Rust

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a combination that targets 1080p gaming, and the recorded data for Rust confirms this limitation clearly. At 4K and 1440p, the system falls well short of the 60 FPS playability threshold, while at 1080p, only the lowest settings deliver a playable experience. This analysis breaks down exactly where this combo stands across resolutions and settings, using only the measured frame rates from the database.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database records no playable settings for this combo at 3840x2160 or 2560x1440. At 4K, the highest average frame rate achieved is 28 FPS on Low settings, which is less than half of the 60 FPS target. High, Medium, and Ultra all fall between 13 and 16 FPS, making the game effectively unplayable at this resolution regardless of visual fidelity.

At 1440p, the situation improves but remains below the threshold. Low settings produce an average of 42.9 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium reaches 32 FPS, High drops to 28.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 18.5 FPS. None of these clear the 60 FPS bar, so the recommendation is to avoid 1440p entirely with this hardware.

At 1920x1080, the picture changes notably. The only playable preset is Low, which delivers an average of 64.6 FPS, just above the 60 FPS threshold. This is the single playable configuration in the entire dataset. Medium runs at 42.2 FPS, High at 38.8 FPS, and Ultra at 29.2 FPS. For a smooth experience, users must accept Low settings at 1080p, as every other preset falls short of the minimum playability target.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows that the GPU is the primary bottleneck for Rust in this configuration. The GTX 1650, with its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus, struggles to push frame rates at higher resolutions. The CPU, a 10-core, 16-thread Raptor Lake part, has ample headroom for a game like Rust, which is not known for extreme multi-threaded demands. The CPU benchmarks show strong multi-core performance (Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22604), but the GPU's 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance limits the final output.

The resolution scaling confirms this. From 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the average frame rate drops from 64.6 FPS to 42.9 FPS, a 34% reduction. From 1440p Low to 4K Low, it drops further to 28 FPS, another 35% reduction. This steep decline across resolutions is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario. The GPU must render more pixels, and its 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth becomes the limiting factor.

The preset scaling also points to the same conclusion. At 1080p, going from Low to Medium reduces the average from 64.6 FPS to 42.2 FPS, a 35% hit. Low to High drops from 64.6 to 38.8 FPS, a 40% loss. Low to Ultra falls from 64.6 to 29.2 FPS, a 55% penalty. These large drops indicate that the GPU is overwhelmed by the additional shading and texture work, not that the CPU cannot feed it. If the CPU were the limit, the frame rate would stay more stable across graphics presets.

The data shows that the i5-13400F is not the limiting factor here. Its 3DMark single-thread score of 960 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3191 indicate strong single-core performance, which is what Rust requires for game logic and physics. The GPU, however, ranks in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, placing it near entry-level territory. This asymmetry explains why the frame rates scale so poorly with resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded average frame rates are as follows. Low settings produce 28 FPS, Medium yields 16 FPS, High produces 13 FPS, and Ultra matches 15 FPS. The spread between Low and Medium is 12 FPS, while the gap between Medium and Ultra is only 1 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is already saturated at Medium, and higher settings add little extra load.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 42.9 FPS, Medium 32 FPS, High 28.5 FPS, and Ultra 18.5 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 10.9 FPS drop, Medium to High a 3.5 FPS drop, and High to Ultra a 10 FPS drop. The Ultra setting is particularly punishing, nearly halving the High result.

At 1920x1080, the only resolution with a playable result, the averages are: Low 64.6 FPS, Medium 42.2 FPS, High 38.8 FPS, and Ultra 29.2 FPS. The delta between Low and Medium is 22.4 FPS, which is the largest single jump in the dataset. This indicates that the Medium preset introduces effects that heavily tax the GTX 1650. The difference between High and Ultra is 9.6 FPS, as the GPU struggles to maintain even 30 FPS.

All recorded min and max frame times are not available in this dataset, so the analysis relies solely on the average frame rates. The absence of min FPS data means there is no way to assess stutter or frame pacing variability, but the average values are consistent across the resolution and preset matrix.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Rust at 60 FPS at 4K or 1440p under any settings. The database indicates zero playable configurations for those resolutions. The only playable scenario is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the average frame rate is 64.6 FPS, just above the 60 FPS threshold.

For a stable experience, the user must stay on 1080p Low. Medium drops to 42.2 FPS, which is below the playable threshold. High 38.8 FPS, and Ultra 29.2 FPS. So, the system is only suitable for lower-fidelity gaming. The verdict by resolution confirms this: 1080p Low is the sole playable preset.

The GTX 1650 is an end-of-life product, and this data reflects its age. The GPU scores 7472 in the average benchmark, which puts it below many modern entry-level parts. The CPU, on the other hand, is a strong performer, ranking in the 77th percentile among all CPUs. The bottleneck is unmistakable. This is a case where the GPU severely limits the overall gaming experience.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the Intel Core i5-13400F sits at an average benchmark score of 25292. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS with a score of 25284, the Intel Core 5 120 with 25362, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D with 25365, and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H with 25201. All of these are within a 0.4% to 0.3% performance delta. This means that swapping the i5-13400F for any of these would result in nearly identical CPU performance in Rust.

For the GPU, the GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7401, the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425, and the Intel Arc A310 at 7550. These are all within a 0.6% to 1% delta. The Intel Arc A310 is slightly faster, while the others are marginally slower. In real-world terms, these would produce the same frame rates in Rust.

If a user were looking at alternative hardware, swapping the GPU for an Intel Arc A310 would be the only change that might yield a minor improvement. The other rivals would be indistinguishable in practice. The CPU, on the other hand, is well-positioned, and a change to any of its rivals would not alter the frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific CPU and GPU combination ranks 3594th out of 3723 tested combos in the database. This places it in the bottom 3.5% of all tested systems. The low rank is driven entirely by the GPU, as the CPU is a solid mid-range part. The combination is not a balanced one, and the data reflects that.

The rank of 3594 out of 3723 means that out of 3723 tested combinations, only 129 are slower. This is a very low position, indicating that this is not a recommended configuration for modern gaming. The GTX 1650's 40th percentile rank among GPUs is the primary cause. This rank is based on average benchmark scores, not just Rust, so it is a general indicator of performance. In a game like Rust, which is not particularly demanding on the CPU, the GPU is the clear limiting factor.

In summary, this system is only usable for 1080p Low gaming in Rust, and it ranks near the bottom of the database. Users with this hardware should consider lowering the resolution or settings, or upgrading the GPU to achieve a better experience.