Rust

The AMD Radeon RX 580 paired with the Intel Core i5-9400 produces a highly variable experience in Rust, heavily dependent on resolution and quality settings. The data shows this combination ranks 1582nd out of 1717 tested combos for this game, placing it in the lower quartile of performance. At 1080p, the system can deliver playable frame rates, but the experience degrades rapidly as resolution increases, revealing significant hardware limitations for this demanding survival title.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU/GPU combo in Rust?

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system achieves consistently playable frame rates. At Low settings, the average FPS is 72.6, which is the highest measured result across all configurations. Higher resolutions of 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 produce averages below 52.4 FPS even on Low settings.

Q: How does the RX 580 compare to its closest rivals in raw GPU benchmarks?

A: The RX 580's average benchmark score of 13559 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570, which scores 13564 with a 0% delta. It sits just 0.1% ahead of the GTX 950 (13549) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (13416). The NVIDIA P106-090 leads by 1.1% with a score of 13716.

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

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce an average of 52.4 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 24.6 FPS. This represents a substantial 53% reduction in frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck in this configuration?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has a benchmark percentile of 50, meaning it sits exactly at the median of all CPUs. Its average score of 2305 is nearly identical to rivals like the Intel Core i3-10305 (2300, 0.2% delta) and Intel Core i3-1125G4 (2299, 0.2% delta), suggesting balanced mid-range performance that can feed the GPU adequately at lower resolutions.

Q: How does the GPU's DirectX 12 performance compare to DirectX 11?

A: In PassMark tests, the RX 580 scores 43 in DirectX 12 and 60 in DirectX 11. The DirectX 12 score is 28% lower than the DirectX 11 result, indicating that this Polaris architecture GPU performs better under the older API in synthetic tests.

Q: What memory configuration does the RX 580 use?

A: The GPU features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, which is adequate for 1080p gaming but becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 580's memory subsystem and clock speeds are central to understanding its performance in Rust. With 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, the card has sufficient capacity for modern textures but the bandwidth becomes strained at higher resolutions. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1257 MHz and boost clock of 1340 MHz, with memory running at 2000 MHz. These specifications place the card at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13559.

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern: the GPU is the primary constraint at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the system produces just 13.7 FPS average, while at 1080p Low it reaches 72.6 FPS. This demonstrates that the 256-bit memory bus, while providing 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, cannot sustain the pixel throughput required at 3840x2160. The Polaris 20 chip with 2304 shading units delivers 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, but this proves insufficient for Rust's demanding rendering at high resolutions.

The GPU's DirectX 12 score of 43 in PassMark, compared to 60 in DirectX 11, suggests the architecture is better optimized for legacy APIs. Rust's engine seems to favor the GPU's strengths at lower resolutions, where the 193.0 GTexel/s texture rate and 42.88 GPixel/s pixel rate can be more fully utilized. The 8 GB frame buffer is never likely to be fully exhausted at 1080p, but at 4K the combination of memory bandwidth and compute throughput creates a hard performance ceiling.

Settings Recommendations

For the best measured experience, the data strongly favors 1920x1080 with Low settings. This configuration produces an average of 72.6 FPS, which is the only result that approaches the smoothness expected for a competitive survival game. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 26 FPS (46.6 average), a 36% reduction, while High drops further to 39.4 FPS and Ultra bottoms out at 34.5 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Low settings remain the only viable option, yielding 52.4 FPS average. Medium drops to 32 FPS, High to 29.5 FPS, and Ultra to 24.6 FPS. The 1440p Low result is 28% slower than the 1080p Low result, showing that even the most forgiving preset struggles as pixel count increases. For 4K gaming, no settings preset produces acceptable results; the best case is Low at 31.5 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

The data indicates that players should prioritize resolution over visual fidelity. Dropping from Ultra to Low at 1080p more than doubles the frame rate, from 34.5 to 72.6 FPS. This suggests that Rust's visual effects at higher presets impose a severe cost on this hardware configuration. A balanced approach would be 1080p Medium if visual quality is important, accepting 46.6 FPS as a compromise, but competitive players will want the 72.6 FPS of Low settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system shows a clear performance hierarchy across settings. Low settings deliver 72.6 FPS average, which is the standout result. Medium settings produce 46.6 FPS, a 35.8% decrease from Low. High settings yield 39.4 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 34.5 FPS. The gap from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 38.1 FPS, representing a 52.5% reduction in frame rate.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops become more pronounced. Low settings average 52.4 FPS, which is the only 1440p result above 32 FPS. Medium settings hit 32 FPS exactly, High settings reach 29.5 FPS, and Ultra falls to 24.6 FPS. The scaling from 1080p Low to 1440p Low shows a 20.2 FPS loss, while the Ultra preset loses only 9.9 FPS, indicating diminishing returns as the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

At 3840x2160, all settings produce unplayable results. Low settings average 31.5 FPS, which is the best 4K outcome. Medium settings drop to 19.5 FPS, High to 19.4 FPS, and Ultra to 13.7 FPS. The 4K Low result is 40% slower than the 1440p Low result, and 57% slower than 1080p Low. The gap between Medium and High at 4K is negligible (19.5 vs 19.4 FPS), suggesting the GPU is fully saturated and settings changes have minimal impact.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals the limiting component clearly. At Low settings, performance falls from 72.6 FPS at 1080p to 52.4 FPS at 1440p (a 27.8% decrease), then to 31.5 FPS at 4K (a 39.9% decrease from 1440p). This non-linear scaling indicates that the GPU's compute and memory resources are being exhausted as pixel count increases geometrically.

At Medium settings, the scaling is steeper: 46.6 FPS at 1080p drops to 32 FPS at 1440p (31.3% decrease) and then to 19.5 FPS at 4K (39.1% decrease). The High preset shows 39.4 FPS at 1080p, 29.5 FPS at 1440p (25.1% decrease), and 19.4 FPS at 4K (34.2% decrease). Ultra settings degrade from 34.5 FPS at 1080p to 24.6 FPS at 1440p (28.7% decrease) and 13.7 FPS at 4K (44.3% decrease).

The pattern reveals that the RX 580's 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is the primary constraint at 4K. The 8 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is sufficient, but the throughput cannot keep pace with the 8.3 million pixels at 3840x2160. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 6 threads, maintains adequate performance at 1080p where the GPU is not fully utilized. However, the 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth of the i5-9400, paired with the GPU's 256.0 GB/s, creates a system where the GPU becomes the definitive bottleneck at higher resolutions. The benchmark data shows that this configuration is only suitable for 1080p gaming in Rust, with 1440p requiring significant settings compromises and 4K being effectively unplayable.