Rust

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT delivers a solidly playable Rust experience at 1080p and 1440p, but it falls short of the 60 FPS threshold at 4K unless settings are dropped significantly. Benchmark data shows this combo hits 72.5 FPS on Ultra at 1920x1080, 64.9 FPS on High at 2560x1440, and only 69.4 FPS on Low at 3840x2160. The system ranks 1891 out of 3723 tested combos for this game, placing it in the upper-middle tier of performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Rust reveals a clear performance curve across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the combo is overwhelmingly capable. Low settings produce 167.4 FPS average, Medium hits 112.7 FPS, High reaches 93.9 FPS, and even Ultra maintains a strong 72.5 FPS. All four presets at 1080p clear the 60 FPS playable threshold with substantial headroom, making this resolution the sweet spot for high-refresh-rate monitors.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops are noticeable but not catastrophic. Low settings deliver 115.9 FPS average, Medium comes in at 76.9 FPS, and High stays above the threshold at 64.9 FPS. Ultra, however, falls below playable at 48 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 12 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra costs 16.9 FPS, indicating that Ultra settings impose a heavy rendering burden at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the RX 6700 XT struggles to maintain fluid gameplay on higher presets. Low settings yield 69.4 FPS average, which is just above the 60 FPS mark. Medium drops to 46.7 FPS, High falls further to 40.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 28.5 FPS. The delta between Low and Medium is 22.7 FPS, showing that even modest increases in graphical fidelity at 4K exact a steep toll on performance. The data indicates that 4K gaming with this combo requires aggressive compromises.

The min and max FPS values are not provided in the measured data, so the analysis relies solely on average FPS figures. This means the consistency of frame pacing cannot be fully assessed, but the averages themselves paint a consistent picture: the combo scales predictably with resolution and settings, with the most dramatic performance cliff occurring between Low and Medium at 4K.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which delivers 72.5 FPS average. This is the clear choice for users prioritizing visual fidelity without sacrificing playability. The 12.5 FPS of headroom above the 60 FPS threshold provides a modest buffer for complex scenes, though players in densely populated servers may prefer High at 93.9 FPS for extra margin.

At 2560x1440, High is the best settings option, producing 64.9 FPS average. This preset clears the 60 FPS line by 4.9 FPS, which is enough for smooth gameplay in most scenarios but leaves limited room for dips during intense firefights or large base raids. Medium at 76.9 FPS offers a safer alternative with 16.9 FPS of headroom, but High represents the optimal balance of visual quality and performance according to the data.

For 3840x2160, only Low settings achieve playable performance, with 69.4 FPS average. This is the sole 4K preset above 60 FPS, and it provides 9.4 FPS of margin. Users targeting 4K must accept substantial visual compromises, as Medium drops to 46.7 FPS and becomes unplayable by the 60 FPS standard. The data strongly suggests that 1440p is the practical ceiling for this combo if users want to enjoy higher quality presets.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Rust at 60 FPS on Ultra settings?

A: At 1920x1080, yes — Ultra averages 72.5 FPS. At 2560x1440, no — Ultra drops to 48 FPS. At 3840x2160, no — Ultra averages only 28.5 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Rust?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the strongest resolution, with all four presets (Low 167.4 FPS, Medium 112.7 FPS, High 93.9 FPS, Ultra 72.5 FPS) clearing 60 FPS. 2560x1440 is viable up to High settings at 64.9 FPS.

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

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25292, which is essentially identical to the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS at 25284 (0% delta). It is 0.3% behind the Intel Core 5 120 (25362) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25365), and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (25201).

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

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT scores 27425 on average. This is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile at 27435 (0% delta). It is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (27565), 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell (27135), and 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27839).

Q: Is 4K gaming feasible with this setup?

A: Only at Low settings, which produce 69.4 FPS average. Medium at 46.7 FPS and High at 40.5 FPS are both below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Ultra at 28.5 FPS is not recommended for competitive play.

Q: What percentile does this hardware rank in globally?

A: The CPU sits in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. For Rust specifically, this combo ranks 1891 out of 3723 tested combinations.

How This Combo Ranks

In the Rust benchmark database, this Intel Core i5-13400F + AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT combination ranks 1891 out of 3723 tested combos. This places it in the 50.8th percentile of all tested systems, meaning just over half of the tested configurations perform better in this game. The rank reflects a balanced pairing: the CPU's strong multi-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22604) complements the GPU's solid rasterization capabilities (PassMark G3D score of 19786).

The rank is heavily influenced by the GPU's performance ceiling at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the combo performs admirably, but the RX 6700 XT's 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth become limiting factors at 4K, where the frame rates plummet. The CPU, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, is unlikely to be the bottleneck in Rust, as the game's performance scaling aligns more closely with GPU load as resolution increases.

Compared to the broader field, this combo sits in the middle of the pack. The GPU's 72nd percentile ranking and the CPU's 77th percentile ranking suggest that neither component is a weak link, but the combination doesn't push into the top tier of systems tested for Rust. Users seeking higher rankings would need a more powerful GPU for 4K play or a faster CPU for extremely high refresh rates at 1080p.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS delivers nearly identical average performance at 25284 compared to the i5-13400F's 25292, a 0% delta. The Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D both score 25362 and 25365 respectively, each 0.3% higher. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H trails at 25201, 0.4% lower. These processors would produce virtually indistinguishable frame rates in Rust, making them direct substitutes for the i5-13400F in this combo.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile is the closest match with an average score of 27435 versus the RX 6700 XT's 27425, a 0% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 scores 27565, 0.5% higher, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 scores 27839, 1.5% higher. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell scores 27135, 1.1% lower. These GPUs would offer similar performance in Rust, with the RTX 3090 providing a marginal edge and the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell a slight deficit.

Users considering alternative hardware can expect comparable Rust performance from these components. The delta percentages are all within 1.5%, meaning the in-game FPS differences would be minimal — likely within a few frames per second across all tested resolutions and settings. The RTX 3090, despite being a higher-tier card, shows only a 0.5% average score advantage, indicating that the RX 6700 XT holds its own in this specific game.

The Verdict

This PC can run Rust, but the experience varies dramatically by resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold on every preset, including Ultra at 72.5 FPS. This is the definitive answer for users who want maximum visual quality without performance concerns. The 1080p results show strong headroom across the board, with Low at 167.4 FPS suitable for competitive play and Ultra at 72.5 FPS ideal for immersive sessions.

At 2560x1440, the combo remains playable but with caveats. High settings average 64.9 FPS, just above the threshold, while Medium at 76.9 FPS offers more comfort. Ultra at 48 FPS is not recommended for smooth gameplay. Users with 1440p monitors should stick to High or Medium presets to maintain consistent performance.

At 3840x2160, the verdict is clear: only Low settings are playable, averaging 69.4 FPS. Medium at 46.7 FPS, High at 40.5 FPS, and Ultra at 28.5 FPS all fall short of the 60 FPS standard. The data indicates that 4K gaming with this combo requires significant graphical sacrifices, making it a poor choice for users with 4K displays who prioritize frame rates. The overall recommendation is to target 1080p for the best experience, with 1440p on Medium or High as a viable secondary option.