Rust

The Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT pairing in Rust presents a study in balance, but with a clear ceiling. The data shows a 10-core, 16-thread processor built on Intel’s Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its 20 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 suggest a flexible platform. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU achieves a 3DMark max-thread score of 7307 and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22604, placing it in the 77th percentile against all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D, both with nearly identical average scores, with deltas of 0% and -0.3% respectively. This raw compute power is relevant in Rust because the game’s server-side simulation and world persistence can create scenes with many dynamic entities, where higher thread counts and cache capacity help maintain frame pacing. The measured FPS data suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU has enough headroom, but the GPU becomes the limiting factor as resolution climbs.

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

The Core i5-13400F’s configuration is a hybrid of performance and efficiency. With 10 cores and 16 threads, it provides a substantial amount of parallel processing capability, which is reflected in its PassMark multithread score of 25032 and Geekbench multi-core score of 11068. The boost clock of 4.60 GHz ensures that single-threaded tasks, which are often critical for game logic and physics, are handled swiftly; this is supported by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3191. In Rust, where the world is persistent and player actions alter the environment, the CPU must constantly track entity states. The data indicates that this processor is not the bottleneck at 1080p, as the FPS scales well with GPU load. At 1920x1080 Low settings, the average FPS is 135, while at High settings it drops to 76. This 59 FPS difference is substantial and points to the GPU struggling with the increased visual load, not the CPU stalling. The CPU’s 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314 is nearly identical to its max-thread score of 7307, suggesting that the 16 threads are efficiently utilized and adding more load does not yield significant gains. This implies that the processor has headroom in Rust; the game is not fully saturating all available threads at lower settings. The L3 cache of 20 MB is shared, which helps in scenarios where multiple cores need to access the same world data, reducing latency. The benchmark results show that the i5-13400F sits comfortably above the 50th percentile, meaning it is a solid mid-range performer, but its rivals, like the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H, are within a 0.4% delta, indicating that the CPU is not uniquely advantaged for this title.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is an older, end-of-life GPU, but its specifications still dictate the FPS limits in this pairing. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. The GPU’s game clock is 1755 MHz, with a boost clock of 1905 MHz. Its 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs give it a pixel rate of 121.9 GPixel/s. In Rust, the GPU is responsible for rendering the vast, open-world environments, including terrain, structures, and lighting effects. The 8 GB VRAM is a critical factor; at 4K Ultra settings, the average FPS falls to 24, which is a demanding scenario. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 16277 places it in the 59th percentile, and its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, is only 0.1% different in average score. This shows that the RX 5700 XT is a capable mid-tier card, but it is not equipped for maximum settings at high resolutions. The data shows a clear pattern: at 1920x1080 Low, the GPU delivers 135 FPS, but at 3840x2160 High, it drops to 31 FPS. This indicates that the GPU’s compute and memory bandwidth are being saturated as resolution increases. The 448.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for 1080p but becomes a limiting factor at 4K, where the fill rate demands are higher. The GPU’s FP32 performance of 9.754 TFLOPS is adequate for the game’s shader complexity, but the lack of dedicated ray tracing cores suggests that any such effects would be handled via software, which is not reflected in this data. The benchmark results imply that the GPU is the primary bottleneck for this combo in Rust, especially at higher resolutions and settings.

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

Examining the measured FPS rows, the optimal balance between visual fidelity and performance is found at 1920x1080 Medium settings. This configuration yields an average FPS of 90, with a minimum of 77 and a maximum of 104. This is a significant improvement over High settings, which average 76 FPS, and it remains well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average FPS drops to 62, which is still playable but closer to the edge of comfort. The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot for this combo, as it offers a stable frame rate without the steep performance hit seen at High and Ultra. At 1080p, Low settings provide the highest average FPS of 135, but the visual quality is likely too compromised for most players. The Ultra preset at 1080p yields 58 FPS, which is below the ideal 60 FPS target. Therefore, the data recommends 1080p Medium as the best experience, as it provides a 14 FPS headroom over the High preset while maintaining a near-60 FPS floor. At 1440p, Medium is the only preset that stays above 60 FPS, making it the only viable option for a higher resolution. At 4K, all presets fail to reach 60 FPS, with Low being the only playable option at 55 FPS, though this is still below the ideal threshold.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and preset for this combo in Rust?

A: Based on the measured rows, 1920x1080 Medium provides the best experience, with an average FPS of 90, a minimum of 77, and a maximum of 104.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25292. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS, has a score of 25284, showing a 0% delta. The Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D are both slightly behind at -0.3%, with scores of 25362 and 25365 respectively.

Q: Is the GPU the limiting factor in this system?

A: Yes, the data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. At 1920x1080 Low, the average FPS is 135, but at 3840x2160 Low, it drops to 55. This large drop due to resolution, while the CPU has similar multi-thread scores, points to the GPU’s rendering limits.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings yield an average of 93 FPS, while Ultra settings yield an average of 40 FPS. This represents a 53 FPS drop.

Q: Does the combo achieve a stable 60 FPS at 4K?

A: No. The highest average FPS at 3840x2160 is 55 on Low settings. Medium settings yield 37 FPS, High yields 31 FPS, and Ultra yields 24 FPS. None of these meet the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the GPU’s benchmark score compare to its direct rival?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT has an average score of 16361. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, scores 16351, which is a 0.1% difference, making them statistically equivalent in performance.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 90 at 1920x1080 to 62 at 2560x1440, and then to 37 at 3840x2160. This is a 53 FPS reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 25 FPS reduction from 1440p to 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is approximately 59%. This steep decline is a strong indicator that the RX 5700 XT is being overwhelmed by the increasing pixel count. The GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are finite, and as the resolution scales, the demand on the ROPs and VRAM increases exponentially. In contrast, if the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions because the CPU’s workload (game logic, physics) does not scale with resolution. The fact that the FPS drops so dramatically indicates that the CPU is delivering frames faster than the GPU can render them, leaving the GPU as the limiting component. At Low settings, the drop is from 135 FPS at 1080p to 93 FPS at 1440p, and then to 55 FPS at 4K. This shows that even with reduced visual load, the GPU cannot maintain high frame rates at 4K. The data suggests that for this combo, the resolution is the primary lever for performance; lowering the resolution is the most effective way to increase FPS, while adjusting settings has a secondary effect.

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

At 1920x1080, the data shows a clear hierarchy of settings. Low settings produce the highest average FPS of 135. Medium settings average 90 FPS, with a minimum of 77 and a maximum of 104. High settings average 76 FPS. Ultra settings average 58 FPS. This shows a 77 FPS difference between Low and Ultra, indicating that the GPU’s performance scales significantly with the visual preset.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops are more pronounced. Low settings average 93 FPS. Medium settings average 62 FPS, with a minimum of 53 and a maximum of 71. High settings average 52 FPS. Ultra settings average 40 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 53 FPS, and notably, Medium is the only preset that stays above the 60 FPS mark.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overburdened. Low settings average 55 FPS. Medium settings average 37 FPS, with a minimum of 31 and a maximum of 42. High settings average 31 FPS. Ultra settings average 24 FPS. No preset reaches 60 FPS here, and the difference between Low and Ultra is 31 FPS. The data for Medium settings at all resolutions provides a consistent comparison: 90 FPS at 1080p, 62 FPS at 1440p, and 37 FPS at 4K, illustrating the linear scaling of resolution impact on this GPU.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is ranked 2769 out of 3723 tested combos in Rust. This places it in the 74th percentile of all tested systems, meaning it outperforms roughly 74% of the other combinations in the database. This is a solid mid-pack ranking, indicating that the combo is capable but not exceptional for this specific game. The rank suggests that while the CPU is a strong performer (77th percentile), the GPU’s age and limitations (59th percentile) drag the overall combo down. The data implies that many other systems, likely those with newer GPUs, will achieve higher FPS in Rust. However, the 2769 rank is not a poor showing; it is a reflection of the GPU’s end-of-life status. The combo is not at the bottom of the list, which suggests that the i5-13400F’s strong CPU performance helps mitigate some of the GPU’s weaknesses. The ranking also indicates that for Rust, a game that can be CPU-intensive in certain scenarios, the 10-core processor provides a stable foundation, but the GPU cannot fully exploit it at higher resolutions. This rank, when combined with the measured FPS data, tells a story of a balanced system that is held back by its graphics card, making it a suitable choice for 1080p gaming but not for high-refresh-rate or 4K play.