Rust

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the measured data shows no playable settings for this combination. The highest average frame rate recorded at this resolution is 25.7 FPS on Low settings, which falls well below the 60 FPS playable threshold. High settings produce 14.7 FPS, Medium produces 15.7 FPS, and Ultra produces 13.6 FPS. None of these approach a smooth experience.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves slightly but remains below the playable threshold. Low settings deliver 45.6 FPS, Medium delivers 33.5 FPS, High delivers 25 FPS, and Ultra delivers 17.9 FPS. The database shows no settings preset at this resolution that reaches or exceeds 60 FPS, so no best settings can be recommended.

At 1920x1080, there is exactly one playable configuration: Low settings with an average of 64.3 FPS. This is the only preset across all three resolutions that clears the 60 FPS mark. Medium settings at 1080p produce 45 FPS, High produces 39.6 FPS, and Ultra produces 29.4 FPS. The best settings for this resolution are therefore Low, since it is the only option that maintains a playable frame rate.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data reveals how the balance between processor and graphics card shifts across resolutions. At 3840x2160, the frame rates across all presets are tightly clustered between 13.6 FPS and 25.7 FPS. This narrow spread indicates that the GPU is the dominant constraint, as changing graphics settings has a limited impact on performance. The RX 570 simply cannot push enough pixels at 4K regardless of the quality level chosen.

At 2560x1440, the scaling between presets becomes more pronounced. Low settings produce 45.6 FPS, while Ultra drops to 17.9 FPS. This wider gap suggests that both the CPU and GPU are being exercised, but the GPU still carries most of the load. The jump from Low to Medium costs 12.1 FPS, and the jump from Medium to High costs another 8.5 FPS, showing that each tier of graphical fidelity has a measurable cost.

At 1920x1080, the CPU begins to show its influence more clearly. Low settings reach 64.3 FPS, which is above the playable threshold. Medium drops to 45 FPS, a loss of 19.3 FPS from Low, and High drops further to 39.6 FPS. The fact that Low is the only playable preset at 1080p indicates that the RX 570 is the limiting factor here, not the i5-14400F. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would cluster more tightly across presets at this resolution.

Comparing across resolutions, the data shows that lowering resolution from 1440p to 1080p on Low settings improves performance from 45.6 FPS to 64.3 FPS, a gain of 18.7 FPS. This is a substantial improvement that points to GPU-bound behavior. The i5-14400F has enough headroom to feed the RX 570 at 1080p, but the GPU cannot keep up at higher resolutions or quality levels. The processor's role becomes more relevant only when the GPU is not saturated, which happens at 1080p Low. In all other configurations, the graphics card dictates the frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160: The database records four settings at this resolution. Ultra is the slowest at 13.6 FPS average. High follows at 14.7 FPS. Medium improves to 15.7 FPS. Low is the fastest at 25.7 FPS. The gap between Low and the next tier, Medium, is 10 FPS, which is the largest jump within this resolution. The difference between Medium and High is only 1 FPS, and between High and Ultra it is 1.1 FPS. This suggests that the GPU is overwhelmed at 4K, and further reductions in visual quality beyond Low yield diminishing returns.

2560x1440: Ultra produces 17.9 FPS average. High improves to 25 FPS, a gain of 7.1 FPS over Ultra. Medium reaches 33.5 FPS, which is 8.5 FPS ahead of High. Low is the fastest at 45.6 FPS, a 12.1 FPS improvement over Medium. The scaling here is more linear than at 4K, with each drop in settings tier providing a meaningful boost. However, even the lowest preset remains below the 60 FPS threshold.

1920x1080: Ultra is the slowest at 29.4 FPS average. High reaches 39.6 FPS, a gain of 10.2 FPS over Ultra. Medium improves to 45 FPS, which is 5.4 FPS ahead of High. Low is the only playable option at 64.3 FPS, a 19.3 FPS jump over Medium. This is the largest single-tier improvement across all resolutions and settings, highlighting how much headroom exists in the Low preset at 1080p. The spread from Ultra to Low is 34.9 FPS, demonstrating that settings choice has a major impact at this resolution.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Rust at 1080p?

A: Yes, but only on Low settings. The measured average at 1920x1080 with Low settings is 64.3 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS, with averages of 45 FPS, 39.6 FPS, and 29.4 FPS respectively.

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

A: The only resolution with a playable preset is 1920x1080. At 2560x1440, the best recorded average is 45.6 FPS on Low. At 3840x2160, the best recorded average is 25.7 FPS on Low. Neither of these reaches the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 1440p on Low settings?

A: The average frame rate drops from 64.3 FPS at 1920x1080 to 45.6 FPS at 2560x1440 on Low settings. This is a loss of 18.7 FPS, or roughly 29% of the 1080p performance.

Q: Which settings preset at 1440p comes closest to playable?

A: Low settings at 2560x1440 produce 45.6 FPS, which is the closest to 60 FPS at that resolution. Medium produces 33.5 FPS, High produces 25 FPS, and Ultra produces 17.9 FPS.

Q: Does the game scale well with settings at 4K?

A: The scaling is poor at 3840x2160. The difference between Ultra and High is only 1.1 FPS, and between High and Medium it is 1 FPS. The largest jump is from Medium to Low, which is 10 FPS. The GPU appears to be the limiting factor at this resolution.

Q: Is there any preset at 4K that reaches 30 FPS?

A: No. The fastest preset at 3840x2160 is Low with an average of 25.7 FPS. All other presets are below 16 FPS, with Ultra at 13.6 FPS, High at 14.7 FPS, and Medium at 15.7 FPS.

The Verdict

The data is clear: this combination can run Rust at 1920x1080 on Low settings with an average of 64.3 FPS. This is the only configuration that clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 2560x1440, no settings preset is playable, with the best option being Low at 45.6 FPS. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse, with the best option being Low at 25.7 FPS.

For users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, 1080p Low is the only viable choice. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 19.3 FPS, which is a steep penalty for a single tier of graphical improvement. At 1440p, even the lowest preset leaves a 14.4 FPS gap to the playable threshold, so there is no headroom for quality adjustments. At 4K, the hardware is fundamentally outmatched, as every preset falls below 26 FPS.

The recorded data indicates that this PC is suitable for Rust only under a narrow set of conditions. Users should plan to run the game at 1080p with reduced settings to maintain smooth gameplay. Higher resolutions require a more powerful GPU to reach playable frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-14400F and the AMD Radeon RX 570 ranks 3583 out of 3723 tested combos in Rust. This places it in the lower percentile of all systems in the database, specifically around the 96th percentile from the bottom. The rank reflects the GPU's age and limited memory bandwidth, which severely constrain performance in a demanding survival title like Rust.

The CPU itself is not the issue. The i5-14400F ranks in the 83rd percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32279. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U with a score of 32233 (0.1% difference), the Intel Core i9-11900 with 32226 (0.2% difference), the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS with 32354 (0.2% lower), and the Intel Core i7-12800H with 32121 (0.5% difference). These rivals are all within 1% of the i5-14400F, indicating that the processor provides competitive compute performance.

The GPU, however, drags the overall rank down. The RX 570 sits in the 74th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 28766. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28874 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon R9 M295X at 28580 (0.7% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28996 (0.8% higher), and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 at 28421 (1.2% lower). The RX 570 is essentially on par with these cards, but none of them are designed for high-end gaming at modern resolutions.

In the context of Rust specifically, the combo rank of 3583 out of 3723 indicates that most other tested systems achieve better frame rates. This is consistent with the measured FPS data, which shows only one playable configuration across all resolutions and settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are all within 0.5% of the i5-14400F's average benchmark score. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U scores 32233, which is 0.1% higher. The Intel Core i9-11900 scores 32226, 0.2% higher. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS scores 32354, which is 0.2% lower. The Intel Core i7-12800H scores 32121, 0.5% higher. Any of these processors would behave nearly identically to the i5-14400F in Rust, meaning they would not change the playable settings picture.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are similarly close. The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 28874, which is 0.4% higher than the RX 570. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X scores 28580, 0.7% lower. The AMD Radeon RX 470 scores 28996, 0.8% higher. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 scores 28421, 1.2% lower. Swapping the RX 570 for any of these cards would result in nearly the same frame rates in Rust, as the performance deltas are all below 1.2%.

It is important to note that the RX 6800M is a mobile GPU, while the RX 470 is a desktop card from the same generation as the RX 570. The RX 470, in particular, would be a direct drop-in alternative with essentially the same performance profile. The Quadro RTX 8000 is a professional workstation GPU, so its gaming performance is comparable to the RX 570 despite its different market positioning.

None of these alternatives would push the system into playable territory at 1440p or 4K. They would all deliver similar results to the measured data, meaning 1080p Low remains the only playable configuration. Users looking for a meaningful improvement would need to step outside this performance band entirely.