Rust

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Rust with the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 580 covers three resolutions and four quality presets. Average FPS figures are available for every combination, though minimum and maximum values were not captured in this dataset.

At 3840x2160, performance is severely constrained. The Low preset averages 31.5 FPS, which is the only setting that even approaches reasonable interactivity. Medium drops to 19.5 FPS, High falls to 19.4 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 13.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is substantial, a 12 FPS difference that suggests the RX 580 hits a memory bandwidth or fill-rate ceiling at 4K once texture quality increases. High and Medium are nearly identical, indicating that the bottleneck shifts from GPU shading to other factors at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains below the 60 FPS threshold across the board. Low averages 52.4 FPS, which is close to playable but still short. Medium delivers 32 FPS, High produces 29.5 FPS, and Ultra manages 24.6 FPS. The scaling pattern here is telling: Low to Medium costs about 20 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High is only 2.5 FPS, and High to Ultra costs another 4.9 FPS. This nonlinear scaling suggests that the Low preset removes certain rendering features that disproportionately impact frame time, whereas the higher presets impose more uniform loads.

At 1920x1080, the combination finally reaches the 60 FPS target, but only on the Low preset. Low averages 72.6 FPS, giving a comfortable margin above the playable threshold. Medium drops to 46.6 FPS, High falls to 39.4 FPS, and Ultra trails at 34.5 FPS. The pattern across resolutions is consistent: Low is always dramatically faster than Medium, with the delta shrinking as resolution decreases. At 1080p, Low beats Medium by 26 FPS; at 1440p, the gap is 20.4 FPS; at 4K, it narrows to 12 FPS. This indicates that the Low preset reduces CPU-side workload as well as GPU load, and the i5-9400's six-core, six-thread configuration becomes more relevant at lower resolutions where the GPU is less saturated.

The data reveals that this combination scales poorly with quality settings. From Low to Ultra at 1080p, performance drops by 52.5%. At 1440p, the drop is 53.1%, and at 4K it is 56.5%. The percentage decline is remarkably consistent, suggesting that the RX 580's architectural limits, rather than any specific setting, govern the frame rate at higher presets.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database places the Intel Core i5-9400 at the 47th percentile among all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2254. Its nearest rivals in aggregate performance are tightly clustered. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259, which is 0.2% higher. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, 0.4% higher. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, 0.3% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, 0.4% lower. These deltas are negligible in real-world gaming, meaning any of these CPUs would deliver near-identical frame rates in Rust when paired with the same GPU.

For the AMD Radeon RX 580, the percentile ranking is 53, with an average benchmark score of 12928. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile at 12940 (0.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER at 12986 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon 740M at 12870 (0.5% lower), and the AMD FirePro W5100 at 12847 (0.6% lower). The GTX 1660 SUPER is particularly relevant as a desktop alternative that would behave almost identically in Rust, given the 0.4% score delta. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, despite being a laptop part, lands in the same performance envelope.

A system builder looking for comparable behavior could substitute the i5-9400 with any of its four rivals without materially changing the Rust experience. The same applies to the RX 580: swapping to a GTX 1660 SUPER or RTX 3050 Ti Mobile would produce FPS figures within the margin of measurement error. The AMD FirePro W5100 is a workstation card, but its benchmark score places it squarely in the same tier, so gaming performance would be similar despite its professional positioning.

How This Combo Ranks

Among all tested CPU-GPU combinations in the database for Rust, this pairing ranks 3391 out of 3723. That places it in the lower 9% of all systems tested, a position that reflects the age of both components. The i5-9400 launched in late 2018, and the RX 580 in early 2017, so the combination predates several generations of hardware that now dominate the upper ranks.

The ranking is more meaningful when viewed against the playable threshold. The database defines 60 FPS as the playable target. This combo only achieves that at 1080p with the Low preset, which explains its low percentile standing. Many newer combinations, even mid-range ones, can hold 60 FPS at higher presets and resolutions. The rank of 3391 out of 3723 indicates that roughly 91% of tested systems outperform this pairing in Rust, which is consistent with the component ages and the game's demanding rendering workload.

The CPU's 47th percentile ranking among all CPUs is actually respectable for a six-core part, but Rust's frame rates here are more GPU-limited at higher presets. The RX 580's 53rd percentile GPU ranking is similarly mid-pack, yet the combination fails to reach 60 FPS at 1440p on any preset. This suggests that Rust's optimization favors newer architectures with better shader efficiency, and the Polaris GPU's GCN 4.0 design struggles with the game's specific draw call patterns.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Rust? Yes, but with significant caveats. The verdict data is unambiguous: playable settings (defined as averaging 60 FPS or higher) exist only at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which delivers 72.6 FPS. At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS; the best case is Low at 52.4 FPS, which falls short. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse, with the best case being Low at 31.5 FPS.

For users with a 1080p monitor, the system can run Rust at playable frame rates, but only on Low settings. The 20 FPS buffer above the threshold provides some headroom for busy scenes with many players or bases, though minimum FPS data was not recorded. At 1440p, the system is not playable by the database's standard. Users could tolerate 52.4 FPS if they prefer visual quality over smoothness, but the official verdict is that no settings qualify. At 4K, the system is firmly in unplayable territory, with even Low averaging below 32 FPS.

The verdict is clear: this is a 1080p Low-preset machine for Rust. It will run the game, but users must accept minimal graphical settings to maintain a smooth experience. Higher resolutions require either a GPU upgrade or a willingness to play at sub-60 FPS frame rates.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings for this CPU-GPU combo in Rust?

A: The only combination that clears the 60 FPS playable threshold is 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which averages 72.6 FPS.

Q: Can this system run Rust at 1440p?

A: No. The best 1440p result is Low at 52.4 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 32 FPS, High 29.5 FPS, and Ultra 24.6 FPS.

Q: How does the RX 580 compare to its nearest GPU rival?

A: The RX 580's average benchmark score is 12928. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER scores 12986, which is 0.4% higher, meaning the two GPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Rust.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: Low averages 72.6 FPS, while Ultra averages 34.5 FPS. That is a difference of 38.1 FPS, with Ultra delivering 52.5% lower performance than Low.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the performance limits?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher presets, as the RX 580 ranks at the 53rd percentile among GPUs while the i5-9400 ranks at the 47th percentile among CPUs. The GPU's Polaris architecture struggles particularly at 4K, where even Low only hits 31.5 FPS.

Q: What settings should be avoided entirely?

A: At 3840x2160, all presets are below 32 FPS, with Ultra at 13.7 FPS. These should be avoided if smooth gameplay is desired. At 1440p and 1080p, Medium and above all fall short of 60 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The highest average is Low at 31.5 FPS, but since this falls below the playable threshold, there is no recommended setting. The database records no best settings for this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the situation is identical: no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low is closest at 52.4 FPS, but it still misses the threshold. No best settings are recorded.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset is the only qualifying option, averaging 72.6 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, and it is the recommended configuration. Medium drops to 46.6 FPS, which is playable for some users but falls below the database's 60 FPS standard.

The overall recommendation is straightforward: set the resolution to 1920x1080 and select Low for a playable experience. Any increase in quality settings or resolution will drop the frame rate below the playable threshold. Users with 1440p or 4K monitors should either lower the resolution to 1080p or consider hardware upgrades, as no in-game settings can compensate for the combination's performance ceiling in Rust.