Rust

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 represents a mid-range 2018-era desktop combination. For Rust, a survival title that stresses both CPU and GPU depending on scene complexity, the recorded data shows a system that can handle 1080p and 1440p gaming at select presets, but falls short of 60 frames per second at 4K under any setting. This analysis covers the measured FPS across three resolutions and four quality presets, the division of labor between processor and graphics card, the optimal settings for each resolution, how this combo ranks among 3,723 tested configurations, and a set of frequently asked questions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database contains average FPS readings for this combo in Rust, with no minimum or maximum frame time data recorded. All figures below are average frames per second.

1920x1080 (Full HD)

• Low settings: 113.6 FPS
• Medium settings: 75.3 FPS
• High settings: 62.0 FPS
• Ultra settings: 48.9 FPS

At 1080p, the system delivers a clear 60 FPS or better for Low, Medium, and High presets. The jump from Low to Medium is a 38.3 FPS drop, a 33.7% reduction. Moving from Medium to High costs another 13.3 FPS, a 17.7% drop. The Ultra preset falls below the playable threshold, landing at 48.9 FPS, which is 13.1 FPS lower than High. The data shows a predictable scaling curve: each step up in settings reduces performance, but the largest penalty occurs between Low and Medium.

2560x1440 (Quad HD)

• Low settings: 76.6 FPS
• Medium settings: 54.0 FPS
• High settings: 45.8 FPS
• Ultra settings: 33.1 FPS

At 1440p, only the Low preset maintains an average above 60 FPS, at 76.6 FPS. Medium falls to 54.0 FPS, which is 6 FPS short of the playable threshold. High drops further to 45.8 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 33.1 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 22.6 FPS loss, from Medium to High an 8.2 FPS loss, and from High to Ultra a 12.7 FPS loss. The pattern shows that the gap between presets narrows at higher resolutions, as the GPU becomes the limiting factor.

3840x2160 (4K UHD)

• Low settings: 45.6 FPS
• Medium settings: 30.1 FPS
• High settings: 28.9 FPS
• Ultra settings: 21.4 FPS

At 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low is the only setting above 40 FPS, at 45.6 FPS. Medium drops to 30.1 FPS, High to 28.9 FPS, and Ultra to 21.4 FPS. The difference between Medium and High is only 1.2 FPS, suggesting that at 4K the rendering pipeline is saturated regardless of minor quality changes. The gap from High to Ultra is 7.5 FPS, which is the largest step at this resolution, indicating that Ultra-specific effects impose a heavy load.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset consistently provides the highest FPS, and Ultra consistently the lowest. The full range of results spans from 21.4 FPS (4K Ultra) to 113.6 FPS (1080p Low), a 5.3x difference between the most demanding and least demanding configurations.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS scaling across resolutions reveals which component dominates Rust’s performance for this combo. Rust is a game that relies heavily on CPU for entity updates, physics, and server-side networking, but the GPU handles rendering, shadows, and post-processing. The data shows that the i5-9400’s six cores and six threads are sufficient to feed the GTX 1070 at lower resolutions, but the GPU becomes the bottleneck as pixel count increases.

1080p: CPU-bound behavior. At 1080p Low, the system hits 113.6 FPS, which is far above the GPU’s typical ceiling for a Pascal mid-range card. The i5-9400, with a boost clock of 4.10 GHz and 9 MB of shared L3 cache, appears to be the limiting factor here, as the GTX 1070 has headroom to render more frames if the CPU could issue draw calls faster. The drop to 75.3 FPS at Medium and 62.0 FPS at High shows that graphical load increases, but the CPU still maintains a high baseline. At Ultra, the 48.9 FPS result suggests that both components are stressed, with the GPU starting to struggle with higher-resolution textures and shadow maps.

1440p: Transition to GPU-bound. At 1440p Low, the FPS drops to 76.6, a 37 FPS reduction from 1080p Low. This is a 32.6% decrease, which is larger than the pure pixel count increase (1440p has 1.78x the pixels of 1080p, but the frame rate drop is proportionally smaller due to CPU limits at 1080p). At 1440p Medium, the system posts 54.0 FPS, indicating that the GPU is now the primary constraint. The GTX 1070’s 256.3 GB/s memory bandwidth and 6.463 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are not enough to sustain 60 FPS at Medium settings with this pixel count. The High preset at 45.8 FPS and Ultra at 33.1 FPS confirm that the GPU loads scale more steeply with resolution than the CPU loads.

4K: Fully GPU-bound. At 3840x2160, the pixel count is 4.0x that of 1080p, and the FPS results compress into a narrow band. Low produces 45.6 FPS, Medium 30.1 FPS, High 28.9 FPS, and Ultra 21.4 FPS. The difference between Low and High is only 16.7 FPS, whereas at 1080p the same preset gap yields a 51.6 FPS difference. This compression indicates that the GPU is completely saturated at 4K, and the CPU has little influence on the final frame rate. The i5-9400 could likely push higher FPS at 4K Low if paired with a stronger GPU, but with the GTX 1070, the graphics card is the clear bottleneck.

The resolution scaling also tells a story about VRAM. The GTX 1070 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p at all presets, but at 4K Ultra, the combination of high-resolution textures and draw distances may approach memory limits, contributing to the 21.4 FPS result. The CPU’s role is most visible at 1080p Low and Medium, where the frame rates exceed what a GPU-only analysis would predict.

Best Settings per Resolution

The playable threshold for this analysis is 60 FPS average. The database identifies the most demanding preset that stays at or above this threshold for each resolution.

1920x1080: The best playable setting is High, with an average FPS of 62.0. This is the highest quality preset that clears 60 FPS. Low (113.6 FPS) and Medium (75.3 FPS) also qualify, but High offers better visual fidelity while staying just 2 FPS above the threshold. Ultra falls short at 48.9 FPS and should be avoided for smooth play.

2560x1440: The best playable setting is Low, with an average FPS of 76.6. Medium (54.0 FPS), High (45.8 FPS), and Ultra (33.1 FPS) all fail to reach 60 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 22.6 FPS, which is too steep a penalty for the visual gains at this resolution. For a 1440p monitor, Low is the only preset that provides a consistently smooth experience.

3840x2160: No preset achieves 60 FPS. The best result is Low at 45.6 FPS, but this still falls below the playable threshold. Medium (30.1 FPS), High (28.9 FPS), and Ultra (21.4 FPS) are all significantly below 60 FPS. The verdict for 4K is that this combo cannot run Rust at a playable frame rate under any settings.

For users prioritizing frame rate over visuals, 1080p High is the sweet spot, offering a balance of quality and performance. At 1440p, dropping to Low is mandatory for 60 FPS, and at 4K, no settings will work.

How This Combo Ranks

Among 3,723 tested CPU and GPU combinations for Rust, this pairing ranks 3,075th. This places it in the lower 17.4% of all configurations, meaning that roughly 82.6% of tested combos deliver better performance in this game. The rank reflects the age of both components: the i5-9400 is a 2018 mainstream processor with a 47th percentile score among all CPUs, and the GTX 1070 is a 2016 GPU with a 47th percentile score among all GPUs.

The combo’s rank is driven by the GPU’s limitations at higher resolutions and the CPU’s modest thread count. In Rust, which can be heavily single-threaded for certain tasks, the i5-9400’s six cores without hyperthreading may cause occasional frame hitches in dense scenes, though the average FPS data does not capture min or max frame times. The GTX 1070’s 47th percentile GPU ranking indicates that it sits near the median of all tested GPUs, but Rust’s specific demands push it lower in the combo ranking.

The nearest CPU rivals to the i5-9400, based on average benchmark scores, are the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (0.2% lower score), Intel Core i7-10710U (0.3% higher), AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (0.4% higher), and Intel Core i3-10305 (0.4% lower). These processors would likely produce similar FPS in Rust when paired with the same GTX 1070, as the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at 1440p and 4K. The nearest GPU rivals to the GTX 1070 are the AMD FirePro W5000 (0.2% lower score), NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (0.5% lower), NVIDIA Tesla M10 (0.6% higher), and NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (0.7% higher). These GPUs would behave comparably, though professional-grade cards may lack gaming-specific optimizations.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Rust at 1080p with High settings?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 High is 62.0, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold by 2 frames.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming?

A: Low is the only playable preset at 2560x1440, with an average FPS of 76.6. Medium (54.0 FPS), High (45.8 FPS), and Ultra (33.1 FPS) all fall below 60 FPS.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this combination?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only reach 45.6 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra settings drop to 21.4 FPS.

Q: How does the i5-9400 compare to nearby CPUs in benchmark scores?

A: The i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 0.3% higher, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 0.4% higher, and the Intel Core i3-10305 scores 0.4% lower. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 0.2% lower.

Q: What GPU performance level does the GTX 1070 represent?

A: The GTX 1070 has an average benchmark score of 9780 and ranks in the 47th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W5000 (0.2% lower score) and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (0.5% lower).

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p Ultra?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 Ultra is 48.9, which is 11.1 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold. This preset is not recommended for smooth gameplay.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 can run Rust, but only under specific conditions. At 1920x1080, the system is playable at Low (113.6 FPS), Medium (75.3 FPS), and High (62.0 FPS). The High preset is the most demanding option that stays at or above 60 FPS, making it the recommended choice for 1080p displays. Ultra at 1080p falls to 48.9 FPS and is not playable.

At 2560x1440, the only playable setting is Low, with an average of 76.6 FPS. Medium (54.0 FPS), High (45.8 FPS), and Ultra (33.1 FPS) all miss the 60 FPS target. Users with 1440p monitors should stick to Low or consider lowering their resolution to 1080p for higher quality presets.

At 3840x2160, the verdict is clear: this combo cannot run Rust at a playable frame rate. The best result is Low at 45.6 FPS, which is still 14.4 FPS below the threshold. Higher presets produce 30.1 FPS (Medium), 28.9 FPS (High), and 21.4 FPS (Ultra), all of which are far from smooth.

Overall, this system is a capable 1080p gaming rig for Rust, with a narrow window of playability at 1440p. It is not suitable for 4K gaming, and users seeking higher frame rates at higher resolutions would need to upgrade both the CPU and GPU, though the GPU is the more significant bottleneck at 1440p and above.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For users considering hardware that would behave similarly to this combo in Rust, the nearest rivals are based on benchmark scores for each component.

On the CPU side, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 has an average score that is 0.2% lower than the i5-9400. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 0.3% higher, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 0.4% higher, and the Intel Core i3-10305 scores 0.4% lower. All four processors would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in Rust when paired with a GTX 1070, as the CPU is not the limiting factor at 1440p or 4K. At 1080p, the differences would be within a few FPS, well below the margin of perceptibility.

On the GPU side, the AMD FirePro W5000 has an average score that is 0.2% lower than the GTX 1070. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 0.5% lower, the NVIDIA Tesla M10 scores 0.6% higher, and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 0.7% higher. In practical terms, these GPUs would deliver similar FPS in Rust, though professional cards like the FirePro and Quadro may have different driver optimizations that affect real-world gaming performance. The Tesla cards are compute-focused and may lack display outputs, making them unsuitable for standard gaming setups.

The data indicates that this combo sits at the 47th percentile for both CPU and GPU performance, and its 3,075th rank out of 3,723 combos in Rust reflects that median standing. Users with any of the rival components listed above should expect a comparable experience, with the same resolution and preset limitations.