Rust

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 is a combination that produces a very specific set of results in Rust. The benchmark data shows a configuration that is heavily constrained by the graphics solution, particularly as resolution increases. The i5-13400F provides a solid foundation of processing power, but the Arc B370’s performance ceiling is the primary factor determining playability in this title.

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

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture. It operates with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and can boost up to 4.60 GHz. This is a desktop-class chip with a 65 W TDP, designed for the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The processor has a 20 MB shared L3 cache, with 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core and 80 KB of L1 cache per core. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and its PCIe implementation includes Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

In terms of raw compute, the i5-13400F demonstrates robust multi-threaded capability. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 22604, and its 3dmark_max_threads score is 7307. These figures place it in the 77th percentile among all CPUs, indicating it is a stronger-than-average processor for general and gaming workloads. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS, has an average benchmark score of 25284, which is essentially identical to this chip's 25292 average, resulting in a deltaPct of 0. The Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D are also close, with scores of 25362 and 25365 respectively, putting them 0.3% ahead of the i5-13400F.

For Rust specifically, the CPU's performance is adequate to feed the GPU at lower resolutions, but it is not the bottleneck. The data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS reaches 69, which is the highest measured for this combo. This suggests the CPU can push frames effectively when the GPU load is light. However, the processor’s single-thread performance, while respectable with a Geekbench single-core score of 1996, is not the limiting factor here. The CPU’s role is to maintain a stable frame delivery, which it does, but the graphics card cannot translate that capacity into higher frame rates at more demanding settings. The 3dmark_16_threads score of 7314 is nearly identical to the max_threads score of 7307, showing that the chip is efficient at scaling with available threads, which is beneficial for a game like Rust that can utilize multiple cores for world simulation and entity processing.

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

The Intel Arc B370 is the clear performance limiter in this pairing. It is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. Its memory is listed as "System Shared," meaning it uses a portion of the system’s main memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory clock and bus width are also listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively, reinforcing that its performance is tied to the system RAM configuration. The GPU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. It contains 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, with 10 ray tracing cores. Its theoretical peak performance is 6.144 TFLOPS for FP32 operations.

The benchmark results for this GPU are stark. It has a 3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 score of 1184, which places it in the 5th percentile among all GPUs. This is an extremely low score, indicating that the Arc B370 is not designed for demanding 3D workloads. Its nearest rivals are older or lower-tier cards: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186, deltaPct -0.2), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190, deltaPct -0.5), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192, deltaPct -0.7). The AMD FirePro M2000 sits just below with a score of 1168 and a deltaPct of 1.4. This places the Arc B370 in direct competition with hardware that is over a decade old, which is a critical indicator of its gaming performance.

In Rust, this GPU’s limitations are immediately apparent. At 1080p on Low settings, the average FPS is 69, which is playable. However, any increase in graphical fidelity causes a sharp decline. At 1080p on High settings, the average FPS drops to 39, and on Ultra, it falls to 30. This shows that the GPU lacks the raw processing power and memory bandwidth to handle higher-detail rendering. The lack of dedicated VRAM means that textures and geometry are stored in system memory, which can introduce latency and reduce throughput, especially at higher resolutions where the demand on memory increases. The GPU’s boost clock of 2400 MHz is not enough to compensate for its low shading unit count and narrow memory interface.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies. Moving from 1080p to 1440p to 4K, there is a significant and consistent drop in performance across all settings. This pattern is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound scenario.

At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 69 at 1080p to 48 at 1440p, and then down to 28 at 4K. This represents a 30% drop when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 42% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the average FPS is 46 at 1080p, 32 at 1440p, and 19 at 4K. High settings show a similar trend: 39 FPS at 1080p, 27 at 1440p, and 16 at 4K. Ultra settings are the most demanding, with averages of 30 at 1080p, 20 at 1440p, and 12 at 4K.

The percentage decline from 1080p to 4K is substantial. For Low settings, 4K performance is about 59% lower than 1080p. For Medium settings, it is 59% lower. For High settings, it is 59% lower. For Ultra settings, it is 60% lower. The consistency of this percentage drop across all quality presets is telling. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the drop to be less severe at higher resolutions, as the CPU has more time to prepare frames while the GPU struggles. Instead, the FPS scales almost linearly with the number of pixels being rendered, which is the hallmark of a GPU that is completely saturated.

This behavior confirms that the Intel Arc B370 is the component holding back the system. The i5-13400F is capable of delivering higher frame rates, but the GPU simply cannot keep up with the rendering demands, especially as the pixel count increases. For example, the 4K Medium result has a min FPS of 16 and a max FPS of 22, showing severe frame time inconsistency that would result in a stuttery, unplayable experience. The data suggests that even at 1440p, the system is only suitable for Low settings if you want to maintain a frame rate near 48 FPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Rust with this CPU and GPU combination?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only viable resolution for a reasonably smooth experience. At 1080p, the Low preset achieves an average of 69 FPS, while Medium hits 46 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 drops the Low preset to 48 FPS, which is borderline, and 4K is not playable at any setting, with the highest average being 28 FPS on Low.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-13400F or the Intel Arc B370 the main bottleneck in Rust?

A: The Intel Arc B370 is the main bottleneck. The evidence is in the resolution scaling. The average FPS drops by roughly 59-60% from 1080p to 4K across all settings, which indicates the GPU is fully saturated. The CPU’s performance, which is in the 77th percentile, is sufficient to feed the GPU at lower resolutions but cannot compensate for the GPU’s lack of raw power.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals in terms of raw graphics score?

A: The Arc B370 has a 3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 score of 1184. This is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192). It is just 1.4% faster than the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168). This places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, indicating extremely low performance for modern gaming.

Q: Is the Ultra preset ever usable with this setup?

A: No, the Ultra preset is not usable for any practical gaming scenario. The highest average FPS on Ultra is 30 at 1080p. At 1440p, it drops to 20 FPS, and at 4K, it falls to 12 FPS. These frame rates are far below what is needed for a responsive experience, and the 4K result is essentially a slideshow.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the Low preset averages 69 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 30 FPS. This represents a 56.5% reduction in frame rate when moving from Low to Ultra. The High preset averages 39 FPS, and the Medium preset averages 46 FPS, showing that the cost of each step up in quality is significant.

Q: Does the system have enough processing power for the game’s simulation, or is it just a graphics issue?

A: The processing power is sufficient. The i5-13400F has a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22604 and a Passmark multithread score of 25032, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. The frame rate drops are consistently tied to resolution and settings, which are GPU-dependent variables. The CPU is not showing signs of being the limiting factor, as the frame rates scale down with pixel count rather than staying flat.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, the only playable configuration for this system is at 1920x1080 resolution. The recommendation is to prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity.

For a target of 60 FPS or higher, the Low preset is the only option, delivering an average of 69 FPS. This is the smoothest experience the hardware can provide. If you can tolerate a frame rate in the mid-40s, the Medium preset at 1080p is a viable alternative, offering an average of 46 FPS with a minimum of 39 FPS. This provides a better visual experience while still maintaining a somewhat stable frame rate.

The High preset at 1080p is borderline, with an average of 39 FPS. This is on the edge of playability for many users, and the frame pacing may feel inconsistent. The Ultra preset at 1080p should be avoided, as the 30 FPS average makes the game feel sluggish. At 1440p, only the Low preset is recommendable, with an average of 48 FPS. 1440p Medium and above are too demanding, with frame rates in the 20s and 30s. 4K is not a viable option for this game with this hardware, as even the Low preset only manages 28 FPS.

The best experience per the measured rows is a trade-off: choose 1080p Low for responsive gameplay, or 1080p Medium for a more detailed picture if you can accept a lower, but still playable, frame rate. There is no scenario where higher settings provide a good experience without sacrificing playability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following data represents the exact average FPS measurements for the Intel Core i5-13400F and Intel Arc B370 combination in Rust.

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Ultra: Average FPS 30. This is the lowest playable frame rate at this resolution, and it feels choppy.
• High: Average FPS 39. This is a marginal experience, suitable for less action-heavy moments.
• Medium: Average FPS 46. The minimum FPS is 39, and the maximum is 53. This is a balanced option if you want better visuals.
• Low: Average FPS 69. This is the best-performing setting, providing a smooth and responsive experience.

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Ultra: Average FPS 20. This is not a playable frame rate for a fast-paced game.
• High: Average FPS 27. The experience is stuttery and unresponsive.
• Medium: Average FPS 32. The minimum FPS is 27, and the maximum is 37, showing inconsistent performance.
• Low: Average FPS 48. This is the only setting at 1440p that approaches a playable experience, though it is still below 60 FPS.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Ultra: Average FPS 12. This is an unplayable slideshow.
• High: Average FPS 16. The game is effectively frozen at this setting.
• Medium: Average FPS 19. The minimum FPS is 16, and the maximum is 22, confirming a very poor experience.
• Low: Average FPS 28. This is the best-case scenario at 4K, but it is still too low for comfortable gameplay.

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The system is only suitable for gaming at 1080p, and even then, the settings must be kept to Low or Medium to maintain a playable frame rate. The Intel Arc B370 is a severe bottleneck, preventing the capable i5-13400F from delivering its full potential in Rust.