Rust

The combination of an Intel Core i5-9400 and an AMD Radeon RX 9070 in Rust produces a measured performance profile that is noticeably limited by the GPU at high presets, yet the CPU manages to keep frame rates respectable at lower settings. Across three resolutions (1080p, 1440p, and 4K) and four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), the data shows a wide spread of average FPS, ranging from a high of 142 at 1080p Low to a low of 37 at 4K Ultra. The measured scores are paired with a combo rank of 1354 out of 3,723 tested combos, placing this system in the upper-middle tier of Rust configurations. The RX 9070 is the dominant performance driver, while the six-thread i5-9400 provides enough throughput to sustain high frame rates at 1080p, though the scaling pattern suggests the GPU becomes the primary limiter as resolution and detail increase.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K varies sharply with the chosen preset, revealing how different workload types stress the system. At Low settings, 1080p delivers 142 FPS, a 125 at 1440p, and 86 at 4K—a total decline of 72 FPS from the lowest to the highest test resolution. That equals a 44% reduction in frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K. In contrast, the Medium preset shows a drop from 122 FPS at 1080p to 98 at 1440p and further to 58 at 4K, a ∆ of 64 FPS (a 48% loss). The High preset goes from 115 FPS at 1080p to 83 at 1440p and 49 at 4K, a 57% loss. The Ultra preset is the most affected, losing 37 % of its 1080p value (84 FPS difference? Let's compute exactly: 91 to 37 = 54 FPS drop, which is 59% of the 91 FPS start). So the relative drop rises with preset quality: Low loses 44%, Medium ~48%, High ~57%, Ultra ~59%.

This pattern is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario. As resolution increases, the number of pixels rises nonlinearly, and the rendering load shifts to the graphics processor, which scale with both resolution and many high-quality effects. The larger relative drops at High and Ultra indicate that the RX 9070 is handling a much heavier per-frame rendering queue at those settings, while at Low the FPS reduction is proportionally smaller, suggesting that the CPU's 6-thread throughput can still help push frames at lower graphics loads. However, even at Low the 4K result of 86 FPS is only 66% of the 1080p Low figure—so the GPU is clearly the decisive component in all scenarios, particularly at 4K where even 1440p to 4K drops are severe: 125→86 at Low, 98→58 at Medium, 83→49 at High, and 63→37 at Ultra.

The 1440p to 4K transition is roughly linear across presets, with each setting losing about 30–45% of its 1440p performance when moving to 4K. The Medium preset shows the steadiest correlation, but it also has the only complete min/max data: the 4K min is 49 FPS, which matches the 4K High average of 49 FPS—just one example of how the rendering budget tightens at higher resolution. The average FPS values at 1080p are substantially higher than at 1440p (e.g., 142 vs. 125 at Low), but the absolute difference between 1440p and 4K (e.g., 125 to 86) is larger in raw FPS terms. The data indicates that if a 4K display is the target, the visible performance ceiling at all presets is low, thereby making the CPU's role secondary.

FAQ

Q: How does the i5-9400 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-9400 records an average benchmark score of 2254. In the nearest rivals list, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259 (0.2% higher), the i3-10305 scores 2264 (0.4% higher), while the i7-10710U scores 2248 (0.3% lower) and the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2244 (0.4% lower). This places the i5-9400 within a 0.4% band of its four closest competing chips.

Q: How many cores and threads does the i5-9400 have, and what are its clock speeds?

A: The i5-9400 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The L3 cache is 9 MB shared X, and it uses dual-channel DDR4 memory with a 42.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What does the combo rank of 1354 out of 3,723 mean for this system?

A: The rank of 1354 out of 3,723 tested combos means that this configuration outperforms approximately 64% of all recorded combos (since 3,723 – 1,354 = 2,369 combinations earn lower ranks). It sits at the 36th percentile of systems, placing it near the lower-middle of the top half.

Q: Does the RX 9070 support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) in its listed APIs, along with Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6.

5: In the measured FPS data, which preset gives the highest 1080p frame rate?

A: The Low preset yields the highest 1080p FPS at 142. The Medium preset provides 122 FPS (min 104, max 140), High gives 115 FPS, and Ultra gives 31 FPS.

6: What is the memory configuration of the RX 9070 in this test?

A: The RX 9070 has 16 GB of DDR6 memory, a 256-bit memory bus, and a peak bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s. The memory clock is 20.1 Gbps effective, while the GPU base clock is 1330 MHz and boost clock is 2520 MHz.

GPU Role

The GPU is the single strongest component in this pairing. The RX 9070 carries 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs, with a peak FP32 compute of 36.13 TFLOPS. Its 16 GB GDDR6 frame buffer runs across a 256-bit bus at 644.6 GB/s and the card's clocks are rated at 1330 MHz base, 2520 MHz boost, and 2518 MHz memory. These specifications translate to a benchmark percentile of 69 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 23,357. In the nearest-rival data, the RX 9070 is just a few percent away from mid-tier silicon: the GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile (score 23,628) is only 1.1% behind, the GTX 2080 SHX 2080 (score 24,170) is 1.2% ahead, while the RX 680S (score 24,063) lists as 0.8% ahead. The GTX TITAN Z (score 23,736) is basically tied at 0.6% behind.

The GPU's role in Rust is evident in the measured FPS ranges. At 1080p and Low, the RX 9070 can push 142 FPS, but with each preset increase, the frame rate falls—by 20 FPS to Medium (122), another 7 FPS to High (115), and a further 25 FPS to Ultra (91). Moving to 1440p, the same scaling continues: Low 125, Medium 99, High 83, Ultra 63. 4K is the most demanding: Low 86, Medium 58, High 49, Ultra 37. The GPU's huge stable frame rate at lower presets shows that the 9070 is overkill for 1080p Low workloads, but as both resolution and settings climb, the card's computing capacity becomes the decisive limitation. Notably, at 4K Ultra, the 16 GB VRAM is paired with only 122 TGMUs etc., but the 4K frame budget is still too high for the GPU to maintain the 59 FPS of 4K Medium. The GPU's large bandwidth does not neutralize the heavy shading and ROP work, as evidenced by the 4K Ultra's 37 FPS—just 24% of the 1080p Low result.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, Medium offers the most balanced performance across all resolutions. At 1080p, Medium averages 122 FPS with a minimum of 104 and maximum of 140, which is only 25 FPS behind Low but 33 FPS ahead of High and 31 FPS ahead of Ultra. At 1440p, Medium produces 98 FPS (min 83, max 111), which is 15 FPS behind Low (125) but 15 FPS ahead of High (83) and 28 FPS ahead of Ultra (63). At 4K, Medium averages 58 FPS (min 49, max 67), which is 28 FPS behind Low (86) but 9 FPS ahead of High (49) and 21 FPS ahead of Ultra (37). The Medium dial provides a strong balance between visual fidelity and frame rate, which becomes the most stable preset for playing at any resolution within the GPU's capacity.

For users seeking highest frame rates, Low is the only option that keeps 4K above 80 FPS (86) and 1080p above 140 FPS (142). Ultra, on the other hand, drops to 63 FPS at 1440p and 37 at 4K, which is not playable in many competitive scenarios. At 1080p, the High preset still holds 115 FPS, but the Medium min of 104 is more consistent than High's average, suggesting that Medium is a safer baseline for avoiding stutter. In summary, the data recommends Medium as the sweet spot: at 1080p it delivers a comfortable triple-digit average with a tight minimum/maximum range; at 1440p, it stays above the 90 FPS average mark; and at 4K, it still manages to hit the high 50s but only when the user is tolerant of occasional dips to 49 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following exact figures are from the measured dataset for each resolution and preset.

1080p (1920x1080)

• Low: 142 FPS average
• Medium: 122 FPS average (min 104, max 140)
• High: 115 FPS average
• Ultra: 31 FPS average

Note that 1080p has the smallest gap between Low and Ultra (49% at 142 vs 91 at 32) but the largest raw delta between Low and Medium (20 FPS). The 1080p data shows that the CPU's 47th-percentile multi-threaded performance does not prevent high frame rates, as evidenced by the 142 FPS cap for Low.

1440p (2560x1440)

• Low: 125 FPS average
• Medium: 98 FPS average (min 83, max 113)
• High: 83 FPS average
• Ultra: 63 FPS average

The Medium preset at 1440p yields a minimum of 83 FPS, which matches the High's average (83) exactly. This min/max range (83–113) straddles the medium's mean.

4K (3840x2160)

• Low: 86 FPS average
• Medium: 58 FPS average (min 49, max 67)
• High: 49 FPS average
• Ultra: 37 FPS average

At 4K, the Medium minimum (49) is exactly equal to the High preset's average (49), and the Maximum cap of 67 for Medium is substantially higher than the High's 49. This indicates that the Medium preset's extra headroom is too small to flatten the chasm, but it shows that Medium's average is around halfway between Low and Ultra in that tier.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor with base 2.90 GHz and boost 4.10 GHz. It operates on a 14 nm process, supports dual-channel DDR5, and has 9 MB of L3 cache. Its average benchmark score of 2254 places it at the 47th percentile on the CPU list. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core result is 6,290 and single-core 2,784, while the average of its four nearest rivals—the i5-10305, i7-10687, and two others—is 2,254–2,264 with deltaPct between 0.3% and 0.4% of each other. This shows that the i5-9400 is essentially indistinguishable from chips a few percent stronger or weaker, but it is not a top-tier part.

In the game, the CPU's role is most visible at lower resolutions and preset levels. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 142 FPS, meaning the CPU can feature the game's draw calls and physics at that frame rate. The absence of Hyper-Threading (6 threads) may limit multi-core scaling during complex scenes, but Rust's measured minimums at 1080p Medium (104 FPS) and 1440p Medium (95 FPS) are still above the GPU's limited floor. The 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth and UHD 630 iGPU are irrelevant here, as the discrete RX 9070 does all heavy lifting. Comparing the CPU's 47th percentile with the GPU's 69th percentile shows that the CPU is the weaker link in terms of synthetic scores, but the data does not support a direct conclusion of bottleneck at 1080p: the GPU delivers 122 FPS at 1080p Medium, which is a high enough result that the CPU's lack of threads does not appear to be the half-l factor. The CPU's core count (6) and clock speed (4.10 GHz boost) fall within a band that matches the frame rate observed; no other CPU specifics are in the pack to contrast.

How This Combo Ranks

In the dataset of Rust combos, this pairing of the i5-9400 and RX 9070 occupies 1354th place out of 3,723 tested combinations. That places this system in the 64th percentile of all combos, meaning roughly 2,369° combos are slower and about 1,354 are faster. The GPU's individual percentile (69) is considerably higher than the CPU's (47), which suggests that the combo's final ranking is dragged down by the CPU despite the strong GPU. However, because Rust at this preset set of results shows large FPS numbers at 1080p, the GPU pulls the overall rank up dramatically from a pure CPU-based expectation. For comparison, the GPU's nearest rivals (like the RTX 3080 Mobile and RX 680S) all have similar synthetic scores, but Rust specifically favors the RX 9070's 16 GDDR6 memory and high bandwidth, helping it reach 122 FPS at Medium 1080p. The CPU, though only near-parity with its rivals (within 0.4% of four alternatives), would be the more obvious target for a future upgrade if the user's game should push higher resolutions—since at 4K the combo still hits Medium at 58 and High at 49, where the GPU is the limiting factor, but the CPU's rank is in the middle of the pack. So while the combo rank is 1354, the measured stability of the Medium preset across all three resolutions suggests that this is a serviceable mid-tier combo, which performs significantly better than the average mid-range system in Rust, but falls short of top-level hardware that would largely match the GPU's abilities.