Rust

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, none of the recorded settings reach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The closest option is Low, which delivers an average of 25.2 FPS, but that remains far below the target. High, Medium, and Ultra produce averages of 15.1, 19.1, and 13.3 FPS respectively. There is no recommended setting at this resolution because every preset fails the playability criterion.

At 2560x1440, the same situation applies: no settings preset reaches 60 FPS. Low is the fastest recorded option at 48 FPS average, followed by Medium at 29.5 FPS, High at 26.1 FPS, and Ultra at 18.1 FPS. Even the lowest quality setting misses the 60 FPS target by a substantial margin, so the database records no playable settings for this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the situation changes. Low settings produce an average of 64 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. This is the only preset at this resolution that qualifies as playable. Medium drops to 43.7 FPS, High falls to 36.2 FPS, and Ultra sits at 26.5 FPS. Therefore, the best settings for 1080p are Low, delivering exactly 64 FPS average.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data shows a clear pattern: resolution scaling affects the frame rate far more than preset changes at higher resolutions, which indicates the GPU becomes the limiting factor as pixel count rises. Moving from 1920x1080 Low (64 FPS) to 2560x1440 Low (48 FPS) represents a 25% drop in average frame rate. The same step from 2560x1440 Low to 3840x2160 Low (25.2 FPS) is a 47.5% reduction. This accelerating decline with resolution strongly suggests the GTX 1650's rendering throughput, rather than the CPU's processing power, is the dominant constraint at higher resolutions.

Within a single resolution, the scaling between presets tells a similar story. At 1920x1080, moving from Low (64 FPS) to Medium (43.7 FPS) costs 31.7% performance, and from Medium to High (36.2 FPS) another 17.2%. At 2560x1440, Low (48 FPS) to Medium (29.5 FPS) is a 38.5% drop. These large penalties for modest quality increases are characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where additional shading and texture work directly translate into lower throughput.

The CPU, an Intel Core i5-9400 with 6 cores and 6 threads, has a benchmark percentile of 47 among all CPUs, placing it near the middle of the distribution. The GPU, a GTX 1650, sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs. At 1920x1080 Low, the system achieves 64 FPS, which is exactly at the playable threshold. This balance suggests that at lower resolutions and settings, the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU adequately, but the GPU's limited resources cap performance once settings rise.

At 2560x1440, even Low settings fail to reach 60 FPS, and at 3840x2160, every preset falls well below. The data indicates that the GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus, combined with its 896 shading units, become the primary bottleneck as resolution increases. The CPU's role diminishes relative to the GPU at higher resolutions, since the frame rate drops proportionally more with pixel count than with preset complexity.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Rust at 1080p with playable frame rates?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings. The recorded data shows an average of 64 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS, with averages of 43.7, 36.2, and 26.5 FPS respectively.

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

A: There is no playable preset at 2560x1440. The fastest recorded option is Low at 48 FPS average, which still misses the 60 FPS target. Medium, High, and Ultra produce 29.5, 26.1, and 18.1 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. Its closest rival is the Intel Arc A310 with a score of 7550, which is 1% faster. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 (0.3% slower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441 (0.4% slower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425 (0.6% slower).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the frame rate at 4K?

A: The GPU is the dominant constraint at 3840x2160. The highest recorded average at 4K is 25.2 FPS on Low settings, and Ultra drops to 13.3 FPS. The dramatic scaling with resolution, combined with the GTX 1650's 40th percentile ranking among GPUs, points to the graphics card as the limiting factor.

Q: What frame rate can be expected at Ultra settings across all resolutions?

A: At 1920x1080 Ultra, the average is 26.5 FPS. At 2560x1440 Ultra, it falls to 18.1 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Ultra, the average is 13.3 FPS. None of these approach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How does the i5-9400 compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264 (0.4% faster), the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259 (0.2% faster), the Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248 (0.3% slower), and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246 (0.4% slower).

The Verdict

This combination of an Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 can run Rust, but with significant limitations. According to the verdict data, the only playable configuration is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, producing an average of 64 FPS. This clears the 60 FPS threshold by a narrow margin of 4 FPS.

At 2560x1440, no settings preset reaches 60 FPS. The best recorded average is 48 FPS on Low, which is 12 FPS short of the playable target. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse: the highest average is 25.2 FPS on Low, and Ultra drops to 13.3 FPS. There is no resolution above 1080p where this system can maintain a playable frame rate.

For users who prioritize smooth gameplay over visual fidelity, the system is viable only at 1080p with the lowest quality settings. Any attempt to raise the preset to Medium or higher at 1080p drops the frame rate below 60 FPS, and any attempt to increase the resolution to 1440p or 4K fails regardless of settings. The data is unambiguous: this is a 1080p Low settings machine for Rust, and nothing more.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded averages are as follows: Low settings produce 25.2 FPS, Medium produces 19.1 FPS, High produces 15.1 FPS, and Ultra produces 13.3 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 11.9 FPS, which is a 47% reduction from the fastest preset.

At 2560x1440, the averages are higher but still far from playable: Low delivers 48 FPS, Medium delivers 29.5 FPS, High delivers 26.1 FPS, and Ultra delivers 18.1 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 29.9 FPS, a 62% drop.

At 1920x1080, the results are: Low at 64 FPS, Medium at 43.7 FPS, High at 36.2 FPS, and Ultra at 26.5 FPS. This is the only resolution where any preset clears 60 FPS, and it is specifically the Low preset that does so. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 37.5 FPS, representing a 59% performance loss.

The data shows a consistent pattern: each step up in settings costs roughly 15-20% performance, and each step up in resolution costs roughly 35-50% performance. The min and max FPS values are not recorded in the database, so only average frame rates are available for analysis.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Rust, this specific CPU and GPU pairing ranks 3631 out of 3723 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 2.5% of all tested systems, which is consistent with the measured frame rates. The system's percentile ranking among CPUs is 47, and among GPUs it is 40, but the in-game ranking is much lower, indicating that Rust is particularly demanding on this hardware configuration.

The rank of 3631 out of 3723 means that 92 other tested combos perform worse, while 3630 perform better. This is a low ranking that reflects the system's inability to maintain 60 FPS at any settings above 1080p Low. The combination of a mid-tier CPU and an entry-level GPU from 2019 is simply not well-suited to Rust's requirements, at least according to the measured data.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the Intel Core i5-9400 has a benchmark score of 2254. The nearest rivals are all within 1% of its performance. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, which is 0.4% faster. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259, 0.2% faster. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, 0.3% slower. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, 0.4% slower. Any of these CPUs would behave nearly identically to the i5-9400 in Rust, with frame rate differences well under 1%.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has a benchmark score of 7472. The nearest rival is the Intel Arc A310 with a score of 7550, which is 1% faster. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, 0.3% slower. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, 0.4% slower. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, 0.6% slower. These GPUs would deliver nearly the same frame rates in Rust, meaning a system with any of these alternatives would still be limited to 1080p Low for playable performance.

The data suggests that upgrading to any of these near-identical parts would not meaningfully change the gaming experience. The combination's ranking of 3631 out of 3723 is driven by the fundamental limits of the GPU, and none of the listed rivals offer enough additional performance to cross the 60 FPS threshold at higher settings or resolutions.