Rust

Rust’s measured performance with the Intel Core i5-11400F and Intel Arc B370 is severely constrained by the graphics solution, making the combo viable only for low-fidelity gaming at 1080p. The data shows a hard ceiling where even the most demanding settings fail to approach playable frame rates at higher resolutions, placing this pairing in the bottom tier of tested hardware combinations.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals a system that is overwhelmingly GPU-limited. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 69 at 1920x1080 to 48 at 2560x1440, a reduction of 21 frames, and then to 28 at 3840x2160. That represents a 59% loss from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the rendering pipeline is saturated long before the CPU can become a factor. The pattern is consistent across all presets: High settings yield 39 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and just 16 FPS at 4K. Medium settings follow suit with 46, 32, and 19 FPS respectively.

The scaling behavior points to a component that cannot keep up with pixel throughput. The Arc B370’s 1280 shading units and 20 ROPs are simply overwhelmed as resolution increases. The 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate sounds adequate on paper, but Rust’s draw calls and geometry processing expose the hardware’s limitations. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS collapses to 12, which is a 60% drop from the 30 FPS achieved at 1080p Ultra. This non-linear decline suggests memory bandwidth constraints, as the GPU relies on System Shared memory with bandwidth that is System Dependent, meaning the actual throughput varies with the host platform.

Notably, the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens with resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low (69 FPS) and Ultra (30 FPS) is 39 frames. At 4K, the same comparison yields only a 16-frame difference (28 vs 12 FPS). This compression indicates that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so bottlenecked that reducing graphical fidelity provides diminishing returns. The limiting factor is not the settings complexity but the raw fill rate and memory subsystem.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination ranks 2710 out of 2953 tested combos in Rust, placing it in the 8th percentile of all pairings. This is a bottom-tier result, and the data confirms why: no measured configuration reaches 60 FPS at any resolution. The highest average FPS recorded is 69 at 1080p Low, which is the only row that approaches smooth gameplay. Every other settings/resolution combination falls below 50 FPS, with most sitting in the 12-46 FPS range.

The rank reflects the GPU’s position in the broader hardware landscape. The Arc B370 has a percentileVsAllGpus of 5, meaning it outperforms only 5% of all GPUs in the benchmark database. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (avg score 1186, deltaPct -0.2), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (avg score 1190, deltaPct -0.5), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (avg score 1192, deltaPct -0.7). These are legacy parts from over a decade ago, underscoring how far behind modern standards this Intel solution sits. The only GPU it beats is the AMD FirePro M2000 (avg score 1168, deltaPct 1.4), which is a professional workstation card from the same era.

The CPU, by contrast, is a mid-range performer. The Intel Core i5-11400F has a percentileVsAllCpus of 71, with an avgBenchmarkScore of 17177. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7H12 (avg score 17120, deltaPct 0.3), the Intel Core i5-12450H (avg score 17239, deltaPct -0.4), and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (avg score 17278, deltaPct -0.6). The CPU is clearly not the problem in this pairing; it is the GPU that drags the combo down to the bottom 8% of tested configurations.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the decisive bottleneck in this system. Its benchmark results are catastrophic: a single 3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 score of 1184 puts it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals are all ancient discrete cards, with the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scoring 1190 (deltaPct -0.5) and the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scoring 1186 (deltaPct -0.2). The fact that this modern Intel part is statistically indistinguishable from a 2010-era GPU speaks volumes.

The GPU’s clock behavior is revealing. The base clock is just 300 MHz, which is extremely low even for an integrated solution, though the boost clock reaches 2400 MHz. This wide gap suggests aggressive power management, but in a sustained gaming workload, the actual clock speed likely hovers near the lower end. The 25 W TDP confirms this is designed for efficiency, not performance. The memory is System Shared, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM; the GPU borrows from system memory, and bandwidth is System Dependent. In Rust, which is known for heavy memory traffic, this creates a severe bottleneck.

The rendering capabilities are modest: 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. The texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s is insufficient for modern game assets at high resolutions. The FP32 throughput of 6.144 TFLOPS is similarly low, limiting compute-heavy effects. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, so feature support is not the issue—raw horsepower is. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s mathematically cannot fill a 4K frame buffer at playable rates, and the measured 16 FPS at 4K High confirms this.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the results are the only ones approaching usability. Low settings deliver an average of 69 FPS, which is smooth enough for most players. Medium settings drop to 46 FPS with a minimum of 39 and maximum of 53, indicating some frame pacing variance. High settings yield 39 FPS, and Ultra falls to 30 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 23 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs another 7 FPS. This suggests that Low is the sweet spot for 1080p, as it provides a 50% improvement over Medium.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates become marginal. Low settings produce 48 FPS on average, which is playable but not ideal for competitive scenarios. Medium averages 32 FPS with a range of 27 to 37, and High drops to 27 FPS. Ultra is effectively unplayable at 20 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low is a 30% reduction (69 to 48 FPS), which is steeper than the resolution increase would suggest, reinforcing the GPU’s inability to handle higher pixel counts.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings manage 28 FPS, Medium averages 19 FPS with a range of 16 to 22, High drops to 16 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 12 FPS. None of these are acceptable for real-time gameplay. The data shows that even the lowest settings at 4K cannot maintain a stable 30 FPS, meaning this combo is not suitable for 4K gaming in any capacity. The minimum FPS values at 4K Medium (16) are at the threshold of stutter, and the maximum of 22 FPS is still below the playability bar.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a capable six-core, twelve-thread processor with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its benchmark scores are solid for a mid-range desktop part: Cinebench R23 multicore reaches 14340, and single-core hits 2024. Geekbench multicore is 7737, and Passmark multithread is 16908. These numbers place it well above the bottom tier, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.6% of its average score, indicating consistent performance.

In Rust, the CPU’s role is secondary to the GPU. The game is known for its server-side simulation and physics, which can stress the CPU, but the measured frame rates show that the GPU is the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the CPU is likely not maxed out, as the 69 FPS average is well within the processor’s capabilities. The 12 threads provide ample headroom for background tasks and game logic, and the 12 MB of shared L3 cache helps with data locality.

The CPU’s memory support for DDR4 with dual-channel configuration and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth is adequate, though the shared memory GPU will contend for the same bandwidth. This could exacerbate the GPU’s memory bottleneck. The PCIe Gen 4 interface with 20 lanes is more than enough for the GPU, but since the Arc B370 uses an IGP bus interface, the connection is internal and shares system resources. The 65 W TDP is modest, and the 14 nm process node is older, but the performance is well-understood. The CPU is not the reason this combo ranks 2710th; it is the GPU holding everything back.

Settings Recommendations

The data is unambiguous: for any playable experience, 1080p Low is the only sensible choice. At 69 FPS average, it is the sole configuration that clears the 60 FPS threshold. This setting should be the default for this combo. The step to 1080p Medium costs 23 FPS (down to 46), which is a significant sacrifice for modest visual gains. Given the GPU’s 5th percentile ranking, users should prioritize frame rate over fidelity.

At 1440p, even Low settings drop to 48 FPS, which is borderline. If a user insists on 1440p, Low is the only feasible preset, but the experience will be inferior to 1080p Low. The 30% frame rate loss is not worth the resolution increase. For 4K, no settings are recommended; even Low at 28 FPS is below the minimum acceptable threshold for smooth gameplay. The gap between Low and Medium at 4K is only 9 FPS (28 vs 19), so there is no reason to choose Medium over Low if one were forced to play at that resolution.

The measured rows show diminishing returns at every turn. At 1080p, reducing from High to Low provides a 77% improvement (39 to 69 FPS), while the visual difference in Rust is often minimal due to the game’s art style. At 1440p, the same reduction from High to Low yields a 78% improvement (27 to 48 FPS). At 4K, the improvement from High to Low is 75% (16 to 28 FPS). The pattern is consistent: Low settings are the only way to extract acceptable performance from this hardware.

The minimum FPS values at 1080p Medium (39) and 1440p Medium (27) indicate that even these settings experience drops below the average, which could lead to stutter in busy scenes. The Ultra preset is effectively a slideshow at any resolution above 720p, and even at 1080p it only manages 30 FPS. This combo is for low-settings gaming at 1080p, and nothing more. Users seeking higher fidelity should look to other GPU options, as the Arc B370’s performance ceiling is firmly established by the data.