Rust

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 ranks in the 1354th position out of 3723 tested combinations for Rust, placing it in the upper-middle segment of all recorded configurations. This ranking reflects a pairing where the GPU's modern architecture compensates for the CPU's older generation, resulting in a system that handles the game's demanding survival mechanics with notable consistency. The recorded data shows this combo achieves playable frame rates at every resolution tested, though the margin of comfort varies significantly between 4K and lower resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1354 out of 3723 places it within the top 36.4% of all tested systems for Rust, a solid position considering the age of the processor. The Intel Core i5-9400 sits at the 47th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2254. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (avg score 2259, 0.2% higher), the Intel Core i7-10710U (2248, 0.3% lower), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (2246, 0.4% lower), and the Intel Core i3-10305 (2264, 0.4% higher). This cluster of CPUs, all within a 0.8% performance band, indicates that the i5-9400's processing power is well-matched to its contemporaries, with no single rival offering a meaningful advantage.

The AMD Radeon RX 9070, conversely, performs at the 69th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 23877. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z (23736, 0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6800S (24063, 0.8% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile (23628, 1.1% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (24170, 1.2% higher). The GPU's benchmark standing is notably stronger than the CPU's, suggesting that in Rust, where visual fidelity and draw distances matter, the graphics card carries more weight in the final frame rate outcome.

The measured performance data shows a clear pattern: this combo is capable at 1080p and 1440p, but struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 4K with higher presets. At 1920x1080, even the Ultra preset delivers 91 FPS on average, while at 2560x1440, Ultra drops to 63 FPS. The 3840x2160 resolution tells a different story, where only the Low preset (86 FPS) comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS threshold, with Medium averaging just 58 FPS.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Rust at 60 FPS on a 4K monitor?

A: At 3840x2160, only the Low preset achieves a playable average of 86 FPS. Medium falls short at 58 FPS, High at 49 FPS, and Ultra at 37 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset at 2560x1440 for this system?

A: The Ultra preset is the most demanding option that stays above 60 FPS, delivering an average of 63 FPS at this resolution.

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

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 scores 2254 on average. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 is 0.2% faster, the Intel Core i7-10710U is 0.3% slower, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is 0.4% slower, and the Intel Core i3-10305 is 0.4% faster.

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

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 scores 23877 on average. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z is 0.6% faster, the AMD Radeon RX 6800S is 0.8% faster, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile is 1.1% faster, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER is 1.2% faster.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1920x1080 with Medium settings?

A: The Medium preset at 1080p produces an average of 122 FPS, with a minimum of 104 FPS and a maximum of 140 FPS.

Q: Is the 4K Medium preset playable?

A: No, the 3840x2160 Medium preset averages 58 FPS, which is 2 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The minimum recorded is 49 FPS.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU side, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 offers nearly identical performance with a 0.2% higher average score, making it a direct substitute in terms of processing power. The Intel Core i7-10710U and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 are also within a 0.4% margin, meaning any of these processors would produce virtually indistinguishable frame rates in Rust when paired with the same GPU. The Intel Core i3-10305, while 0.4% faster, also falls into this tight performance cluster.

On the GPU front, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z is 0.6% faster, and the AMD Radeon RX 6800S is 0.8% faster, both representing the closest performance matches. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile sits 1.1% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER leads by 1.2%. In practical terms, any of these graphics cards would deliver nearly the same Rust experience as the RX 9070, with differences of one or two frames per second at most.

A system combining the i5-9400 with any of these rival GPUs would perform within a percent or two of the measured results. Conversely, pairing the RX 9070 with any of the rival CPUs would yield similar outcomes, as the processor's influence on Rust frame rates appears secondary to the GPU's role at higher resolutions.

The Verdict

This PC can run Rust, and it does so with clear headroom at 1080p and 1440p. The verdict by resolution shows that at 1920x1080, all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable, with the Ultra preset averaging 91 FPS. At 2560x1440, the same is true: Low (125 FPS), Medium (98 FPS), High (83 FPS), and Ultra (63 FPS) all clear the 60 FPS threshold. The situation changes at 3840x2160, where only the Low preset (86 FPS) remains playable. Medium drops to 58 FPS, High to 49 FPS, and Ultra to 37 FPS.

The data indicates that the system is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can run the game at maximum settings with a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. At 1440p, the Ultra preset is technically playable but leaves little room for frame drops, as the average of 63 FPS is only 3 FPS above the threshold. For 4K, users must accept the Low preset to maintain smooth gameplay, which compromises visual quality significantly. The recorded minimum FPS values for Medium presets (49 FPS at 4K, 83 FPS at 1440p, 104 FPS at 1080p) provide additional context for stutter potential.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo delivers its strongest results. The Low preset averages 142 FPS, Medium averages 122 FPS with a minimum of 104 FPS and maximum of 140 FPS, High averages 115 FPS, and Ultra averages 91 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 51 FPS, showing a meaningful performance cost for maximum visual settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, frame rates remain healthy but decline proportionally. Low averages 125 FPS, Medium averages 98 FPS (minimum 83, maximum 113), High averages 83 FPS, and Ultra averages 63 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 12% on Low, 20% on Medium, 28% on High, and 31% on Ultra, indicating that higher presets scale worse with increased resolution.

At 3840x2160, the performance picture weakens considerably. Low averages 86 FPS, Medium averages 58 FPS (minimum 49, maximum 67), High averages 49 FPS, and Ultra averages 37 FPS. The step from 1440p to 4K reduces frame rates by 31% on Low, 41% on Medium, 41% on High, and 41% on Ultra. This consistent drop at higher presets suggests the GPU becomes the limiting factor at 4K, while the CPU holds up adequately.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which averages 91 FPS. This allows players to enable every visual option at this resolution without concern for playability.

For 2560x1440, the Ultra preset also qualifies, averaging 63 FPS. This is the maximum settings option, but the margin is thin: a 3 FPS buffer above the 60 FPS threshold means occasional dips could become noticeable in heavy scenes.

For 3840x2160, the best playable setting is Low, averaging 86 FPS. The Medium preset falls 2 FPS short of the threshold, so users seeking 4K must either accept Low quality or tolerate sub-60 FPS averages.

The recommended settings per resolution follow the verdict data directly: Ultra at 1080p, Ultra at 1440p, and Low at 4K.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor between the CPU and GPU across resolutions. At 1920x1080, where the GPU has less work per pixel, the frame rates are high across all presets (91 to 142 FPS), suggesting the CPU can feed frames quickly enough to keep the GPU busy. The Intel Core i5-9400's six cores and six threads, with a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, appear sufficient for Rust's simulation and networking demands at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the GPU's workload increases, and frame rates drop more steeply for higher presets. The Ultra preset falls to 63 FPS, a 31% reduction from 1080p Ultra (91 FPS), while Low only drops 12% (from 142 to 125 FPS). This scaling pattern indicates the GPU is becoming the primary constraint as resolution rises, since the CPU's frame production rate is unchanged.

At 3840x2160, the GPU dominance becomes pronounced. The Ultra preset averages 37 FPS, a 59% reduction from 1080p Ultra, while Low averages 86 FPS, a 39% reduction from 1080p Low. The CPU's role diminishes further at 4K, as the GPU's rendering workload dominates the frame time budget. The fact that even the Low preset at 4K (86 FPS) is lower than the Low preset at 1440p (125 FPS) confirms the GPU is the bottleneck, not the processor.

Across all resolutions, the gap between Low and Ultra presets widens as resolution increases: 51 FPS at 1080p, 62 FPS at 1440p, and 49 FPS at 4K. The largest absolute gap at 1440p suggests the GPU has enough headroom to show preset differences, while at 4K, the GPU's raw limits compress that gap. For this game, the RX 9070 is the decisive component for achieving higher frame rates, particularly at 1440p and above, while the i5-9400 provides sufficient support to avoid becoming the primary limiter in most scenarios.