Rust

Rust presents a demanding survival sandbox, and the measured performance of the Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT reveals a system that is capable but requires careful attention to settings. The data shows a configuration positioned in the lower-middle tier of tested combinations, with a combo rank of 1055 out of 1717. This ranking suggests that while the pair can deliver playable framerates, it is not among the high performers, and the bottleneck dynamics shift significantly depending on resolution and graphical preset.

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

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a six-core, six-thread processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture, running on a 14 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, which are the primary drivers for its performance in a game like Rust, which is known for its heavy server-side and simulation workloads. The processor has 9 MB of shared L3 cache, a factor that can influence performance in open-world games where data locality is important. Its benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969 and a single-core score of 1125, position it at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, indicating it is a mid-range part. When compared to its nearest rivals, the i5-9400 is essentially tied with the Intel Core i3-10305 and Intel Core i3-1125G4, showing a deltaPct of 0.2% for both. It is also very close to the Intel Xeon E-2134 (0.4% delta) and the Intel Core i7-8809G (-0.6% delta), meaning that in synthetic benchmarks, these processors are nearly interchangeable.

In the context of Rust, the CPU's six physical cores without hyper-threading may limit performance in scenarios with many entities or complex physics calculations. The data suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU becomes a more significant factor in determining the final framerate. For example, at 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 143.2 FPS, but this is likely a scenario where the CPU is nearing its limit, as the GPU has more headroom. The absence of hyper-threading means that the processor must manage all threads on six physical cores, which can lead to contention in heavily threaded workloads that Rust can present. The 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s are standard for this class of processor, and they do not appear to be a limiting factor in the measured results. The processor's overall avgBenchmarkScore of 2305, which is nearly identical to its rivals' scores, reinforces that this CPU is a solid but unspectacular performer that will not be the primary source of high framerates in demanding scenes.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the more capable half of this pairing, built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm process. It comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s. The GPU's boost clock of 2635 MHz and game clock of 2410 MHz are high, and its compute power is rated at 10.79 TFLOPS FP32. This graphics card sits at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, with an avgBenchmarkScore of 29024. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (0% delta), AMD Radeon RX 470 (0.1% delta), and Intel Arc A370M (-0.5% delta), which shows that its raw compute performance is closely matched with those parts.

The GPU's role in Rust becomes clear when looking at the resolution scaling. At 1080p, the GPU is able to push framerates well above 100 FPS on lower settings, but it struggles to maintain high framerates at 4K. The 8 GB of VRAM is a critical factor; at 4K resolution with High or Ultra settings, the memory capacity and bandwidth are likely being taxed, leading to the lower average FPS observed. The GPU's 64 ROPs and 128 TMUs are sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but at 4K, the pixel fill rate and texture rate become more stressed. The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the system only manages 27.5 FPS, which is barely playable. This indicates that while the GPU is strong for its class, it is not designed for high-end 4K gaming in a title as demanding as Rust. The GPU's launch MSRP is 399 USD, and its performance in this test suggests it is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can deliver smooth experiences with the right settings.

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

Analyzing the measured FPS across all settings and resolutions, the "Low" preset offers the most consistently playable experience, but it comes with a significant visual compromise. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 143.2 FPS, which is excellent for competitive play. At 1440p Low, it still delivers a very smooth 98.9 FPS. Even at 4K Low, the system hits 55.7 FPS, which is acceptable for a less demanding visual experience. The "Medium" preset provides a substantial visual upgrade while retaining decent performance: 98.8 FPS at 1080p, 68.7 FPS at 1440p, and 40.4 FPS at 4K. The "High" preset is where the system begins to show strain, with 80.8 FPS at 1080p, 55.4 FPS at 1440p, and 34.9 FPS at 4K. The "Ultra" preset is the most demanding, yielding 63.9 FPS at 1080p, 43 FPS at 1440p, and a barely playable 27.5 FPS at 4K.

For the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, the "Medium" preset at 1440p is the standout choice. It offers a framerate of 68.7 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, while providing a significantly better image than "Low." If the user prefers 1080p, "High" is a viable option at 80.8 FPS, but "Medium" at 98.8 FPS provides a more comfortable margin. The data indicates that "Ultra" is not recommended for this combo, as even at 1080p, the framerate drops below 65 FPS, and at 4K, it falls below 30 FPS. The "Low" preset is the only one that allows for a playable experience at 4K, but the visual quality loss is substantial. Therefore, the optimal experience is at 1440p with "Medium" settings, which balances the load between the CPU and GPU effectively.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT combination holds a rank of 1055 out of 1717 tested combos in Rust. This places it in the 61st percentile of all tested systems, meaning that roughly 61% of the tested configurations perform better in this specific game. This ranking is a direct result of the CPU's mid-range capabilities and the GPU's strong but not top-tier performance. The combo is not a high-end pairing, but it is also not a low-end one. The data shows that the system is capable of playing the game, but users should not expect to run the highest settings at high resolutions.

The ranking is particularly telling when considering the CPU's 50th percentile and GPU's 72nd percentile. The combo's overall rank is lower than the GPU's percentile, suggesting that the CPU is holding back the system's potential in some scenarios. This is likely the case at lower resolutions where the CPU becomes the primary bottleneck. The fact that the combo ranks 1055 out of 1717 indicates that there are many other combinations that deliver better performance, likely by pairing a stronger CPU with a similar GPU or a stronger GPU with a similar CPU. The data implies that this is a balanced but modest system, suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but not for pushing the boundaries of the game's visual fidelity.

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

The scaling of average FPS from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic pattern of GPU and CPU interaction. At "Low" settings, the FPS drops from 143.2 at 1080p to 98.9 at 1440p (a 31% reduction) and then to 55.7 at 4K (a 44% reduction from 1440p). This indicates that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the CPU has enough headroom to handle the workload at 1080p, but the GPU cannot keep up with the increased pixel count. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 44.3 FPS, and from 1440p to 4K is 43.2 FPS, showing a consistent scaling trend.

At "Ultra" settings, the pattern is similar but more pronounced. The FPS drops from 63.9 at 1080p to 43 at 1440p (a 33% reduction) and then to 27.5 at 4K (a 36% reduction from 1440p). The absolute numbers are lower, but the percentage drops are comparable. This suggests that at "Ultra" settings, the GPU is the primary bottleneck across all resolutions, as the increased workload from the settings amplifies the load on the GPU. The data also shows that the CPU's impact is more visible at 1080p with "Low" settings, where the framerate is high enough that the CPU's processing limits can start to cap the FPS. The fact that the FPS at 1080p "Low" (143.2) is not dramatically higher than at 1440p "Low" (98.9) suggests that the CPU is starting to limit performance at 1080p, preventing the GPU from fully stretching its legs.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system's performance across all tested configurations.

1920x1080: At this resolution, the system performs best. With "Low" settings, it achieves an average of 143.2 FPS. Moving to "Medium" brings the framerate to 98.8 FPS, a significant drop of 44.4 FPS. The "High" preset yields 80.8 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset produces 63.9 FPS. The progression from "Low" to "Ultra" shows a clear performance cost for each tier of visual quality.

2560x1440: At 1440p, the framerates are still respectable but noticeably lower. The "Low" preset delivers 98.9 FPS, which is a 44.3 FPS drop from 1080p. The "Medium" preset achieves 68.7 FPS, the "High" preset reaches 55.4 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset falls to 43 FPS. The gap between "Low" and "Ultra" is 55.9 FPS, showing that the settings have a major impact on performance at this resolution.

3840x2160: At 4K, the system struggles with higher settings. The "Low" preset is the only one that remains playable, with an average of 55.7 FPS. The "Medium" preset drops to 40.4 FPS, the "High" preset falls to 34.9 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset is nearly unplayable at 27.5 FPS. The data shows that this combo is not suited for 4K gaming with this title, as even the "Low" preset does not reach 60 FPS.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo better suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming in Rust?

A: The data shows that the combo is well-suited for 1080p and 1440p. At 1080p, it achieves 98.8 FPS on "Medium" and 80.8 FPS on "High". At 1440p, it delivers 98.9 FPS on "Low" and 68.7 FPS on "Medium", making 1440p with "Medium" settings a strong choice for a balance of quality and performance.

Q: What is the highest settings preset that maintains a 60 FPS average at 1080p?

A: The "High" preset at 1080p achieves an average of 80.8 FPS, which is above 60 FPS. The "Ultra" preset at 1080p falls below this threshold, with an average of 63.9 FPS, so "High" is the highest preset that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance more at 4K resolution?

A: At 4K, the GPU is the primary limiting factor. The framerates are much lower than at 1080p, and the CPU has more headroom. For example, at 4K "Low" the system only achieves 55.7 FPS, which is a significant drop from the 143.2 FPS at 1080p "Low", indicating the GPU cannot handle the pixel count.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its direct rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2305. Its nearest rivals, the Intel Core i3-10305 and Intel Core i3-1125G4, have scores of 2300 and 2299, with deltaPct values of 0.2% and 0.2% respectively. This means they are virtually identical in performance.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29024. This indicates it is a higher-performing part in the overall GPU landscape.

Q: Is the "Ultra" preset at 1440p a viable option for this system?

A: The "Ultra" preset at 1440p produces an average of 43 FPS. This is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay and may be considered choppy in a fast-paced game like Rust. The "Medium" preset at 68.7 FPS is a better choice for a playable experience.