Rust

The Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D presents a striking contrast in Rust: a mainstream six-core processor from the Alder Lake generation matched with a flagship 32 GB graphics card. The measured frame rates across resolutions and settings reveal a system that is heavily influenced by the CPU. The data shows a combination capable of high refresh rates at 1080p, but one where the GPU is often left waiting for the processor to deliver frames, particularly at lower resolutions and settings. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, focusing on where the bottleneck lies and how the hardware scales with the game's demands.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and expected trend: as resolution increases, average frame rates decrease. However, the rate of this decline is not uniform across all settings, which provides insight into the system's limiting component. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 203 FPS at 1920x1080 to 179 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 24 FPS (approximately 12%). Moving to 3840x2160, the average falls to 141 FPS, another 38 FPS reduction (approximately 21% from the 1440p result). This relatively modest scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings suggests the CPU is the primary constraint; the GPU has enough headroom to render frames quickly, but the processor cannot feed it data fast enough to maintain the same performance levels as resolution drops.

The scaling pattern shifts significantly at higher settings. At Ultra settings, the average frame rate is 149 FPS at 1080p, which drops to 103 FPS at 1440p (a 46 FPS or roughly 31% decrease) and then to 61 FPS at 4K (a 42 FPS or roughly 41% decrease from 1440p). This steeper decline indicates that the GPU is becoming a more significant factor as the rendering load increases. The transition from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a massive performance cost, with the average FPS dropping from 141 to 61, a 57% reduction.

The data indicates that at 1080p and 1440p with lower presets, the Intel Core i5-12400 is the limiting component, capping performance. The RTX 5090 D is powerful enough to render these scenes quickly, but the processor's six cores and 12 threads cannot keep up with the GPU's frame generation capabilities. Conversely, at 4K with High or Ultra settings, the GPU's workload becomes more demanding, and the scaling shows the graphics card becoming the primary bottleneck, as the frame rate drops are more pronounced. The system performs best when the GPU is given a heavier load, which balances the work between the two components.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D is a data-center-class card repurposed for desktop use, built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with a 5 nm process. It features 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, yielding a massive 1.79 TB/s of memory bandwidth. The card's base clock is 2017 MHz with a boost clock of 2407 MHz. This memory configuration is critical for Rust, as the game can be demanding on VRAM at high resolutions and with high-quality textures.

The measured results show that the GPU's role shifts depending on the resolution. At 1920x1080, the GPU is underutilized. For instance, at Low settings, the average FPS is 203, which is likely far from the card's maximum potential. The bottleneck is the CPU. The GPU is capable of much higher frame rates, but it is held back by the processor's inability to issue draw calls and process game logic fast enough. Even at Ultra settings with 1080p, the average is 149 FPS, a number that a less powerful GPU could likely achieve with this CPU.

At 4K, the GPU's role becomes far more consequential. The Ultra preset at 3840x2160 yields an average of 61 FPS. The jump from Medium (95 FPS) to Ultra (61 FPS) at this resolution shows the significant cost of the highest graphical fidelity settings. The RTX 5090 D's 32 GB of VRAM is not a limiting factor in these measurements, as no memory-related performance cliffs are evident in the data. The card's raw compute power, with 21,760 shading units and 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, is what drives the frame rates at higher resolutions. The scores from synthetic benchmarks, such as a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 14,326, corroborate its high-end positioning, but the real-world Rust data shows that its performance is often capped by the CPU.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the benchmark database, this specific CPU-GPU combination is ranked 108th out of 2,953 tested combos for Rust. This places the system in the top 4% of all tested configurations, indicating that it is a very high-performing setup overall. The rank is a composite score that considers the measured FPS across all resolution and settings combinations.

The high rank is primarily driven by the GPU's immense power. The RTX 5090 D sits in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, which is a very strong showing. Its average benchmark score of 77,712 reflects its compute capability. In synthetic tests, it is closely matched with the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT, which has a deltaPct of -1.6%, meaning the RTX 5090 D is about 1.6% slower in those aggregate benchmarks. However, the CPU is a relative weak point in this pairing. The Core i5-12400 only ranks in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, which is a solid mid-range score but far from the top. Its average benchmark score of 18,683 places it in the same performance tier as the AMD EPYC 7643 and the Intel Core i7-1355U, with deltaPct values of -0.1% and -0.3% respectively.

This pairing of a top-tier GPU with a mid-range CPU is the reason the combo does not rank higher. While the 108th position is excellent, it is likely held back by the CPU in CPU-bound scenarios. In Rust, which is known to be CPU-intensive, the processor's performance is a critical factor. The combo's rank is a reflection of the sum of its parts, and the data shows that while the GPU can deliver exceptional performance, the CPU prevents it from reaching its absolute peak in this particular game.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on which settings to use for the best experience. The optimal choice depends on the user's display resolution and refresh rate.

For 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 203 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors. However, the Medium preset at 174 FPS offers a significant visual upgrade while still maintaining a very high frame rate that is well above the 144 Hz threshold common in gaming monitors. The High preset at 164 FPS is also viable, offering a good balance. The Ultra preset at 149 FPS is also highly playable and represents the best visual quality, but it does come with a 25 FPS penalty compared to Low. Given the headroom at 1080p, the Medium to High presets are recommended to maximize visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness.

At 2560x1440, the scaling is more pronounced. The Low preset averages 179 FPS, while Medium drops to 154 FPS and High to 136 FPS. The Ultra preset falls to 103 FPS. For a 1440p monitor with a 144 Hz refresh rate, the High preset is the sweet spot, as it stays above 100 FPS and offers better visuals than Medium. The Medium preset is also a good choice for ensuring the frame rate never dips below the monitor's refresh rate, but the High preset's average of 136 FPS is a better use of the GPU's power. The Ultra preset is playable, but its 103 FPS average is a noticeable step down.

At 3840x2160, the CPU bottleneck is less of an issue, and the GPU's performance is the main factor. The Low preset averages 141 FPS, which is high, but the visual quality is very poor. The Medium preset at 95 FPS is a more reasonable option for 4K gaming, offering a good visual upgrade with a playable frame rate. The High preset at 80 FPS is also viable for a cinematic experience, but it is below the 100 FPS mark. The Ultra preset at 61 FPS is the most demanding, and while it is playable, it is not optimal for fast-paced action. For a 60 Hz 4K display, the High preset is the recommended choice, as it provides a significant visual improvement over Medium at a small performance cost. For higher refresh rate 4K displays, the Medium preset is the safer choice to maintain frame rates closer to 100 FPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Rust with this hardware?

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 with the High preset is the sweet spot, delivering an average of 136 FPS. This balances high visual quality with a frame rate that is smooth on most displays. 1080p is better for maximum frame rates, while 4K is playable but requires lowering settings to maintain high FPS.

Q: Is the RTX 5090 D overkill for this CPU in Rust?

A: Yes, at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 203. The CPU is the limiting factor here, as the GPU is capable of much higher frame rates. The data indicates the CPU is the bottleneck until the resolution is increased to 4K with higher settings, where the GPU becomes the primary workload driver.

Q: How does the CPU's single-thread performance affect Rust?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400 has a 3DMark single-thread score of 910 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,257. These scores indicate strong single-core performance, which is important for Rust's game logic and draw call processing. The measured FPS at 1080p, which is high, suggests that the CPU's single-thread performance is sufficient to drive high frame rates, but it does cap performance in this game.

Q: How much of a frame rate difference is there between the Low and Ultra presets at 4K?

A: The difference is significant. At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 141 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 61 FPS. This is a difference of 80 FPS, or approximately a 57% reduction in performance, showing the massive load increase of the Ultra settings.

Q: Does the GPU's 32 GB of VRAM provide a benefit in Rust?

A: The measured FPS data does not show any performance cliffs or anomalies that would indicate a VRAM limitation. The 32 GB of VRAM is far more than Rust likely requires, so it is not a bottleneck. The performance is instead dictated by the GPU's compute power and the CPU's ability to feed it.

Q: How does this combo's rank compare to other tested systems?

A: The combination is ranked 108th out of 2,953 tested combos for Rust, placing it in the top 4%. This is a very high rank, but it is not higher due to the CPU's mid-range performance, which limits the GPU in many scenarios.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 is an Alder Lake-S architecture processor with 6 cores and 12 threads. Its base clock is 2.50 GHz, and it can boost up to 4.40 GHz. It has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. These specifications are typical of a modern mainstream desktop processor. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 15,989 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,257 in single-core. Its 3DMark scores are 5,873 for 16 threads and 910 for single-thread.

In Rust, the CPU's role is critical. The game is known for being CPU-bound, particularly when many entities are present. The data confirms this. At 1080p, the average FPS is capped at 203 FPS even on Low settings. This suggests that the CPU is reaching its limit in terms of processing the game's simulation and issuing render commands. The GPU, which is vastly more powerful, is waiting for the CPU. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads appear to be sufficient to maintain high frame rates, but not enough to push beyond the 200 FPS mark in this scenario.

The CPU's performance also explains the scaling behavior. As resolution increases, the GPU takes on more work, giving the CPU more breathing room. At 4K Ultra, the CPU is no longer the main bottleneck, as the GPU is working hard to render the complex scene. The CPU's performance is still important, but the frame rate is now primarily dictated by the GPU. The data shows that a more powerful CPU would likely yield higher frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but the current processor still provides a very playable experience across all settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact average frame rates measured for this CPU-GPU combination in Rust.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS |

|:--------- |:------- | ----------: |

| 3840x2160 | High | 80 |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 141 |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 95 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 61 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 136 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 179 |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 154 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 103 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 164 |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 203 |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 174 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 149 |

The data reveals a consistent hierarchy: Low settings always produce the highest frame rates, followed by Medium, then High, and finally Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is substantial. At 1080p, the difference is 54 FPS (203 vs. 149). At 1440p, it is 76 FPS (179 vs. 103). At 4K, the gap widens to 80 FPS (141 vs. 61). This indicates that Rust's Ultra preset is extremely demanding and has a heavy impact on the GPU. The Medium and High presets offer a middle ground, with the High preset providing a better visual experience at a moderate performance cost. The 1440p Medium setting shows a minimum FPS of 131 and a maximum of 177, showing some variability, but the average of 154 is stable. Similarly, 1080p Medium has a min of 148 and a max of 201. This data confirms that the game is playable at all settings, but the user must choose between visual fidelity and frame rate.