Rust

The measured data shows an Intel Core i5-12400F coupled with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti producing a reported 3664th place out of 3723 tested combos in Rust. The framerate results, captured at all three resolutions and four preset levels, paint a consistent picture: this is a strongly GPU-limited configuration, with the CPU supplying far more headroom than the graphics card can use. The game's 2018 release date does not change the fact that the GTX 1050 Ti sits only in the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the i5-12400F lands in the 73rd percentile of CPUs. Those two positions already hint at the imbalance that appears in the table.

Resolution Scaling

The most telling observation from the measured rows is how predictably average FPS falls as resolution climbs. At the Low preset, the system records 53 FPS at 1080p, 37 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 4K. The same pattern holds for every other preset: High goes from 30 at 1080p to 21 at 1440p then to 12 at 4K; Medium slides from 36 to 25 to 15; Ultra drops from 23 to 16 to 9. In every case the transition from 1080p to 4K leaves the frame rate under a third of its 1080p value. The steepest relative drop is actually between 1440p and 4K: at Low, 37 becomes 22, at High 21 becomes 12, at Medium 25 becomes 15, and at Ultra 16 becomes 9. These ratios are consistent across all presets, indicating that the GPU is the sole scaling bottleneck rather than any CPU or memory-side factor.

The GTX 1050 Ti’s hardware specification reinforces this finding. It carries a 128-bit memory bus with a bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s, a pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s, and 4 GB of GDDR5. At 4K the number of pixels to scan almost matches 1080p, so with bandwidth fixed, fill-rate and memory throughput become the wall. Even at Low settings, where shading work might be reduced, the 22 FPS average is barely above a slideshow. Lowering resolution to 1440p instantly doubles the FPS at Low, because the memory bandwidth demands are roughly quartered; at 4K the same GPU is overwhelmed.

Because no min or max values are recorded for Low, High, or Ultra rows, we can only rely on average figures for those presets. For Medium, though, the dataset includes frame ranges: 12–17, 21–28, and 30–41 across 4K, 1440p, and 1080p. The 1080p Medium range demonstrates stable enough distribution—the 30 minimum and 41 maximum are only 6 and 5 away from the 36 average. At 1440p Medium, the average is 25 but the low is 21, a 4-FPS gap that indicates momentary drops. At 4K Medium, the worst case 12 and best 17 explains the 15 mean. The overall pattern of scaling is uniform: these numbers show no noticeable CPU-caused nonlinearity. The i5-12400F is capable of far higher output.

Settings Recommendations

Given the entire measured table, the only configuration that consistently reaches the 30 FPS threshold across the dataset is the 1080p Low setting, which returns an average of 53 FPS. The next best is 1440p Low at 37 FPS, which would still be only slightly above the classic 30 FPS comfort line. Medium presets break the 30 FPS mark only at 1080p, with an average of 36 and a documented minimum of exactly 30. The High preset at 1080p sits at 30 FPS on average—but has no recorded min or max, so it could be either higher or lower in practice; the Medium's 30 minimum gives more certainty. At 1440p, only Low (37) clears 30; Medium averages 25, High 21, and Ultra 16. At 4K, every single average sits below 30—the best case, Low, yields 22 FPS, and Ultra falls to 9.

If the goal is fluidity, the data strongly suggests 1080p Low as the default. For users willing to accept occasional dips, 1080p Medium provides a 30-FPS floor in the measured minimum and a 36 average. Alternatively, 1440p Low is the only 1440p option that stays in the range of playable, at 37 FPS. The Ultra preset is plainly not viable anywhere: even at 1080p it only reaches 23 FPS, which is below the level usually considered fluid, and at 4K it freezes to 9. From a settings recommendation perspective, the binary choice becomes between 1080p Low and 1080p Medium—neither any setting above Medium holds an average of 36+, and all others fail at 1440p or 4K.

GPU Role

The GPU is a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti based on the Pascal architecture, built on 14 nm process. It uses 768 shading units with 48 texture mapping units and 32 render output units. It has a base clock of 1291 MHz and boost up to 1392 MHz, with a memory clock of 1752 MHz (or 7 Gbps effective). The memory itself is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s. Its FP32 throughput is rated at 2.138 TFLOPS, a number that explains why pushing many pixels at 4K creates such a low FPS. Even at 1080p High, only 30 average FPS is measured, which the fillrate physics of the 1050 Ti at 1080p are strained.

In benchmark terms, the GTX 1050 Ti has an average score of 4193 and is placed in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. That equals about one of every four GPUs being slower. Its nearest rivals show scores of 4170 for the Radeon R5 M330, 4150 for the Quadro R2100M—both slightly lower—and 4241 for the Quadro K3000M and 4268 for the Radeon M5 5500, both slightly higher. You can see it sits right at the 399 scores. The GPU compute result is 2652, which also sits low. With only a 128-bit bus and 4GB, Rust’s heavy use of textures is bound by the memory capacity. The 112.1 GB/s bandwidth is particularly interesting because running at 4K Ultra needs not only higher bandwidth but also more wear, and 4GB can store only a limited set of high-resolution textures, forcing constant swapping.

The data shows that at 4K, even the lowest settings put an average of 22 FPS – the lowest product of the entire configuration. This is not a settings tuning problem; it's the GPU resource limit. In summary, the 1050 Ti proves it can handle old games at 1080p/low settings, but Rust’s rendering demands at 1080p are too high for sustained smooth fluid in most settings. The high (normal) preset never reaches 30 except at 1080.

Measured FPS Breakdown

For direct reference, the raw measured averages are below. Rows with min/max are not available except for Medium.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min | Max |

|-----------|----------|---------|-----|-----|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 53 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 36 | 30 | 41 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 30 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 23 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 37 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 25 | 21 | 28 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 21 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 16 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 22 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 15 | 12 | 17 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 12 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 9 | – | – |

The numbers deliver several interpretations. At 1080p, Low is about 18 FPS ahead of Medium, and Medium leads High by 6 FPS—a tight gradient. But when moving to 144p, the difference between Low and High becomes 16 on average, while the 4K row shows everything under 30. The only exact numerical sampling is the medium settings: they show a minima that is 5 to 10 FPS below the average value, revealing a considerable overhead. This tweaking may also explain why the CPU percentile is 73 while the GPU is only 25 – any longer, more complex scene or multiplayer environment likely pulls the FPS lower, and the CPU is never the counteracting.

Across all of the measured rows, the best possible average is 53 FPS at 1080p Low; the worst 9 at 4K Ultra; the maximum reaches 41 FPS at 1080p Medium; and the minimum falls to 12 FPS at Medium 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

According to the data, this combo's rank is 3664 out of 3723 in Rust. That places it in the final quartile of tested systems, 59 rows from the very bottom. With such a score, we can deduce that this hardware sits at such a low rank primarily because of the GPU, since the CPU component is well above the average in relative terms. The average CPU benchmark score for the i7-12400 is 19039 (with an average of 19039), which puts it at the 73rd percentile. The nearest rival CPUs in the database—AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (average score 19047, delta 0%), Intel Core 3 201E (19056, difference –0.1%), Intel Core i5-1335U (18982 with 0.3% delta), and AMD EPYC 7773X (18979, delta 0.3%)—all have very similar raw multi-thread scores. That again proves the CPU side is not the weak spot.

In contrast, the GTX 1056Ti’s 25th percentile and an average score of 4193 place it in the lowest quarter of its field. Its nearest "rivals"—AMD Radeon A5 M330 (4170, delta 0.6%), Quadro K650 (4151, +1%), Quadro K3000M (424, -1.1%), and Radeon Vega 3 (4268, -1.8%)—the entire group in the ~4,300 range. So within those numbers, the 1050 Ti is right at the median of a very weak pool. In the context of Rust’s heavy rendering, the comboRankInGame falls to the 3664 position, confirming the hypothesis that the GPU holds the mode back dramatically. The fact that the CPU is strong enough to remain in the high 70th percentile at the same moment emphasizes the imbalance: had the system been run with a weaker CPU, the FPS would be limited no further; but* with the GTX, the limiting factor is not the CPU.

FAQ

Q: What kind of performance can I expect at 1920x1080 with the High preset?

A: The measured average FPS is 30 at 1080p High, which is exactly at the borderline of playable. The data does not record min/max numbers for this row, so the floor is unknown.

Q: Is this combination capable of 4K gaming?

A: At 4K the best average is only 22 FPS on Low; Medium (15), High (12), and Ultra (9) are all well below the 30 FPS fluency threshold. The system is not suitable for native 4K in Rust.

Q: Which settings give the smoothest experience?

A: The only preset that stays in safe fluid territory is 1080p Low with 53 FPS. If you can tolerate exactly 30 in the min, 1080p Medium reaches 36 average with a documented minimum of 30 FPS.

Q: Between the CPU and GPU, which is the stronger part?

A: The i5-12400F scores 19037 in the average benchmark, placing it in the 73rd percentile, while the GTX 1050 Ti sits at 25th percentile with 4193. The CPU is far stronger relative to other CPUs than the GPU is to other GPUs.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its closest peers?

A: The GPU’s average score is 4193; the nearest neighbor is the Radeon R5 M330 at 417