Rust

The Intel Core i5-11400F and AMD Radeon RX 9060 pairing in Rust delivers a mid-table experience, placing 1665th out of 2953 tested combos. This position suggests a system capable of smooth 1080p play but one that struggles significantly at higher resolutions, a pattern clearly visible in the measured data. The combination of a six-core Rocket Lake CPU and a modern RDNA 4 graphics card presents an interesting study in bottleneck dynamics, particularly because Rust is known to be sensitive to both processor throughput and memory bandwidth.

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

The Intel Core i5-11400F brings six physical cores and twelve threads to the table, a configuration that remains relevant for modern gaming. Its base clock of 2.60 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz provide a solid range for both sustained loads and single-threaded bursts. The processor is built on Intel's 14 nm Rocket Lake architecture, which is an older process node, yet its benchmark scores indicate it still holds its own. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14340 and single-core score of 2024 suggest a CPU that can handle Rust's complex simulation logic, which often relies heavily on a few primary threads for tasks like entity updates and building physics.

The 12 MB of shared L3 cache is a crucial factor for Rust. The game's procedural map generation and the constant streaming of terrain and object data demand frequent cache hits to avoid memory stalls. The data shows that in this pairing, the CPU is not the primary limiting factor at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 151 FPS, which is a high enough frame rate that the GPU is likely being pushed to its limits. However, the CPU's performance ceiling becomes more apparent when examining the scaling between settings at the same resolution. Moving from Low to High at 1080p drops the average FPS from 151 to 86, a 43% reduction. This is a larger proportional drop than what would be expected from a purely GPU-bound scenario, hinting that the CPU's thread scheduling and cache management are being taxed by the increased draw calls and object counts at higher presets.

Single-threaded performance is often the deciding factor in Rust, and the 11400F's 3DMark single-thread score of 868 is respectable but not exceptional. The processor's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7H12, which scores 0.3% higher on average, and the Intel Core i5-12450H, which scores 0.4% lower. These are tight margins, indicating that the 11400F sits in a competitive performance band for general compute. The passmark single-thread score of 2981 further reinforces this, showing that the chip can deliver consistent frame pacing when a single core is the primary worker. The data suggests that at 1440p and 4K, the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU, as the FPS drops are more attributable to the graphics card's rendering workload than to processor limitations.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the graphics workhorse here, featuring 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is a potential point of concern for Rust at high resolutions, as the game's texture streaming and draw distances can consume VRAM quickly. The GPU's boost clock of 2990 MHz and game clock of 2400 MHz are high, indicating a well-binned chip capable of strong compute performance. The 21.43 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is substantial, yet the measured FPS data reveals that the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck as resolution increases.

At 1080p Low, the RX 9060 delivers 151 FPS, showcasing its raw rasterization power. However, the transition to 1440p Low drops the frame rate to 104 FPS, a 31% decrease. This is a significant hit for a resolution increase, suggesting that the 8 GB VRAM buffer and the 128-bit memory interface are starting to limit performance. The situation worsens at 4K, where 1080p Low's 151 FPS falls to just 62 FPS, a 59% reduction. This stark decline is a classic sign of a GPU that is running out of memory bandwidth or capacity, forcing the system to rely on slower data transfers.

The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 17631 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, which scores only 0.7% higher. This is a meaningful comparison, as the RTX 3060 Ti is known for being a solid 1080p and entry-level 1440p card. The RX 9060's nearest rivals also include the AMD Radeon RX 7700, which scores 1% lower, and the Radeon Pro W5500, which scores 2.1% higher. This positioning confirms that the RX 9060 is a mainstream performer, capable of handling esports titles comfortably but struggling with the heavier demands of survival games like Rust at higher presets. The 4K High average of 35 FPS is below the playable threshold for most users, and even 4K Medium at 41 FPS is marginal, indicating that this GPU is not designed for 4K gaming.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain a 60 FPS average?

A: Based on the measured data, 1080p is the only resolution where all settings exceed 60 FPS. The 2560x1440 Low preset achieves 104 FPS, but 1440p High drops to 59 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS target. For a stable 60 FPS at 1440p, Low settings are required.

Q: How does the RX 9060 compare to its nearest rival, the RTX 3060 Ti?

A: The data indicates the RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014, while the RTX 3060 Ti scores 16129. This means the RTX 3060 Ti is 0.7% faster on average, a negligible difference that suggests near-identical performance in most gaming scenarios.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the primary bottleneck at 4K Ultra settings?

A: The 4K Ultra preset yields an average of 27 FPS. Given that the CPU can drive 1080p Low to 151 FPS, the massive frame rate drop at 4K is overwhelmingly attributable to the GPU's inability to render the higher pixel count and manage the memory load. The GPU is the clear bottleneck at this resolution.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the Intel Core i5-11400F?

A: The i5-11400F ranks in the 71st percentile among all CPUs. This places it above the majority of processors, indicating it is a capable mid-range part that should not seriously hold back a modern graphics card in most games.

Q: What does the 3DMark Steel Nomad score suggest about the GPU?

A: The RX 9060 scores 3322 in 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12). This is a moderate score that aligns with its PassMark G3D performance, suggesting the card is well-suited for 1080p high-refresh gaming but will require lower settings at 1440p to maintain high frame rates.

Q: How much faster is the 1080p Low preset compared to the 4K Low preset?

A: The 1080p Low preset averages 151 FPS, while the 4K Low preset averages 62 FPS. This represents a 59% reduction in performance, highlighting the extreme cost of rendering at 4K for this GPU.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1665th out of 2953 tested combinations in Rust, placing it in the 56th percentile of all systems evaluated. This is a solidly mid-tier position, indicating that while this setup is far from the top, it is also not near the bottom. The ranking suggests that the system will handle the game adequately at mainstream settings but will not provide an exceptional experience at the highest visual fidelity. The combination of a 71st percentile CPU and a 59th percentile GPU results in a system that is balanced for 1080p gaming but increasingly unbalanced as resolution increases.

The data implies that the CPU is the stronger component relative to its peers, while the GPU is slightly weaker. This is an interesting dynamic, as it means the system's overall ranking is likely held back by the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions. For example, at 1080p, the system's performance is respectable, but at 4K, the GPU's memory bandwidth constraints pull the ranking down. The rank of 1665 is a composite score, and the measured FPS data suggests that the system could rank higher if the GPU had more VRAM or a wider memory bus. The position also indicates that there are many other systems with similar CPU performance but stronger GPUs, which would push this combo lower in the rankings for games that are more graphically demanding.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience, the data points to the 1080p Medium preset as the optimal balance between visual quality and performance. The Medium preset at 1080p delivers an average of 102 FPS, with a measured minimum of 86 FPS and a maximum of 117 FPS. This frame rate range is smooth and responsive, providing a good gaming experience without dropping into stutter territory. The Low preset at 1080p offers a higher 151 FPS average, but the visual downgrade is significant, and the extra frames are less impactful than the graphical improvements provided by Medium settings.

At 1440p, the Medium preset is the recommended choice, as it achieves an average of 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS. This is just at the edge of playability, but the 59 FPS minimum means there will be occasional dips below 60, which some players may find noticeable. The High preset at 1440p drops to 59 FPS average, which is too close to the limit for comfort. The Ultra preset at any resolution is not recommended, as it produces averages of 45 FPS at 1440p and 27 FPS at 4K, which are not playable for a fast-paced survival game. The 4K Medium preset, with a 41 FPS average, is a last resort for those who prioritize resolution over frame rate, but the 1080p Medium setting offers the most consistent and responsive experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Ultra: 65 FPS average
• High: 86 FPS average
• Medium: 102 FPS average (min 86, max 117)
• Low: 151 FPS average

At 1080p, the system shows a clear linear progression. The jump from Low to Medium is a 32% reduction in frame rate, while the jump from Medium to High is a 16% reduction. The Ultra preset further cuts performance to 65 FPS, which is a 36% drop from High. This indicates that the graphics card is handling the resolution well but is increasingly taxed by the higher-quality shaders and effects.

2560x1440:

• Ultra: 45 FPS average
• High: 59 FPS average
• Medium: 70 FPS average (min 59, max 80)
• Low: 104 FPS average

The 1440p data reveals a steeper performance curve. Low to Medium sees a 33% drop, and Medium to High sees a 16% drop again. The High to Ultra transition is a 24% drop, which is larger than at 1080p, suggesting that the GPU is now struggling with the increased pixel count and the demand for more detailed textures. The minimum FPS at Medium (59) is the same as the average at High, highlighting the variability in performance.

3840x2160:

• Ultra: 27 FPS average
• High: 35 FPS average
• Medium: 41 FPS average (min 35, max 47)
• Low: 62 FPS average

At 4K, the system is clearly overburdened. The Low preset is the only one that reaches a playable 62 FPS average, but the Medium preset falls to 41 FPS. The High and Ultra presets are effectively unplayable. The difference between Low and Medium is a 34% drop, which is consistent with the scaling at other resolutions, but the absolute numbers are too low for a smooth experience.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K is revealing about the system's bottleneck. At Low settings, the FPS drops from 151 at 1080p to 104 at 1440p (a 31% decrease) and then to 62 at 4K (a 40% decrease from 1440p). This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the render resolution places increasing pressure on the pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth. The GPU's 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is simply insufficient for the demands of 4K, causing the frame rate to plummet.

At Medium settings, the drop from 1080p (102 FPS) to 1440p (70 FPS) is a 31% reduction, and the drop from 1440p to 4K (41 FPS) is a 41% reduction. This suggests that the GPU's limitations are consistent across settings. The fact that the percentage drops are similar between Low and Medium indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor, not the CPU. The CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls, and at these resolutions, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck.

The scaling from 1080p High (86 FPS) to 1440p High (59 FPS) is a 31% drop, and to 4K High (35 FPS) is a 41% drop. This consistency across all settings strongly implies that the system is fundamentally limited by the GPU's memory interface. The 128-bit bus and 8 GB VRAM are insufficient for handling the large textures and high-resolution framebuffers required by Rust. The data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield significant gains at 1440p and 4K, while the CPU would remain a capable partner. Conversely, reducing resolution to 1080p brings the system into a comfortable zone where the GPU can leverage its high clock speeds to deliver excellent performance.