Rust

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER form a mid-range pairing that produces a wide spread of Rust frame rates depending on resolution and quality settings: 27 FPS at 4K Ultra climbs to 152 FPS at 1080p Low, with the system ranking 2160th of 3723 tested combinations in this game. This puts the combo slightly above the £ median of all tested rigs, a result that makes sense for a 6-core Zen 4 CPU (4.20 GHz base, 4.70 GHz boost) and a Turing GPU with 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Settings Recommendations

Measured data show that the Medium preset is the only queue with reported min/max values, and it also delivers the most balanced experience. At 1080p Medium the system averages 102 FPS with a 87 FPS minimum and 117 FPS maximum; at 1440p Medium it averages 70 FPS with a 60 FPS minimum and 81 maximum; at 4K Medium it averages 41 FPS with a 35 FPS minimum and 48 maximum. The min/max figures indicate that frame pacing stays consistent—the min never falls below 60% of the average, which is essential for a survival game like Rust where unpredictable server loads can cause spikes.

For players intent on hitting 60 FPS at any resolution, the combination of 1080p Low (152 avg) or 1440p Low (104 avg) will exceed it comfortably, while 4K Low claws to 62 average. However, Low quality disrupts the drawn distance and foliage that the game uses to conceal enemies, so it is not recommended for competitive play. Ultra at any resolution is a poor trade–the average at 1080p is only 65 FPS, at 1440p 45 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 27. Ultra sacrifices so much that a player could instead raise the resolution to 1440p and run Medium, which again yields 70 FPS with better visuals than 1080p Ultra.

The best practical choice is Medium at 1080p or 1440p—the data puts its performance at 102 and 70 FPS respectively, with a minimum that never drops below 90 FPS at 1080p and exactly 60 at 1440p. For a high-refresh 1080p monitor, Medium gives generous headroom; for a 1440p panel, it hits the 60 FPS baseline with a 10 FPS cushion. Higher settings sacrifice too much per pixel, locking in a GPU-bound curve that keeps any dynamic shadows or draw-distance spikes from pushing the user below playability.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 processor fabricated on TSMC 4 nm, with 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a 16 MB shared L3. Its base clock of 4.20 GHz and boost of 4.70 GHz provides solid single-thread performance, underscored by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,943 and multi-core score of 20,851. The CPU’s benchmark percentile of 77 places it above most processors in the test pool, and its nearest competitors—the Ryzen 5 7500F (delta +0.2%), Core i7-11850H (+0.3%), Core i7-13620H (+0.4%), and the EPYC 9474F (-0.4%)—are within a 1% margin. This means that the 8400F sits in a very tight cluster where any one of these chips would yield essentially the same frame rate in Rust.

The game’s simulation of connected worlds and base building often scales with single-thread performance. The 8400F’s Zen 4 core at 4.7 GHz boost gives it the single-thread muscle to drive 1080p Low to 152 FPS without stutter, a figure that would be GPU-limited if the frame rate climbed higher. At 1440p Low the FPS drops to 70, a drop of 62% from 1080p, which indicates that the CPU headroom is still significant; the parallel drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is purely resolution-driven. The CPU’s six physical cores and twelve threads are also enough to handle Rust’s background tasks, such as the server-side logic and base inventory checks, while keeping the main thread light. The data does not include CPU usage, but the 152 FPS floor at 1080p and tight scaling across resolutions point to a CPU that is not a weak link for this game.

GPU Role

The GPU side is the bottleneck when it count saturates over. The RTX 2070 SUPER is based on the Turing architecture, running 2,560 shaded units, 160 texture units, 64 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 320 tensor cores. Its base clock is 1605 MHz with a boost of 1770 MHz, and it carries 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus pumping 448.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The card’s benchmark performance is a percentile 65 overall, and its nearest scoring rivals are all within a 1.5% margin: the Quadro M4000M (-1.0%), RTX 3070 Mobile (-1.2%), and the Intel Arc B570 (-1.3%) and Arc A750 (-1.5%) are all slightly faster in synthetic tests, meaning the 2070 SUPER, despite its 20202 benchmark average, lags them imperceptibly.

In Rust, the GPU is the certified 145 W. At 4K, only the 448 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB GFN are called upon to stream textures from large object population. The measured scaling illustrates: at 1080p Low the card can render 152 FPS, but at 4K it is 62, a 59% reduction. The pixel rate drop is almost uniform across all four settings, confirming that the GPU’s pixel throughput, not the CPU, limits higher resolutions. The 8 GB VRAM also explains why the Ultra preset at 4K (27 FPS) stars, likely because the memory bus of 256-bit cannot keep up with the texture streaming at that pixel count, causing the frame time to balloon. For a player, the GPU is clearly the component that sets the ceiling at 4K, while at 1080 and 1440 it is the CPU headroom that allows very high frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

Ranking 2160th of 3723 tested combinations puts this pair in the upper half of the chart—roughly the 58th percentile (2160/3723), though the precise percentile is not listed. The position is sensible given the CPU’s overall 77th percentile and the GPU’s 65th percentile: the CPU is a stronger contributor, yet the combo sits only slightly above the average because the GPU is a mid-level card in 2025 test scenarios. To achieve a top-1000 spot would require a more capable GPU—the RTX 2070 SUPER's strength in Rust primarily appears at 1080p, where it outperforms most 1080p-defined competitors, but at 4K it drops to a 27 FPS Ultra score, pushing the overall result down.

The data suggests that this combination is best for a 1080p gamer who occasionally plays at 1440p. The rank is consistent with this: at 1080p Medium 102 FPS, high 95 pct, and 152 at low; at 1440 Medium 70 FPS, still is above that of many higher-end GPUs, and only 4K breaks the experience. In a world of increasingly 4K-focused gaming, the 2160th rank is a reminder that the RTX 2070 SUPER is outdated for native 4K, yet it still passes muster for competitive 1080 or·1440.

Resolution Scaling

Each settings line shows a consistent frame drop from 1080p to 4K. For Low: 152 → 104 → 62 (averages), a step of 31% and 40% respectively, from 1080 to 1440, and then 104 to 62, a 60% drop. Medium: 102 → 70 → 41 (31% then 41%). High: 86 → 59 → 35 (31% then 40%). Ultra: 65 → 45 → 27 (31% then 40%). This uniform pattern is almost exactly the ratio of pixel counts (1080p has 2.07 million pixels, 1440p has 3.69 million, a ×1.78 increase), meaning the frame rate scales inversely with the pixel workload—a textbook GPU-limited footprint. It holds the CPU out of the equation at higher resolutions; the 152 FPS at 1080p Low shows that the CPU could drive even more resolution if the GPU allowed, but the 4K numbers are pure GPU saturation.

The ratio of 1080p to 4K FPS is 0.92 (152 to 62), which closely matches the 2.7× pixel increase giving the expected 62% reduction. Since all presets degrade by the same percentage, the bottleneck is purely pixel fill-rate and memory bandwidth, not CPU logic or VRAM size (8 GB appears sufficient for 4K twice as much as the 8 GB). The takeaway is: anyone planning 4K must either lower settings to Low or accept sub-60 gameplay; those playing at 1080p have tremendous headroom to raise graphics settings or increase refresh rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete table of average FPS (and min/max for Medium) is:

| Resolution | Low | Medium | High | Ultra |

|------------|-----|--------|------|-------|

| 1920×1080 | 152 | 102 (min 87, max 117) | 86 | 65 |

| 2560×1440 | 104 | 70 (min 60, max 81) | 59 | 45 |

| 3840×2160 | 62 | 41 (min 35, max 48) | 35 | 27 |

The values cover the full range: 152 FPS at 1080p Low is the peak, while 27 FPS at 4K Ultra is the bottom. At 1080p, all four presets excon 60 FPS, with Ultra still at 65—equal to a passable level. At 1440p, Medium and Low remain above 60, but High drops to 59 and Ultra to 45. At 4K, only Low reaches 62, Medium is 41, High 35, and Ultra 27, making 4K playable only with the lowest presets. These clear cutoffs guide the practical choice: where possible, stick to 1080p or 1440p, and select Medium for stability—it's the only preset that records a minimum (87 FPS at 1080p, 60 at 1440p) that guarantees no frame drops below the monitor's refresh rate. Low may give extra FPS, but it sacrifices visual clarity, and the min values are not documented, so its consistency as a measure of playability is unknown.