Rust

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is a study in contrast: a six-core CPU from the Comet Lake era driving one of AMD’s most powerful current-generation GPUs. The data shows a combo that can deliver playable frame rates, but the balance of responsibility shifts dramatically depending on resolution and settings. This analysis breaks down exactly where the CPU and GPU each carry the load in Rust.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. It belongs to the Comet Lake architecture, built on Intel’s 14 nm process node. In synthetic benchmarks, it posts a PassMark single-thread score of 2541 and a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 10297. Its average benchmark score of 14168 places it at the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, which is respectable for a mid-range desktop part.

The nearest rivals in the benchmark database show how tight the competition is at this level. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, a delta of 0.4% ahead, while the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, putting the i5-10400F 0.8% behind. The Intel Core i5-8500 and AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 score 14332 and 14336, respectively, leaving the i5-10400F 1.1% and 1.2% behind. These deltas are negligible—under two percent—meaning the i5-10400F is effectively in a dead heat with its direct peers for raw compute.

In Rust, the CPU’s role is most evident at lower resolutions and higher settings, where the GPU is less stressed. The measured frames at 1080p Low (146.6 avg) versus 1080p Ultra (105.8 avg) show a 40.8 FPS swing, but the CPU’s single-thread performance becomes the limiting factor when the GPU is not the bottleneck. The boost clock of 4.30 GHz is adequate for Rust’s simulation and entity-update workloads, but the 6-core/12-thread configuration does not provide headroom for heavy background tasks. The data indicates that the CPU holds its own at 1080p, but its 73rd percentile standing means it is not a top-tier part; it is a capable mid-ranger that will not embarrass the GPU in most scenarios.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is a flagship-tier GPU with 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock is 2394 MHz, with a game clock of 2025 MHz. The Navi 31 chip, built on TSMC’s 5 nm process, contains 57,700 million transistors across a 529 mm² die. It has 5376 shading units and 84 ray-tracing cores. In synthetic tests, it scores 29009 in PassMark G3D and 169834 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs.

The nearest rivals illustrate the GPU’s positioning. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile scores 38349, a 0% delta, making them effectively identical in average benchmark score. The NVIDIA CMP 70HX scores 38225, with the RX 7900 XT 0.3% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 scores 38494, leaving the RX 7900 XT 0.4% behind, and the RTX 4080 Mobile scores 38135, with the RX 7900 XT 0.6% ahead. These are all within a single percentage point, so the RX 7900 XT is firmly in the upper echelon of tested GPUs.

In Rust, the GPU’s dominance is clear at 4K. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the combo averages 43.3 FPS, which is low but expected for a demanding title at max settings. The 20 GB VRAM is more than sufficient for Rust’s textures, and the 800.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures no memory bottlenecks at any resolution. The GPU is the star of this pairing; its 82nd percentile ranking means it can push high frame rates when the CPU does not hold it back, which is most evident at 1440p and 4K where the GPU workload scales.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS shows a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 146.6 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 128.6 FPS, a 12.3% reduction. At 4K Low, it falls to 101 FPS, a 21.5% drop from 1440p. This scaling is moderate, indicating the GPU is still the primary driver even at 1080p Low—the CPU is not fully saturated.

The picture changes at higher settings. At 1080p High, the average is 118.3 FPS. At 1440p High, it drops to 94.2 FPS (a 20.4% reduction), and at 4K High, it falls to 55.1 FPS (a 41.5% drop from 1440p). This steep decline at 4K High is classic GPU-bound behavior—the RX 7900 XT is working harder, and the frame rate scales inversely with pixel count.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is even more pronounced. 1080p Ultra averages 105.8 FPS, 1440p Ultra drops to 70 FPS (a 33.8% reduction), and 4K Ultra bottoms out at 43.3 FPS (a 38.1% drop from 1440p). The 4K Ultra result is the lowest in the entire dataset, and the gap between 1080p and 4K at Ultra is 62.5 FPS. This confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K Ultra; the CPU’s 6 cores are not the constraint, as the frame rate falls in proportion to the increased pixel workload.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the combo is well-balanced, with the CPU providing enough single-thread performance to keep the GPU fed. At 1440p, the GPU takes over as the primary bottleneck, and at 4K, it is almost entirely GPU-bound. The i5-10400F does not throttle the RX 7900 XT until you drop to lower settings at 1080p, where the 146.6 FPS Low result shows the CPU can still keep up.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo ranks 525th out of 1717 tested combinations in Rust. This places it in the 30.5th percentile of all combos, which is better than the CPU’s individual 73rd percentile but worse than the GPU’s 82nd percentile. The rank suggests that while the GPU is excellent, the CPU drags the overall combo down slightly.

A rank of 525 out of 1717 means there are 524 combos that outperform this pairing, but also 1192 that do not. This is a solid mid-to-upper-tier result. The CPU’s nearest rivals all have average scores within 1.2% of the i5-10400F, so swapping to a slightly better CPU would likely improve the combo rank, but not dramatically. The GPU’s nearest rivals are all within 0.6%, so the GPU is not the weak link.

In practical terms, this combo is not a top-100 pairing, but it is far from a budget setup. The 525th rank reflects the CPU’s age—the 10th Gen Intel part is outclassed by newer CPUs with higher single-thread scores, but the GPU’s raw power compensates at higher resolutions. The data shows that the combo is best used at 1440p, where the rank would likely be higher than at 4K, given the CPU’s relative strength at lower pixel counts.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers strong results across all settings. Low averages 146.6 FPS, Medium averages 130 FPS, High averages 118.3 FPS, and Ultra averages 105.8 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 40.8 FPS, which is a 27.8% reduction. These numbers indicate a smooth experience at 1080p, with even Ultra exceeding 100 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains playable but with more variance. Low averages 128.6 FPS, Medium averages 113 FPS, High averages 94.2 FPS, and Ultra averages 70 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 58.6 FPS, a 45.6% reduction. The 1440p Ultra result of 70 FPS is the first setting where the frame rate falls below the 100 FPS threshold, but it is still above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the results are more challenging. Low averages 101 FPS, Medium averages 68.2 FPS, High averages 55.1 FPS, and Ultra averages 43.3 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 57.7 FPS, a 57.1% reduction. At 4K, only Low settings achieve over 100 FPS; Medium is just above 60 FPS, while High and Ultra fall below 60 FPS, with Ultra dipping under 45 FPS.

Across all resolutions, the Low settings consistently provide the highest frame rates, while Ultra settings provide the lowest. The data shows a clear trend: the combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K being playable only at Low or Medium settings.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

For a smooth 60 FPS experience at 4K, the Medium preset is the safest choice, averaging 68.2 FPS. High at 4K drops to 55.1 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target, but it is still playable for many. Ultra at 4K is not recommended, as the 43.3 FPS average will feel stuttery in fast-paced survival scenarios.

At 1440p, the High preset offers the best balance, averaging 94.2 FPS—well above 60 FPS—while providing better visual fidelity than Medium (113 FPS) or Low (128.6 FPS). Ultra at 1440p averages 70 FPS, which is playable, but the jump from High to Ultra costs 24.2 FPS, a 25.7% reduction, for marginal visual gains. For competitive play, Low at 1440p (128.6 FPS) is the best option, but for a mix of visuals and performance, High is the sweet spot.

At 1080p, all settings are playable, with even Ultra averaging 105.8 FPS. For the best experience, High at 118.3 FPS strikes the ideal balance—it is only 28.3 FPS below Low but offers significantly better textures and lighting. Medium at 130 FPS is a good alternative for those who prioritize frame rate over visuals. Ultra at 1080p is viable, but the 105.8 FPS result is only 12.5 FPS below High, so the visual upgrade is not worth the performance loss for most players.

The data points to High settings as the recommended preset for this combo at any resolution. At 1080p, it delivers 118.3 FPS; at 1440p, 94.2 FPS; and at 4K, 55.1 FPS. Only at 4K does High fall short of 60 FPS, where dropping to Medium (68.2 FPS) is the correct call. The RX 7900 XT is powerful enough to handle High settings in Rust, and the i5-10400F does not bottleneck it at these settings, making High the best overall choice for this pairing.