Rust

This combo ranks last in the database for Rust, placing 1717th out of 1717 tested combinations. That is not a rounding error or a sampling quirk; it is a definitive bottom-of-the-barrel result. The pairing of an Intel Core i5-13400F with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti produces the lowest measured performance in this game across every configuration the database tracks. Any other combo you might consider will outperform this one in Rust, and most will do so by a substantial margin.

How This Combo Ranks

The ranking data is unambiguous: this is the worst-performing combination for Rust in the entire benchmark database. With 1717 total combos tested, being ranked 1717 means there is no headroom below you. The CPU itself is not the problem in isolation — it sits in the 82nd percentile against all CPUs, which is a strong showing. The GPU, however, sits in the 30th percentile against all GPUs, and that weakness dominates the pairing. When you combine a top-quartile CPU with a bottom-third GPU, the result is a system that is entirely GPU-bound in a game like Rust, which is heavy on draw calls and texture streaming. The data shows that this CPU-GPU mismatch produces a score that is effectively the floor for playable hardware. For context, the CPU’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks — the Intel Core i7-13620H and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D — score within 0.5% of the i5-13400F, but those CPUs are typically paired with far more capable graphics cards in real-world builds. That delta in GPU capability is what separates this combo from anything mid-pack.

GPU Role

The GTX 1050 Ti is the limiting factor here, and the numbers make it clear why. This GPU features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock runs at 1291 MHz with a boost of 1392 MHz, and it has 768 shading units. In Rust, which is notorious for consuming VRAM as the game world populates with player-built structures, the 4 GB frame buffer is a genuine bottleneck. The benchmark results reflect this: even at 1080p Low, the average frame rate is 52.8 FPS, but the moment you raise settings, the GPU’s 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is overwhelmed. The GPU’s synthetic scores tell the same story — its PassMark G3D score of 6340 places it just 0.4% ahead of a GeForce 940M, which is a laptop part from a lower tier. The nearest rival, the GeForce 930A, scores 5317, a 0% delta, meaning the 1050 Ti is barely distinguishable from entry-level mobile silicon in compute terms. For Rust specifically, the GPU’s 44.54 GPixel/s pixel rate and 66.82 GTexel/s texture rate are simply too low to feed a modern survival title at acceptable quality settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a predictable but severe drop as resolution increases, and the pattern tells you exactly where the bottleneck lives. Going from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings drops the average from 52.8 FPS to 35.4 FPS, a 33% reduction. From 1440p to 4K at Low, the average falls further to 24.1 FPS, another 32% drop. That scaling is characteristic of a GPU that is running out of fillrate and memory bandwidth, not a CPU that is straining. The CPU is capable — the i5-13400F has 10 cores and 16 threads with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz — but the GPU cannot keep up with the increased pixel count. At High settings, the drop from 1080p (27.5 FPS) to 1440p (18.5 FPS) is a 33% loss, and then to 4K (10.1 FPS) is another 45% loss. The frame rates at 4K are effectively unplayable across all settings, with Ultra hitting just 6.6 FPS. This is a GPU that was designed for 1080p gaming in 2016, and Rust’s demanding rendering pipeline does not give it any quarter at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the resolution where this GPU has any hope, the results are as follows. Low settings deliver 52.8 FPS average, which is playable but not smooth for a competitive survival shooter. Medium drops to 33.4 FPS, High falls to 27.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 21.8 FPS. None of these are great, but Low is the only preset that approaches a consistent 60 FPS experience. Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers get worse across the board: Low averages 35.4 FPS, Medium 25 FPS, High 18.5 FPS, and Ultra 15.2 FPS. At this resolution, even the lowest settings struggle to maintain a playable frame rate, and the frame pacing would likely feel inconsistent in busy scenes. At 3840x2160, the results are academic rather than practical: Low averages 24.1 FPS, Medium 12.9 FPS, High 10.1 FPS, and Ultra 6.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 4K is nearly 47%, which suggests the settings are hitting different GPU subsystems — likely texture bandwidth versus shader compute. The data is measured, not estimated, and it consistently shows that the GTX 1050 Ti cannot drive Rust beyond 1080p Low with acceptable performance.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured rows, the only sensible choice for this combo is 1080p with Low settings. The 52.8 FPS average at that preset is the single playable data point in the entire table. Medium at 1080p drops to 33.4 FPS, which is a 37% reduction for visual gains that will not matter when you are trying to track other players in a firefight. High and Ultra at 1080p are worse still, at 27.5 and 21.8 FPS respectively, both of which are below the threshold for responsive aiming in a survival game. At 1440p, even Low at 35.4 FPS is marginal, and the frame rate will dip further in areas with many player-built bases. The recommendation is straightforward: run 1080p Low, and if you want slightly better visuals, try Medium only if you can tolerate sub-40 FPS. There is no scenario in the data where 4K is viable, and 1440p is only viable at Low with reduced expectations. The GTX 1050 Ti’s 4 GB VRAM is also a concern at 1080p Medium and above, as Rust can exceed that allocation in dense areas, causing texture pop-in and stutter that the average FPS numbers do not fully capture.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F is the strong half of this pairing, and in Rust, that strength is largely wasted. The CPU has 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost of 4.60 GHz. It is built on Intel’s 10 nm Raptor Lake architecture with 20 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 21279 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 3004 in single-core, putting it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Ryzen 5 5600X3D, scores 25365, a delta of -0.5%, which is effectively a tie. The problem is that Rust’s performance here is not CPU-bound — the frame rates are dictated by the GPU’s ability to render frames, not the CPU’s ability to feed it draw calls. The CPU’s PassMark multithread score of 25032 is more than adequate for this game’s simulation and physics threads. The data shows that this CPU can handle Rust’s server-side logic and entity updates without breaking a sweat; it is the GPU that cannot render the output fast enough. If you were to pair this CPU with a modern mid-range GPU, the ranking would change dramatically, but as measured, the i5-13400F is left waiting for the GTX 1050 Ti to finish its work. The 65W TDP and DDR4/DDR5 memory support make it a practical choice for a budget build, but in this specific combo, the CPU’s potential is entirely throttled by the graphics card. The bottleneck is unambiguous, and the measured FPS across all resolutions reflects that imbalance.