Rust

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 occupies the 3,581st position out of 3,723 tested combinations in the database for Rust. This places the combo in the lower 4% of all tested systems, indicating that this hardware configuration is far from optimal for this title. The rank reflects the significant gap between what this system can deliver and what most other tested configurations achieve in Rust.

The CPU itself performs reasonably well in general benchmarks, sitting at the 73rd percentile among all processors. Its average benchmark score of 19,039 places it nearly exactly at parity with the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19,047, a 0% difference) and the Intel Core 3 201E (19,056, a 0.1% deficit). The Intel Core i5-1335U trails by a marginal 0.3%, while the AMD EPYC 7773X also comes in 0.3% ahead. This suggests the processor is not the primary bottleneck in this pairing.

The GPU, however, ranks at only the 40th percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 7,472. Its closest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, 0.3% slower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, 0.4% slower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425, 0.6% slower). Only the Intel Arc A310 (7,550) sits ahead by 1%. This places the GTX 1650 in decidedly modest territory, and the measured frame rates in Rust reflect that positioning.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU side, the database shows that the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS delivers essentially identical overall compute performance, with a delta of 0% against the i5-12400F. The Intel Core 3 201E is also a near match at 0.1% behind. Users migrating from either of those processors would see virtually no difference in Rust performance, assuming the same GPU is used.

The Intel Core i5-1335U sits 0.3% behind, while the AMD EPYC 7773X is 0.3% ahead. These four alternatives bracket the i5-12400F within a narrow performance band, meaning any of them would produce nearly indistinguishable results in this game when paired with the same graphics card.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 0.3% slower, making it a slightly weaker substitute. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 and AMD Radeon R7 350 are 0.4% and 0.6% slower respectively. The Intel Arc A310 is the only nearby rival that outperforms the GTX 1650, by 1%. For a system builder considering a swap, the Arc A310 would offer a marginal improvement, though still far from transformative in Rust.

When considering the entire combo, the data suggests that swapping either component for its nearest rival would not meaningfully change the game's playability. The system's low rank stems from the GPU's limited capability, and none of the near-equal alternatives would lift the combo into a higher performance tier.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data reveals how the workload shifts between the CPU and GPU across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 64 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. This is the only configuration that reaches playable performance. Moving to Medium at the same resolution drops the average to 41.7 FPS, a 34.8% reduction. High settings yield 35.8 FPS, and Ultra falls to 26.7 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds but with lower absolute numbers. Low settings produce 44.4 FPS, Medium drops to 32.2 FPS, High to 27.1 FPS, and Ultra to 21.7 FPS. The scaling from 1080p Low to 1440p Low represents a 30.6% performance loss, indicating that the GPU is heavily taxed by the increase in pixel count.

At 3840x2160, performance collapses further. Low settings average 29.6 FPS, Medium 20.1 FPS, High 17.6 FPS, and Ultra 9.6 FPS. The step from 1440p Low to 4K Low is a 33.3% drop, again pointing to the GPU as the limiting factor.

The CPU's role becomes apparent when comparing the scaling between presets at a fixed resolution. At 1080p, going from Low to Medium costs 22.3 FPS, while from Medium to High costs 5.9 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 9.1 FPS. The largest single drop occurs between Low and Medium, which suggests that the initial increase in graphical complexity (textures, shadows, effects) heavily burdens the GPU. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, is likely sufficient to feed the GTX 1650 at these settings, as evidenced by the fact that the combo can hit 64 FPS at 1080p Low. At higher resolutions, the GPU's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus become the dominant constraint.

The Verdict

The data is clear: this system can run Rust, but only at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where it averages 64 FPS. That is the sole configuration that clears the 60 FPS threshold established in the database. At every other resolution and preset combination, the average frame rate falls below 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, no settings achieve playable performance. The best result is 44.4 FPS on Low, which is 15.6 FPS short of the target. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse, with Low averaging 29.6 FPS and Ultra dropping to 9.6 FPS. The verdict by resolution categorizes both 1440p and 4K as having no playable settings.

For users who insist on playing at higher resolutions or with better visual quality, this combo will not deliver a smooth experience. The 1080p Low preset is the only viable option, and even that is barely above the threshold. Pushing to Medium at 1080p loses over a third of the frame rate, making the game feel noticeably less fluid. The verdict is straightforward: this PC can run Rust at 1080p Low, and nothing more demanding is recommended.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings for this system in Rust?

A: The only playable configuration is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which averages 64 FPS. No other resolution or preset combination reaches 60 FPS.

Q: Can this combo handle Rust at 1440p?

A: No. At 2560x1440, even Low settings only produce 44.4 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall further behind.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1650 averages 7,472 in benchmark scores. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 0.3% slower, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is 0.4% slower, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 is 0.6% slower. Only the Intel Arc A310 is faster, by 1%.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in Rust?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The i5-12400F ranks at the 73rd percentile among CPUs, while the GTX 1650 ranks at the 40th percentile among GPUs. The rapid FPS drops when raising resolution or settings confirm that the graphics card cannot keep up.

Q: What FPS can I expect at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: Medium settings at 1920x1080 average 41.7 FPS, which is 18.3 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. The drop from Low to Medium is the largest single preset penalty at this resolution.

Q: Does the combo perform better at 4K Low than at 1080p Ultra?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 Low, the average is 29.6 FPS, while at 1920x1080 Ultra, the average is 26.7 FPS. The 4K Low setting is slightly faster, though neither is playable.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the best settings that maintain at least 60 FPS are Low, which delivers an average of 64 FPS. This is the only resolution and preset combination in the entire measured dataset that meets the playable threshold. Medium at 1080p averages 41.7 FPS, High averages 35.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 26.7 FPS, all of which fall short.

At 2560x1440, no settings achieve 60 FPS. The closest is Low at 44.4 FPS, followed by Medium at 32.2 FPS, High at 27.1 FPS, and Ultra at 21.7 FPS. The database records no best settings for this resolution because none are playable.

At 3840x2160, the situation is similarly unplayable across all presets. Low averages 29.6 FPS, Medium 20.1 FPS, High 17.6 FPS, and Ultra 9.6 FPS. No recommended settings exist for 4K on this combo.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database provides average FPS values for each resolution and preset combination, with no minimum or maximum frame rates recorded.

At 3840x2160, the results are as follows: Low settings average 29.6 FPS, Medium 20.1 FPS, High 17.6 FPS, and Ultra 9.6 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 20 FPS, with the Ultra preset delivering less than a third of the Low performance.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 44.4 FPS, Medium 32.2 FPS, High 27.1 FPS, and Ultra 21.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 22.7 FPS, a slightly larger absolute difference than at 4K, though the percentage drop is smaller because the starting point is higher.

At 1920x1080, the numbers improve substantially. Low hits 64 FPS, which is the only playable result. Medium follows at 41.7 FPS, High at 35.8 FPS, and Ultra at 26.7 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 22.3 FPS, the largest single-step drop in the entire dataset, indicating that the GTX 1650 struggles significantly once graphical detail increases beyond the minimum. The difference between Medium and High is 5.9 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 9.1 FPS, showing diminishing returns as settings climb.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: the GPU's limited memory bandwidth and compute capacity cause steep performance degradation as either resolution or preset quality increases. The only configuration that respects the 60 FPS threshold is 1080p Low, and it does so by a margin of just 4 FPS.