Rust

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Rust with the Intel Core i5-12400F and Intel Arc B390 shows a steep performance curve that scales heavily with resolution and preset level. The database contains complete average FPS readings for all tested settings at three resolutions, with min/max frames recorded only for Medium presets.

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 76 FPS average on Low settings, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that reaches the 60 FPS playability threshold. The Medium preset drops to 51 FPS average, with a minimum of 44 FPS and a maximum of 59 FPS. High settings produce 43 FPS average, while Ultra falls to 33 FPS average. The gap between Low and Medium is 25 FPS, indicating that the first step up in visual quality costs nearly a third of the frame rate.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance degrades noticeably across every preset. Low settings yield 53 FPS average, just below the playability threshold. Medium produces 35 FPS average, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 41 FPS. High settings drop to 30 FPS average, and Ultra bottoms out at 23 FPS average. The resolution scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings is a loss of 23 FPS, while High settings lose 13 FPS. This suggests the GPU becomes increasingly constrained as pixel count rises.

At 3840x2160, the results are marginal at best. Low settings produce 31 FPS average, Medium delivers 21 FPS average with a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 24 FPS, High settings reach 18 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 13 FPS average. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is only 18 FPS, which indicates that even the least demanding preset cannot overcome the resolution overhead. The Medium preset min/max data shows a narrow 6 FPS window, meaning frame pacing is consistent but the overall performance is far below playable levels.

Every measured value follows a clear hierarchy: higher presets reduce FPS at every resolution, and higher resolutions reduce FPS at every preset. The steepest drop occurs when moving from 1080p to 1440p on Low settings, where the average falls by 43%. The drop from 1440p to 2160p on Low settings is 22 FPS, a further 42% reduction.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of 3,723 tested CPU and GPU combinations for Rust, this pairing ranks 3,312th. That places it in the lower 11% of all recorded configurations, meaning roughly 89% of tested combos deliver higher average FPS in this game. The rank reflects the combined bottleneck behavior of the i5-12400F and Arc B390, but the GPU is clearly the limiting factor given its percentile standing.

The Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 1,482. Its nearest rivals in the GPU rankings are all NVIDIA parts with very similar scores: the GeForce GT 520MX scores 1,463 (1.3% lower), the GeForce 800M scores 1,460 (1.5% lower), the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1,446 (2.5% lower), and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1,443 (2.7% lower). These deltas are all within 3%, so the Arc B390 effectively trades blows with a set of entry-level mobile and OEM GPUs from prior generations.

The CPU side tells a different story. The Intel Core i5-12400F sits in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19,039. Its nearest rivals are extremely close: the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS scores 19,047 (0% delta), the Intel Core 3 201E scores 19,056 (-0.1%), the Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18,982 (0.3% higher), and the AMD EPYC 7773X scores 18,979 (0.3% higher). These rival CPUs span laptop and desktop segments, but all produce nearly identical synthetic scores. The i5-12400F is not the bottleneck in Rust; it consistently provides far more computational headroom than the GPU can utilize at playable settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the GPU, the nearest rivals indicate that any of the four NVIDIA parts would produce nearly indistinguishable frame rates in Rust. The GeForce GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GeForce GT 625 OEM, and GeForce GT 710 all sit within 2.7% of the Arc B390's average benchmark score. In practice, a system with one of those GPUs paired with a similar CPU would likely show the same measured FPS pattern: playable only at 1080p Low, borderline at 1440p Low, and inadequate at 4K. The delta values are so small that the Arc B390 cannot claim any meaningful advantage over these alternatives.

Turning to the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS is the closest match with a 0% delta, meaning it scores identically in the benchmark suite. The Intel Core 3 201E trails by 0.1%, which is within measurement noise. The Intel Core i5-1335U and AMD EPYC 7773X both lead by 0.3%. Any of these CPUs paired with the Arc B390 would behave essentially the same as the i5-12400F in Rust, because the game at these settings is heavily GPU-limited. Upgrading the CPU to a much faster part would not improve FPS at 1080p Low, since the 76 FPS reading is already capped by the GPU's rendering ability.

The practical takeaway from the rival data is that this combo belongs to a very low-tier GPU class. Users in this performance segment should expect the same behavior from any of the four rival GPUs. The CPU, meanwhile, is solidly mid-range and will not hold back games that are lighter on multi-core processing.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Rust? The recorded data gives a clear answer: yes, but only at one resolution and preset combination. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 76 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playability threshold with 16 FPS to spare. That is the only playable configuration in the entire dataset.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best result is 53 FPS on Low, which falls 7 FPS short. Medium, High, and Ultra produce 35, 30, and 23 FPS respectively, all far below the threshold. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse: Low hits 31 FPS, Medium 21, High 18, and Ultra 13. None of these values approach playability.

The verdict by resolution from the database confirms this: 2160p and 1440p have no playable settings, while 1080p only lists Low as playable, with the best settings being Low at 76 FPS average. Anyone wanting to run Rust at higher presets or higher resolutions would need a substantial GPU upgrade, as the i5-12400F is not the limiting factor.

CPU and GPU Roles

Comparing the scaling between resolutions and presets reveals which component dominates in Rust. The GPU clearly carries the workload, as evidenced by the steep penalties for raising resolution. From 1080p Low to 1440p Low, FPS drops from 76 to 53, a 30% reduction. From 1440p Low to 2160p Low, FPS drops further to 31, another 42% reduction. These are classic GPU-bound behavior patterns, where the pixel shading load outpaces the CPU's ability to feed geometry.

The preset scaling at each resolution also points to the GPU as the primary constraint. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium drops FPS from 76 to 51, which indicates the GPU is already starting to struggle with additional lighting and post-processing effects. At 1440p, the Low to Medium drop is 18 FPS, and at 2160p it is 10 FPS. The absolute FPS decline is smaller at higher resolutions because the GPU is already saturated, but the percentage loss is consistent. This saturation shows the GPU is the choke point.

The CPU's role is secondary. With a 73rd percentile ranking and strong benchmark scores, the i5-12400F can easily feed frames to a more capable GPU. The fact that FPS scales so dramatically with resolution means that the CPU is not the constraint in this pairing. If the CPU were limiting, we would see similar FPS across different resolutions, which is not the case. The data shows that upgrading the GPU would yield large gains at 1440p and 2160p, while keeping the same CPU would not meaningfully change performance at 1080p.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database identifies the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at each resolution. At 3840x2160, no preset qualifies. The highest average FPS is 31 on Low, which is far below the threshold. At 2560x1440, no preset qualifies either, with Low averaging 53 FPS, which is 7 FPS short.

At 1920x1080, the answer is Low settings. The average FPS there is 76, which is the only measured value above 60 across all resolution-preset combinations. Medium at 1080p averages 51 FPS, so it is not playable. Users who want to play at 1080p should choose the Low preset, accepting the visual trade-offs for the playable frame rate. If they want Medium or higher, they would need a different GPU, as the current combo cannot reach 60 FPS with any other preset at any resolution.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Rust at 1080p with playable frame rates?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 76 FPS, which exceeds the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: What is the best FPS this combo can achieve at 1440p?

A: The best result at 2560x1440 is 53 FPS on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. No preset at this resolution is playable.

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

A: The Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1,482, while its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1,463 (1.3% lower). Other rivals are within 2.7% of the Arc B390's score.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. FPS drops significantly with resolution, from 76 at 1080p Low to 31 at 2160p Low, while the CPU ranks in the 73rd percentile and has identical nearest rivals.

Q: What is the highest FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS in the dataset is 76, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: At which resolution is the game not playable even at Low settings?

A: At 3840x2160, Low settings produce 31 FPS average, which is far below the 60 FPS threshold.