Rust

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 delivers a workable Rust experience at 1080p and 1440p, but the data shows clear limits at 4K. The recorded measurements capture average FPS across three resolutions and four quality presets, and the pattern is straightforward: this combo handles competitive settings at 1080p, offers a smooth 60 FPS cap at 1440p on Medium, and falls short of the 60 FPS playability threshold at 3840x2160 even on Low. The CPU sits near the 47th percentile among all tested processors, while the GPU ranks at the 58th percentile, which explains why frame rates scale more with resolution and preset changes than with component headroom. This analysis relies entirely on the database’s measured results, not on synthetic expectations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this combo covers 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, each with Low, Medium, High, and Ultra settings. The database records average FPS only, with no minimum or maximum values available, so the analysis focuses on sustained averages.

At 1920x1080, the results are the strongest of the three resolutions. Low settings produce an average of 127.3 FPS, which is well above the playable threshold of 60 FPS and leaves substantial headroom for competitive play. Medium settings drop to 81.6 FPS, still comfortably above 60 FPS, indicating that the GPU and CPU combination has enough throughput for a solid mid-range experience. High settings yield 69.6 FPS, which remains playable but with less margin for demanding scenes. Ultra settings fall to 53.5 FPS, which misses the 60 FPS threshold by a noticeable margin, so the most demanding preset at 1080p is not recommended for smooth play. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a consistent decline, with Ultra being about 58% slower than Low in average FPS (127.3 down to 53.5).

At 2560x1440, the same preset ladder shows a steeper drop-off. Low settings average 88.8 FPS, which is still well above 60 FPS and indicates that the combo retains good performance at this resolution with lighter settings. Medium settings hit exactly 60.0 FPS, matching the playable threshold precisely; this is the highest quality preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at 1440p. High settings drop to 48.9 FPS, which is below the threshold and would result in noticeable stutter during intense gameplay. Ultra settings fall further to 39.6 FPS, making them unsuitable for smooth play. Comparing 1440p Low to 1080p Low, the average FPS drops from 127.3 to 88.8, a reduction of about 30%, which shows how resolution scaling affects this hardware.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles across all presets. Low settings average 51.8 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold, so even the least demanding preset fails to deliver playable performance. Medium settings yield 36.0 FPS, High settings drop to 30.2 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 20.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is substantial, with Ultra being roughly 60% slower than Low (51.8 down to 20.5). None of the 4K presets reach the playable threshold, so the database lists no playable settings for 3840x2160. The data clearly indicates that this combo is not suited for 4K gaming with Rust, at least not at the quality levels tested.

The overall pattern across resolutions shows that the RTX 2060 and i5-9400 combination has a performance ceiling that appears around 1440p Medium. At 1080p, the user has options from Low to High, with Ultra being the only unplayable preset. At 1440p, only Low and Medium qualify as playable. At 4K, no preset qualifies. The average FPS values are consistent with the hardware’s percentile rankings, which place the CPU at 47% and the GPU at 58% relative to all other tested components.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals how the CPU and GPU split responsibilities across resolutions and presets. The Intel Core i5-9400 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. Its benchmark scores include a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 6629 and a single-core score of 935, placing it at the 47th percentile among all CPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 features 1920 shading units, 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, and a boost clock of 1680 MHz. Its PassMark G3D score of 14111 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1242 put it at the 58th percentile among GPUs.

At 1920x1080, the scaling between presets suggests that the GPU is the primary limiter at higher quality settings, while the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU at lower settings. For example, at Low settings, the average FPS is 127.3, which is high enough that the CPU’s 6 cores and 6 threads are likely keeping pace without bottlenecking. Moving from Low to Medium reduces performance by about 36% (127.3 to 81.6), and from Medium to High by about 15% (81.6 to 69.6). These drops are consistent with increasing GPU workload from shading units and texture units, not with CPU limitations. The CPU’s single-core performance, measured at 935 in Cinebench R23, is adequate for Rust’s typical server-side and world-streaming tasks, but it is not a high-end part, so at very high frame rates above 120 FPS, the CPU could become a secondary factor.

At 2560x1440, the GPU’s role becomes more dominant. The average FPS at Low is 88.8, which is about 30% lower than at 1080p Low. This reduction aligns with the increased pixel count (1440p has about 78% more pixels than 1080p), but the actual drop is less severe, indicating that the GPU is still the main constraint. Medium at 1440p hits exactly 60.0 FPS, and the transition from Low to Medium causes a 32% drop (88.8 to 60.0), which is a larger proportional decrease than at 1080p. This suggests that at 1440p, the GPU’s memory bandwidth (336.0 GB/s) and FP32 throughput (6.451 TFLOPS) are being pushed harder, and the CPU’s role diminishes relative to the GPU. The i5-9400’s multicore score of 2784 in Cinebench R20 is sufficient for the game’s physics and entity updates, but it is not the deciding factor at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmingly the bottleneck. The average FPS at Low is 51.8, which is below the playable threshold, and even the lowest settings cannot overcome the GPU’s limitations. The RTX 2060’s 6 GB of VRAM and 192-bit memory bus are likely stressed at 4K, especially with Rust’s large world textures and draw distances. The CPU’s role is negligible here; the data shows that even with Low settings, the GPU cannot reach 60 FPS, so upgrading the CPU would not help. The scaling from 1440p Low (88.8 FPS) to 4K Low (51.8 FPS) is a 42% drop, which is steeper than the pixel count increase alone would suggest, indicating that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are insufficient for 4K.

The verdict from the database reinforces this split: at 1080p, the playable settings are High, Low, and Medium, with High being the best at 69.6 FPS. At 1440p, only Low and Medium are playable, with Medium at exactly 60.0 FPS. At 4K, no settings are playable. This pattern shows that the GPU is the primary factor determining playability at higher resolutions, while the CPU is adequate for the game’s logic and does not become a limiting factor until frame rates exceed what the GPU can deliver at 1080p Low.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-9400, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, Intel Core i7-10710U, AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500, and Intel Core i3-10305. The i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254, which is nearly identical to these alternatives. The i7-1068NG7 scores 2259, a delta of -0.2%, meaning it performs within a fraction of a percent of the i5-9400. The i7-10710U scores 2248, a delta of +0.3%, so it is slightly slower. The Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, a delta of +0.4%, also slightly slower. The i3-10305 scores 2264, a delta of -0.4%, making it marginally faster. For Rust, any of these CPUs would behave similarly to the i5-9400 in terms of frame rate output, since they all fall within a 0.8% performance band. Users with these CPUs should expect comparable CPU-bound performance, particularly at lower resolutions where the CPU has more influence.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580, AMD Radeon 680M, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, and AMD Radeon RX 7600. The RTX 2060 has an average benchmark score of 15290. The GTX 580 scores 15283, a delta of 0%, meaning it is effectively identical in average performance. The Radeon 680M scores 15270, a delta of 0.1%, also essentially equivalent. The RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199, a delta of 0.6%, slightly slower. The RX 7600 scores 15171, a delta of 0.8%, the slowest of the group. In Rust, these GPUs would produce nearly identical average FPS at the same settings and resolutions, so users with any of these cards should expect similar results to the RTX 2060. The RTX 2060’s 6 GB of VRAM is a potential limitation at 4K, and the same would apply to the GTX 580, which also has limited memory, though the Radeon 680M and RX 7600 may have different memory configurations (not specified in the database). The key takeaway is that the combo’s performance is representative of this performance tier, and swapping to any of these rivals would not change the playability conclusions.

The combined effect is that this system sits in a broad mid-range tier. The CPU’s rivals are all within 0.4% of its average score, and the GPU’s rivals are within 0.8%. This means that the measured FPS for Rust would be very similar for any of these pairings, with differences of only a few frames per second. The playable settings at each resolution would remain the same, with 1080p High and 1440p Medium being the best options, and 4K remaining unplayable.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific combo at 2874 out of 3723 tested combinations. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the field, specifically around the 77th percentile (since 2874 is roughly 77% of 3723). This ranking reflects the hardware’s individual percentiles (CPU at 47%, GPU at 58%) and the measured performance in Rust. A rank of 2874 out of 3723 means that about 849 combinations performed worse, while the majority of tested systems delivered higher frame rates. This is not a top-tier setup, but it is also far from the bottom.

In practical terms, this rank aligns with the measured FPS data. At 1080p, the combo achieves playable performance on High settings, which is respectable for a mid-range system. At 1440p, Medium is the ceiling, which is a common limitation for this hardware class. The rank suggests that for Rust specifically, the combo is better than about 23% of tested systems, but worse than 77%. The individual component rankings support this: the GPU at 58% is stronger than the CPU at 47%, so the GPU is the more capable part in this pairing. This is consistent with the resolution scaling, where the GPU becomes the bottleneck at higher settings.

The combo rank also reflects the game’s demands. Rust is a survival game with a large open world, and the database’s measurements show that it is not particularly easy on hardware. The fact that 4K is unplayable even on Low, while 1080p Ultra is also below 60 FPS, indicates that the game’s rendering load is heavy. The combo’s rank of 2874 suggests that many other systems, particularly those with newer or higher-tier GPUs, will outperform it. However, for a user with this exact hardware, the data provides a clear guide: stick to 1080p or 1440p, avoid Ultra, and accept that 4K is off the table.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo playable at 1080p with High settings?

A: Yes. The recorded average FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings is 69.6, which is above the playable threshold of 60 FPS. This is the best playable preset at 1080p, as Ultra drops to 53.5 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 1440p?

A: Medium settings at 2560x1440 produce an average of exactly 60.0 FPS, which matches the playable threshold. This is the highest quality preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at this resolution. High settings drop to 48.9 FPS, which is not playable.

Q: Can this system run Rust at 4K?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even Low settings average only 51.8 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The database lists no playable settings for 4K, with Ultra averaging 20.5 FPS.

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

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (2259, 0.2% faster), Intel Core i7-10710U (2248, 0.3% slower), AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (2246, 0.4% slower), and Intel Core i3-10305 (2264, 0.4% faster). All are within a 0.8% performance band.

Q: What GPUs perform similarly to the RTX 2060?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15283, 0% delta), AMD Radeon 680M (15270, 0.1% delta), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (15199, 0.6% delta), and AMD Radeon RX 7600 (15171, 0.8% delta) all have average benchmark scores within 0.8% of the RTX 2060’s 15290.

Q: What is the combo’s overall rank among tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 2874 out of 3723 tested combinations. This places it in the lower-middle tier, meaning about 23% of tested systems perform worse, while 77% perform better.

Best Settings per Resolution

Based on the measured FPS data and the playable threshold of 60 FPS, the best settings for each resolution are as follows.

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is High, with an average of 69.6 FPS. This provides a good balance of visual quality and performance. Medium averages 81.6 FPS and Low averages 127.3 FPS, both also playable, but High offers better visuals while still maintaining a comfortable margin above the threshold. Ultra is not recommended, as it averages 53.5 FPS, below the playable level.

At 2560x1440, the best playable preset is Medium, with an average of exactly 60.0 FPS. This is the highest quality option that meets the threshold. Low averages 88.8 FPS and is also playable, but Medium provides superior image quality for the same frame rate target. High (48.9 FPS) and Ultra (39.6 FPS) are both below the threshold and should be avoided for smooth play.

At 3840x2160, no preset is playable. Low averages 51.8 FPS, Medium 36.0 FPS, High 30.2 FPS, and Ultra 20.5 FPS, all below the 60 FPS threshold. The database lists no best settings for 4K, so users with this combo should either lower the resolution or accept unplayable frame rates.

The data suggests that the optimal experience for this hardware is 1080p High, which offers a solid frame rate without sacrificing too much visual fidelity. For users with 1440p monitors, Medium is the only way to hit the playable threshold, and the exact 60.0 FPS average indicates that performance is right on the edge, so some scenes may dip below. For 4K, the system is not suitable, and the user should consider a lower resolution or a different hardware combination.