Rust

The Intel Core i5-11400F and Intel Arc B570 pairing in Rust lands at rank 2349 out of 2953 tested combos, placing it in the lower half of the database. This is a combination where the GPU is the primary constraint at higher resolutions, but the CPU’s six-core, twelve-thread design still keeps the experience playable at 1080p across most presets. The measured data shows a clear pattern: low settings are mandatory for smooth frame rates, while anything above medium quickly becomes a slideshow at 4K.

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

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a Rocket Lake-S desktop processor with 6 cores and 12 threads, running at a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. It uses a 14 nm process, has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, and supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. This is a 65 W part, and its benchmark scores reflect a solid mid-range CPU: it achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14340 and a single-core score of 2024. In PassMark, it posts a multithread score of 16908 and a single-thread score of 2981.

For Rust, this CPU’s role is best understood through its threading performance. Rust is known for being heavily dependent on single-thread performance, but the 12 threads from this chip provide enough headroom for background tasks and the game’s server-side calculations. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 5619 and max-thread score of 5652 indicate that scaling beyond 8 threads yields almost nothing—the 3DMark 8-thread score is 4691, and the 4-thread score is 3171. This suggests the CPU is effectively maxed out around 8 threads, which is typical for a 6-core/12-thread part.

Comparing the CPU to its nearest rivals in the database shows how closely it sits in performance. The AMD EPYC 7H12 scores 17120 (0.3% lower), the Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278 (0.6% higher). The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U scores 17074 (0.6% lower). These deltas are tiny, meaning the i5-11400F is effectively peerless in its tier for raw compute. In Rust specifically, the CPU percentile of 71 versus all CPUs means it outperforms 71% of tested processors, which is respectable but not top-tier.

The 2.60 GHz base clock is low, but the 4.40 GHz boost is what matters in gaming. The data suggests the CPU is rarely the bottleneck at 1080p, where the GPU is stressed more. However, at lower settings and resolutions, the CPU’s single-thread performance becomes more relevant. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 2024 is competitive, but it is not exceptional, which explains why the combo cannot push beyond 118 FPS at 1080p low. The 3DMark single-thread score of 868 reinforces this: it is adequate, but not enough to overcome GPU limitations in Rust’s heavy object rendering.

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

The Intel Arc B570 is a Battlemage (Arc 5) GPU built on TSMC’s 5 nm process with 19,600 million transistors. It has 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s. The GPU runs at a fixed 2500 MHz base and boost clock, with memory at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective). It has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 80 raster operation units, plus 18 ray tracing cores. The FP32 performance is 11.52 TFLOPS, and the pixel rate is 200.0 GPixel/s.

In Rust, the GPU’s 10 GB VRAM is a critical factor. Rust can consume significant memory for textures and world data, and 10 GB is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K high or ultra settings, the VRAM is likely near capacity. The memory bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s is decent, but not exceptional for a 10 GB card. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 14195 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 2649 show it is a mid-range performer. The percentile versus all GPUs is 65, meaning it beats 65% of tested GPUs.

The GPU’s nearest rivals in the database are instructive. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534 (0.1% lower), the Intel Arc A750 scores 20582 (0.1% higher), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662 (0.5% higher). The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480 (0.4% lower). These are all within 0.5% of each other, meaning the Arc B570 sits in a tight performance band. However, in Rust, the GPU’s actual frame rates are modest. At 1080p high, it only manages 67 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for many gamers, and at 4K ultra, it drops to 21 FPS.

The GPU’s boost clock of 2500 MHz is high, but the architecture’s efficiency is limited. The 160-bit memory bus is narrow compared to higher-tier cards, which hampers 4K performance. The 10 GB VRAM is a double-edged sword: it is enough for 1440p medium, but not for 4K ultra. The data shows that at 4K low, the GPU delivers 48 FPS, which is playable but not smooth. At 1440p low, it hits 81 FPS, which is better. The GPU is the bottleneck at all resolutions above 1080p low, as the CPU’s performance does not degrade as resolution increases.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a stark resolution scaling pattern. At 1080p low, the combo averages 118 FPS. At 1440p low, it drops to 81 FPS—a 31% reduction. At 4K low, it falls to 48 FPS—a 59% reduction from 1080p low. This is a classic GPU-bound scaling curve. The CPU is capable of pushing more frames, but the GPU cannot keep up as pixel count increases.

For the high preset, the drop is even more pronounced. At 1080p high, the average is 67 FPS. At 1440p high, it is 46 FPS—a 31% reduction. At 4K high, it is 27 FPS—a 60% reduction from 1080p high. The medium preset shows a similar pattern: 79 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 32 FPS at 4K. The ultra preset is the worst: 51 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K.

The percentage drops between resolutions are consistent across presets, indicating that the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU’s performance does not scale with resolution—it stays constant—so the FPS drop is purely due to the GPU’s rendering load. The fact that 1080p low reaches 118 FPS shows the CPU can handle Rust’s logic and physics at high frame rates, but the GPU cannot render frames fast enough at higher resolutions. This is verified by the 4K medium min FPS of 27 and max FPS of 37, which shows the GPU is struggling to maintain a stable frame time.

The data suggests that for this combo, 1080p is the sweet spot. At 1440p, the FPS drops below 60 for all presets except low, making it a marginal choice. At 4K, even low settings barely exceed 48 FPS, which is not suitable for competitive play. The limiting component is clearly the GPU, as the CPU’s 71st percentile ranking would allow for higher frame rates if the GPU were stronger.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo ranks 2349 out of 2953 tested combos in Rust, placing it in the 20th percentile of all tested systems. This is a low rank, indicating that most other combos in the database perform better. The rank is driven by the GPU’s limitations, not the CPU. The CPU’s percentile is 71, while the GPU’s percentile is 65, so both are below average, but the GPU is the weaker link.

Compared to other combos, this pairing is not competitive for high-end play. The rank of 2349 means that roughly 80% of tested combos achieve higher average FPS in Rust. This is expected for a mid-range CPU and a mid-range GPU, but the specific combination is not well-balanced for Rust. The CPU is slightly above average, but the GPU is slightly below, and Rust’s demanding nature punishes the GPU more.

The nearest rivals for the GPU, such as the RTX 3070 Mobile and Arc A750, have similar synthetic scores, but their real-world performance in Rust may differ. The combo rank does not directly compare to these rivals, but it suggests that a better GPU would move the rank up significantly. The CPU’s rivals, like the EPYC 7H12 and i5-12450H, are all within 0.6% in synthetic tests, so the CPU is not the differentiator.

In the context of the database, this combo is best suited for 1080p low or medium settings. At 1080p low, it achieves 118 FPS, which is playable for most users. At 1080p medium, it hits 79 FPS, which is acceptable. Above that, the experience degrades quickly. The rank of 2349 reflects this: it is a budget-oriented combo that cannot handle high settings at high resolutions.

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

At 3840x2160 (4K), the combo delivers the following average FPS: Low preset averages 48 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS with a min of 27 and max of 37, High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 21 FPS. None of these are playable for smooth gaming. The 4K low setting is the only one that exceeds 40 FPS, but it is still below the 60 FPS threshold. The min FPS for 4K medium is 27, which indicates significant frame drops that would be noticeable in gameplay.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the results are better. The Low preset averages 81 FPS, which is playable. The Medium preset averages 54 FPS with a min of 46 and max of 62. The High preset averages 46 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 35 FPS. The 1440p low setting is the only one above 60 FPS, and the medium setting is borderline. The min FPS of 46 at medium suggests occasional stutters, but it is generally playable.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the combo finally shows its potential. The Low preset averages 118 FPS, which is excellent for competitive play. The Medium preset averages 79 FPS with a min of 67 and max of 91. The High preset averages 67 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 51 FPS. The 1080p low and medium settings are both above 60 FPS, making them the recommended choices. The high setting is playable but not ideal, and ultra is below 60 FPS.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p is the only resolution where the combo can deliver smooth performance across multiple presets. At 1440p, only low settings are viable. At 4K, no settings are viable for a good experience. The measured FPS for 1080p medium shows a min of 67 and max of 91, which indicates a stable frame rate with only minor variation. This is the best balance of visual quality and performance for this combo.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience for this combo is at 1080p with the Medium preset. This yields an average of 79 FPS, with a min of 67 and max of 91, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The medium preset provides better visual fidelity than low, while still maintaining a playable frame rate. The 1080p high preset at 67 FPS is also viable, but it is closer to the 60 FPS threshold and may dip below during intense scenes.

For users who prioritize frame rate over visuals, the 1080p Low preset is the best choice, delivering 118 FPS. This is ideal for competitive play where response time is critical. The low preset sacrifices visual quality, but the high frame rate ensures minimal input lag. The 1080p Ultra preset at 51 FPS is not recommended, as it falls below 60 FPS and does not provide a smooth experience.

At 1440p, the only recommended setting is Low, which averages 81 FPS. This is playable, but the visual quality is reduced. The 1440p Medium preset at 54 FPS is borderline, and the min FPS of 46 suggests it will stutter in demanding areas. The 1440p High and Ultra presets are not recommended due to sub-60 FPS averages.

At 4K, no settings are recommended. The highest average is 48 FPS at Low, which is not smooth enough for most users. The 4K Medium preset has a min FPS of 27, which is unplayable. Users should avoid 4K entirely with this combo.

The optimal configuration is 1080p Medium, which balances visual quality and performance. If a higher frame rate is needed, 1080p Low is the fallback. For 1440p, only Low is viable, and 4K should be avoided. This combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, where the CPU and GPU work together to deliver a decent experience.