30.7 FPS all fall below the threshold. The verdict explicitly names Low as the best settings at 1080p, with an average FPS of 68.3. For users who prioritize a smooth frame rate over visual quality, this is the only option. Raising the preset to Medium sacrifices over 23 FPS, which is a steep trade-off for modest graphical improvements. The data suggests that any attempt to run Rust at higher settings on this hardware will result in a sub-60 FPS experience, even at the most common gaming resolution.

CPU and GPU Roles

The interaction between the Intel Core i5-12400 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in Rust can be inferred from how frame rates scale across resolutions and presets. The CPU is a 6-core, 12-thread processor with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, and its benchmark scores place it in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs. The GTX 1650, by contrast, sits in the 40th percentile among GPUs, with a 4 GB GDDR5 memory pool and a 128-bit bus. The disparity in their relative standings is a strong hint about which component dominates performance in this game.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 14.1 to 26.0 depending on the preset. The difference between Low and Ultra is about 12 FPS, which is a relatively narrow band. This compression suggests that the GPU is saturated at 4K, and even lowering the settings does not free up enough rendering headroom to make a meaningful difference. The CPU likely has spare capacity at this resolution, as the workload is heavily weighted toward pixel processing and memory bandwidth, both of which strain the GTX 1650.

At 2560x1440, the spread between Low and Ultra widens to about 26 FPS (44.1 versus 17.7). This indicates that the GPU still controls the frame rate, but the reduced pixel count allows the CPU to feed frames more consistently at lower settings. The gap between Medium and High is 5 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is 9 FPS, showing that the GPU's fill rate and shading units become the limiting factor as quality rises.

At 1920x1080, the pattern shifts. Low settings average 68.3 FPS, which is above the CPU's ability to push frames in some scenarios, but the drop to Medium (45.2 FPS) is steep, suggesting that the GPU is again the bottleneck once more effects and draw calls are enabled. The CPU's strong single-thread performance, reflected in a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2257, likely keeps the game from becoming CPU-bound at low settings. However, the GTX 1650's modest FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS limits how many frames can be rendered at higher presets. The resolution scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings reduces FPS from 68.3 to 44.1, a 35% drop, while from 1440p to 4K it falls to 26.0, another 41% drop. These ratios point to the GPU as the primary constraint, with the CPU playing a secondary role that only becomes relevant at the lowest settings and resolution.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Rust at 1080p?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings. The recorded average FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings is 68.3, which exceeds the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS (45.2, 38.6, and 30.7 respectively).

Q: Is 1440p playable with this hardware?

A: No. The best result at 2560x1440 is Low settings with an average of 44.1 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playability threshold. No preset at this resolution achieves a playable frame rate.

Q: What about 4K gaming?

A: The data shows no playable settings at 3840x2160. The highest average FPS at this resolution is 26.0 on Low settings, which is far below the 60 FPS target.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. The GTX 1650 ranks in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, while the i5-12400 ranks in the 72nd percentile among CPUs. Frame rates scale strongly with resolution and settings, indicating that the graphics card limits performance.

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

A: The i5-12400 has an average benchmark score of 18683. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7643, scores 18697, which is 0.1% higher. The Intel Core i7-1355U scores 18730 (0.3% higher), and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 scores 18811 (0.7% higher). The Intel Core i3-14100F scores 18519, which is 0.9% lower.

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

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 (0.3% lower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425 (0.6% lower). The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1% higher.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database's ranking of tested CPU and GPU combinations for Rust, this pairing sits at rank 3529 out of 3723 total combos. That places it in the bottom 5% of all tested configurations. The rank reflects the measured FPS data, which shows playable performance only at 1080p Low settings. The combination of a strong CPU (72nd percentile) and a weak GPU (40th percentile) results in a system that is heavily skewed toward the processor, but Rust's rendering demands overwhelm the GTX 1650 at higher resolutions and presets.

The ranking implies that most other tested combos deliver better frame rates in this game. The GPU's low percentile rank is the dominant factor, as the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory interface struggle with Rust's open-world environments. The CPU's high benchmark scores do not translate into playable frame rates beyond 1080p Low, because the GPU cannot keep up. For context, the i5-12400's nearest CPU rival, the AMD EPYC 7643, has nearly identical average performance, but the GPU pairing would still dictate the outcome. The 3529th rank out of 3723 combos underscores that this is a low-tier configuration for Rust, suitable only for the most modest settings and resolution.

The Verdict

The data is clear: this PC can run Rust, but only under very specific conditions. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 68.3, which clears the 60 FPS playability threshold. This is the sole playable configuration across all tested resolutions and presets. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 45.2 FPS, which is below 60 and likely to feel stuttery in fast-paced moments. High and Ultra at 1080p average 38.6 and 30.7 FPS respectively, making them unsuitable for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best result is Low at 44.1 FPS, which is playable only if the user tolerates sub-60 frame rates. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse, with all presets averaging below 27 FPS. The verdict by resolution confirms this: 4K and 1440p have no playable settings, while 1080p has only Low as a playable option. For users who insist on 60 FPS, this hardware is effectively limited to 1080p Low. Anyone seeking higher visual quality at 1080p or any playable experience at higher resolutions would need a more powerful GPU. The CPU is not the limiting factor; the GTX 1650 is.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-12400 in the database's CPU benchmarks are all within 1% of its average score of 18683. The AMD EPYC 7643 scores 18697, which is 0.1% higher, making it a near-identical performer in synthetic tests. The Intel Core i7-1355U scores 18730 (0.3% higher), and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 scores 18811 (0.7% higher). The Intel Core i3-14100F scores 18519 (0.9% lower). For gaming, these CPUs would likely deliver similar frame rates when paired with the same GPU, as Rust is not heavily CPU-bound at the settings where this combo is playable.

On the GPU side, the GTX 1650's nearest rivals are all within 1% of its average score of 7472. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 (0.3% lower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425 (0.6% lower). The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550 (1% higher). These alternatives would behave similarly in Rust, meaning they would likely also struggle to exceed 60 FPS at 1080p beyond Low settings. None of these GPUs represent a meaningful upgrade or downgrade, so users with any of these parts should expect comparable performance at the same settings and resolutions. The data suggests that the bottleneck lies in the GPU class, not the specific model, and upgrading to a significantly faster card would be necessary to unlock higher presets or resolutions.