Rust

The Intel Core i5-9400 sits near the middle of the CPU performance distribution, with a percentile rank of 50 against all CPUs. Its six physical cores and six threads operate at a 2.90 GHz base clock and a 4.10 GHz boost clock, built on a 14 nm Coffee Lake process. In synthetic multi-threaded workloads, the chip scores 803 points in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 3,346 in R20 multi-core, and 7,969 in R23 multi-core, while single-core results reach 113, 472, and 1,125 in those same tests. The average benchmark score across all tests is 2,305, which places it within 0.2% of the Intel Core i3-10305 (2,300) and the Intel Core i3-1125G4 (2,299), and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon E-2134 (2,295). The nearest rival on the upper side is the Intel Core i7-8809G at 2,319, which is 0.6% faster. For a game like Rust, which relies heavily on single-thread performance for its simulation and entity update loops, the i5-9400's boost behavior matters more than its raw core count. The 4.10 GHz single-core boost is what drives the 124.5 FPS average seen at 1920x1080 Low settings, where the CPU is the primary limiter. At higher settings and resolutions, the load shifts toward the GPU, but the six-thread limit means background tasks and server-side calculations can still cause frame time spikes, even if average FPS remains respectable.

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

The i5-9400 provides six cores and six threads, with no hyper-threading, which is a meaningful constraint in Rust's multiplayer environments. The base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.10 GHz define the computational ceiling for physics calculations, building placement, and network tick processing. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the score of 472 indicates solid per-thread performance, while the multi-core score of 3,346 shows that scaling across all six cores is moderate. The L3 cache is 9 MB shared, which helps with the game's frequent memory accesses for terrain and entity data. The 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth from dual-channel DDR4 is sufficient for this generation, but not exceptional. At 1920x1080 Low settings, the measured average FPS of 124.5 is the highest of any configuration in the dataset, showing that the CPU can push well past 120 FPS when the GPU is not stressed. However, when moving to 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 87.8 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low it falls to 50.7 FPS. These drops are larger than what a pure GPU bottleneck would produce, suggesting that the CPU's six threads become more exposed at higher resolutions due to the increased per-frame simulation work required. The 50th percentile ranking among all CPUs means that roughly half of all tested processors are faster, but the i5-9400's nearest rivals are all within 0.6% in average benchmark score, indicating that this is a tightly contested performance tier. For Rust specifically, the data shows that the CPU can sustain high frame rates at 1080p Low, but the lack of additional threads becomes a limiting factor when the game has many players or structures in view.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU has a base clock of 1626 MHz, a game clock of 2044 MHz, and a boost clock of 2491 MHz, built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The 8 GB VRAM is adequate for Rust's texture streaming and draw call buffers at 1080p and 1440p, but at 3840x2160 Ultra, the measured average FPS of 24.1 indicates that the GPU is heavily taxed. The RX 6600 ranks at the 69th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25,235. Its nearest rivals are extremely close: the AMD Radeon 890M scores 25,246 (0.0% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP scores 25,287 (-0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 6700M scores 25,180 (+0.2%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti scores 25,120 (+0.5%). This clustering means the RX 6600 is functionally equivalent to those parts in synthetic tests, but in Rust the measured results show a wide spread depending on settings. At 1920x1080 High, the average FPS is 69.8, which is playable but not smooth for competitive scenarios. At 2560x1440 High, the average drops to 49.7 FPS, and at 3840x2160 High, it falls to 30.4 FPS. The GPU's pixel rate of 159.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 279.0 GTexel/s are the theoretical limits that explain why 4K High cannot sustain 60 FPS. The 14 Gbps effective memory speed is the same across all settings, so the bottleneck at higher resolutions is the combination of memory bandwidth and shader throughput, not clock speed alone.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this CPU and GPU combination?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 124.5, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-9400 scores 2,305 on average, which is 0.2% faster than the Intel Core i3-10305 (2,300) and 0.2% faster than the Intel Core i3-1125G4 (2,299). It trails the Intel Core i7-8809G (2,319) by 0.6%.

Q: Does the GPU outperform the RTX 3060 Ti in any metric from the data?

A: In average benchmark score, the RX 6600 (25,235) is 0.5% faster than the RTX 3060 Ti (25,120), but the difference is negligible.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1920x1080?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 124.5 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 56.3 FPS, a difference of 68.2 FPS.

Q: Which resolution provides the most balanced performance across all settings?

A: At 2560x1440, the average FPS ranges from 87.8 (Low) to 34.8 (Ultra), with Medium at 57.3 and High at 49.7. This provides a playable range without the severe drops seen at 4K.

Q: How much VRAM is available on the GPU and what is its memory bus width?

A: The RX 6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a full grid of 12 configurations. At 3840x2160 (4K), the performance is consistently low. Low settings yield 50.7 FPS, Medium drops to 33.2 FPS, High falls to 30.4 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 24.1 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS threshold, and even Low settings are below 60, indicating that 4K is not viable for smooth gameplay with this combo. The gap between Low and Medium at 4K is 17.5 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is only 2.8 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is struggling with the resolution overhead regardless of detail level.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the results improve significantly. Low settings achieve 87.8 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS target. Medium settings drop to 57.3 FPS, just shy of 60. High settings produce 49.7 FPS, and Ultra falls to 34.8 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 30.5 FPS reduction, while Medium to High is a 7.6 FPS drop, and High to Ultra is a 14.9 FPS drop. This indicates that the transition from Low to Medium is the most impactful, while the difference between Medium and High is relatively small. For 1440p gaming, Low settings are the only preset that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS, while Medium is borderline.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the combo shows its full potential. Low settings reach 124.5 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. Medium settings drop to 87.4 FPS, still above 60. High settings produce 69.8 FPS, and Ultra falls to 56.3 FPS. The scaling pattern mirrors 1440p: Low to Medium is a 37.1 FPS drop, Medium to High is a 17.6 FPS drop, and High to Ultra is a 13.5 FPS drop. At 1080p, the CPU is the primary driver at Low settings, while the GPU becomes more involved as settings increase. The 124.5 FPS at Low is the only configuration that approaches the CPU's boost clock limits, while Ultra at 56.3 FPS shows the GPU's constraints.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 ranks 1,372 out of 1,717 tested combos in Rust. This places it in the bottom 20% of all configurations, which is surprising given the individual component scores. The CPU's 50th percentile ranking and the GPU's 69th percentile ranking suggest that both parts are mid-tier, but the combination underperforms relative to that expectation. The rank of 1,372 means that 345 combos are slower, but the vast majority (1,371) are faster. The delta between the CPU and GPU percentile ranks is 19 points, which suggests a slight mismatch where the CPU is the weaker link. In Rust, this manifests as frame rate drops in populated areas or during base-building operations, where the six-thread CPU cannot keep up with the simulation load. The combo's ranking is more reflective of the CPU's limitations than the GPU's, as the GPU can push high frame rates at 1080p Low when the CPU allows it. The data shows that at 1920x1080 Low, the combo achieves 124.5 FPS, which would place it in the upper tier of performance, but at 4K Ultra, the 24.1 FPS result is near the bottom. This wide performance envelope explains the low overall rank—the combo is inconsistent across settings, excelling only in the least demanding configurations.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience depends on the target resolution and frame rate. For 1920x1080, Low settings deliver 124.5 FPS, which is the best for competitive play or high-refresh-rate displays. Medium settings provide 87.4 FPS, which still exceeds 60 and offers better visual fidelity. High settings at 69.8 FPS are playable, but the 17.6 FPS drop from Medium may not justify the visual improvement. Ultra at 56.3 FPS is below 60 and should be avoided unless the user prioritizes image quality over smoothness. For 2560x1440, Low settings at 87.8 FPS are the only preset that comfortably exceeds 60. Medium at 57.3 FPS is borderline, and High at 49.7 FPS or Ultra at 34.8 FPS are not recommended for smooth gameplay. At 3840x2160, no settings preset reaches 60 FPS, with Low at 50.7 FPS being the highest. Users targeting 4K should lower the resolution or accept sub-60 performance. The data indicates that the best balance of visual quality and frame rate is achieved at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, which provides 87.4 FPS—high enough for smooth play while retaining more detail than Low. For users with 1440p monitors, Low settings are the practical choice, as the 30.5 FPS penalty from moving to Medium is too large to justify. The combo's strength is its 1080p performance, and the settings recommendations should prioritize that resolution for the best experience.