Rust

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the Intel Arc B580 presents a specific performance profile in Rust, a survival title from 2018-02-07. The data shows this combination is capable of smooth gameplay at 1080p and 1440p, but it falls short of the 60 FPS threshold at 2160p. The measured frame rates across resolutions and presets reveal a system that scales predictably with graphical load, with the most demanding settings requiring a resolution drop to maintain playability.

FAQ

Q: What is the best setting for 1920x1080 that stays above 60 FPS?

A: The best setting at 1920x1080 is High, which delivers an average of 72.7 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 55.3 FPS, falling below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Can this combo run Rust at 2560x1440 with playable frame rates?

A: Yes, at 2560x1440, both Low and Medium presets are playable. The Medium preset is the best playable option, averaging 62.7 FPS, while Low averages 88.8 FPS.

Q: What are the playable settings at 3840x2160?

A: None. At 3840x2160, all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) average below 60 FPS. The highest average is 54.1 FPS on Low settings.

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 virtually identical to the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (25284, 0% delta). It is also within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (25201) and slightly behind the Intel Core 5 120 (25362, -0.3%) and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25365, -0.3%).

Q: What GPU performance class does the Arc B580 belong to?

A: The Intel Arc B580 has an average benchmark score of 23021 and ranks in the 68th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival by average score is the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (23061, -0.2%), with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (22895, 0.6%) and RTX 3080 (23172, -0.7%) also in close proximity.

Q: What is the overall ranking of this CPU+GPU combo for Rust?

A: This combo ranks 2842 out of 3723 tested combinations for Rust. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the database, indicating that while it can handle lower resolutions, it is not a top-tier performer for this specific game.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance data for Rust shows a clear division of labor between the CPU and GPU, with the GPU becoming the dominant constraint as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is substantial, from 132.8 FPS down to 55.3 FPS. This wide spread indicates that the graphics card is heavily taxed by the higher presets, but the CPU is still able to feed it enough data to reach high frame rates at lower settings. The CPU’s 10 cores and 16 threads, along with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, provide sufficient headroom for the game’s simulation and world-streaming tasks.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average frame rates compress somewhat: Low drops to 88.8 FPS and Ultra to 41.6 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings (132.8 to 88.8 FPS, a 33% reduction) shows that the GPU is already becoming a limiting factor, as the pixel count increases by roughly 78%. However, the CPU still appears capable, as the Medium preset at 1440p (62.7 FPS) is only slightly below the High preset at 1080p (72.7 FPS). This suggests that the GPU handles the increased resolution load without the CPU becoming a bottleneck.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is unequivocally the primary constraint. The average frame rates fall to 54.1 FPS on Low and 25.2 FPS on Ultra. Even the lowest settings cannot reach 60 FPS, meaning that the Arc B580’s 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 456.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the 4K pixel workload in Rust. The CPU’s role is diminished at this resolution; the data shows that the performance ceiling is entirely set by the GPU’s rasterization throughput. The benchmark results indicate that for users targeting 1080p or 1440p, the i5-13400F provides a stable foundation, while the B580 becomes the deciding factor for frame rates above 60 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS is as follows:

• 1920x1080: High settings, averaging 72.7 FPS. This is the highest preset to clear the playable threshold. Ultra falls short at 55.3 FPS.
• 2560x1440: Medium settings, averaging 62.7 FPS. Low averages 88.8 FPS, but Medium offers a better visual balance while still staying above 60 FPS. High (51.5 FPS) and Ultra (41.6 FPS) are not playable.
• 3840x2160: No preset is playable. The closest is Low at 54.1 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra average 36.4, 31.1, and 25.2 FPS respectively.

These results show a clear pattern: the system can handle higher visual fidelity at lower resolutions, but 4K is out of reach for this hardware combination. At 1080p, the High preset provides a good balance of visual quality and performance, while at 1440p, users must settle for Medium to avoid dropping below 60 FPS.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the Intel Core i5-13400F, the nearest rivals by average benchmark score are all within a 0.4% margin. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (25284) is the closest match with a 0% delta, meaning performance in CPU-bound tasks would be nearly identical. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (25201, 0.4% delta) is also a strong alternative, though it is a mobile chip. The Intel Core 5 120 (25362, -0.3% delta) and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25365, -0.3% delta) are slightly faster, but the differences are negligible. In Rust, where the CPU handles the game’s large world and entity updates, any of these processors would deliver similar frame rates.

For the Intel Arc B580, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (23061, -0.2% delta), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (22895, 0.6% delta), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (23172, -0.7% delta), and NVIDIA P106-100 (23249, -1% delta). The RTX 2080 and RTX 3080 are notably older, higher-tier cards, yet their average scores are within 1% of the Arc B580. This means that in Rust, the B580 would behave similarly to these cards, with frame rates within a few percentage points across all resolutions. The RX 580 2048SP is an older, lower-power card, but its score suggests it would keep pace with the B580 in this game, though without the B580’s modern feature set like ray tracing support.

The Verdict

The question of whether this PC can run Rust is answered by the resolution-specific data. At 1920x1080, the system is fully capable, with High settings delivering 72.7 FPS and Low settings reaching 132.8 FPS. The playable settings list includes High, Low, and Medium, making this the optimal resolution for a smooth experience.

At 2560x1440, the system remains playable, but only on Low (88.8 FPS) and Medium (62.7 FPS) presets. High and Ultra drop to 51.5 FPS and 41.6 FPS, respectively, missing the 60 FPS target. Users at this resolution will need to compromise on visual quality to maintain fluid gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the system cannot achieve 60 FPS at any setting. The best result is 54.1 FPS on Low, which is below the playable threshold. The verdict is clear: this combo is not suited for 4K gaming in Rust. Overall, the PC is a solid choice for 1080p and acceptable for 1440p, but it is not recommended for 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-13400F + Intel Arc B580 combination ranks 2842 out of 3723 tested combos for Rust. This places it in the 24th percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly three-quarters of the combinations in the database perform better. This rank is lower than the individual component percentiles (the CPU is in the 77th percentile and the GPU in the 68th percentile), which suggests that Rust’s specific engine and optimization challenges penalize this pairing more than other games might. The relatively low rank is likely due to the GPU’s inability to handle the highest presets at higher resolutions, as evidenced by the 4K results. For users with a 1080p monitor, this rank may be acceptable, but it indicates that this setup is not a high-end performer for Rust.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table presents the exact average FPS measurements for each resolution and settings preset. Note that minimum and maximum FPS values were not recorded in the data.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 132.8 |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 88.5 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 72.7 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 55.3 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 88.8 |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 62.7 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 51.5 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 41.6 |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 54.1 |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 36.4 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 31.1 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 25.2 |

The data shows a consistent drop of roughly 25-35% in average FPS when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and another 30-40% drop from 1440p to 2160p, holding the preset constant. The scaling is not perfectly linear, but it confirms that resolution is the primary variable affecting performance for this combo. The gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution is also notable: at 1080p, it is 77.5 FPS; at 1440p, 47.2 FPS; and at 2160p, 28.9 FPS. This narrowing gap at higher resolutions reinforces the conclusion that the GPU becomes the sole bottleneck as pixel count increases, leaving less headroom for settings-based performance gains.