Inside

Inside is a 2D puzzle platformer with a deliberately muted visual style, but that simplicity does not translate into demanding system requirements. The recorded data for the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 shows a combination that dramatically exceeds the 60 FPS playability threshold at every resolution and preset tested. The measurements cover three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160) and four quality settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). No minimum or maximum frame rates were recorded in the database, so all analysis relies on average FPS values. This makes the performance picture straightforward: this hardware handles Inside with massive headroom, even at 4K with Ultra settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the lowest tested resolution, the average frame rates are exceptionally high across all settings. The Low preset produces an average of 236.8 FPS, which is the highest recorded figure for this entire combination. Moving to Medium drops the average to 218.2 FPS, a reduction of 18.6 FPS from Low. High settings yield 179.6 FPS average, and Ultra sits at 179.9 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is negligible at just 0.3 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset does not meaningfully increase the rendering load over High at this resolution. The difference between Low and Ultra is 56.9 FPS, which is substantial in absolute terms but irrelevant in practice since even the lowest figure here is nearly triple the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern persists with slightly lower absolute numbers. The Low preset averages 211.7 FPS, which is 25.1 FPS lower than the 1080p Low result. Medium averages 194.2 FPS, a drop of 24.0 FPS from the 1080p Medium figure. High averages 162.7 FPS, down 16.9 FPS from 1080p High. Ultra averages 159.1 FPS, down 20.8 FPS from 1080p Ultra. The relationship between presets remains consistent: Low is fastest, then Medium, then High, with Ultra slightly behind High. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 52.6 FPS. All figures remain far above 60 FPS, with the lowest recorded average (Ultra at 159.1 FPS) still more than 2.6 times the playable threshold.

At 3840x2160, the resolution scaling becomes more pronounced. The Low preset averages 178.4 FPS, which is 33.3 FPS lower than the 1440p Low result and 58.4 FPS lower than the 1080p Low result. Medium averages 169.1 FPS, down 25.1 FPS from 1440p Medium. High averages 105.4 FPS, a significant drop of 57.3 FPS from 1440p High. Ultra averages 100.5 FPS, down 58.6 FPS from 1440p Ultra. The interesting shift here is that the gap between Low and Medium narrows considerably at 4K: the difference is only 9.3 FPS, compared to 17.5 FPS at 1440p and 18.6 FPS at 1080p. Meanwhile, the gap between Medium and High widens dramatically: 63.7 FPS at 4K versus 31.5 FPS at 1440p and 38.6 FPS at 1080p. This suggests that the High preset introduces a rendering feature that scales heavily with pixel count, while Medium and Low remain relatively close at higher resolutions.

Across all resolutions, the Ultra preset is always the slowest, but it never falls below 100 FPS average. The largest single drop between consecutive presets occurs between Medium and High at 4K, where the average falls from 169.1 FPS to 105.4 FPS. The smallest drop between consecutive presets is between High and Ultra at 1080p, where the average actually rises slightly from 179.6 FPS to 179.9 FPS, a 0.3 FPS increase that falls within measurement noise. The data shows no scenario where this combination struggles to maintain fluid motion, even at the most demanding tested configuration.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database defines the best settings as the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS average. For Inside, every preset at every resolution clears this bar, so the best settings are always the Ultra preset.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset averages 179.9 FPS. This is the highest quality setting available in the measurements, and it delivers an average frame rate nearly three times the playable threshold. The High preset at this resolution averages 179.6 FPS, which is statistically identical, but Ultra is the recommended choice since it offers the maximum visual quality without any measurable performance penalty.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset averages 159.1 FPS. This is still far above the 60 FPS threshold, and the drop from 1080p Ultra is 20.8 FPS. The High preset at 1440p averages 162.7 FPS, which is 3.6 FPS higher than Ultra, but the difference is minor. Since Ultra remains comfortably above 60 FPS, it is the best setting for this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset averages 100.5 FPS. This is the lowest average recorded in the entire dataset, yet it still exceeds the playable threshold by 40.5 FPS. The High preset at 4K averages 105.4 FPS, which is 4.9 FPS higher than Ultra, but again the gap is small enough that choosing Ultra does not risk dropping below 60 FPS. The database confirms that all four settings at 4K are playable, with Ultra being the most demanding option that still maintains a triple-digit average frame rate.

The pattern across all resolutions is that this hardware combination has so much performance headroom that the question is never whether a preset is playable, but rather whether the visual quality differences justify the frame rate trade-off. In every case, the data supports selecting Ultra.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this combination?

A: The highest average is 236.8 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This is the only configuration in the dataset that exceeds 230 FPS.

Q: Is the Ultra preset playable at 4K?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate is 100.5 FPS, which is 40.5 FPS above the 60 FPS playable threshold. All four presets at 4K are playable.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same preset?

A: For the Ultra preset, the average drops from 179.9 FPS at 1080p to 159.1 FPS at 1440p, then to 100.5 FPS at 4K. The total reduction from 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra is 79.4 FPS, which is a 44.1% decrease. For the High preset, the drop is from 179.6 FPS to 162.7 FPS to 105.4 FPS, a total reduction of 74.2 FPS.

Q: Which preset shows the smallest performance difference between 1080p and 1440p?

A: The High preset shows the smallest absolute drop, falling from 179.6 FPS to 162.7 FPS, a difference of 16.9 FPS. The Low preset drops by 25.1 FPS, Medium by 24.0 FPS, and Ultra by 20.8 FPS.

Q: Does the High preset ever outperform the Ultra preset?

A: At 1920x1080, High averages 179.6 FPS while Ultra averages 179.9 FPS, so Ultra is marginally faster. At 2560x1440, High averages 162.7 FPS versus 159.1 FPS for Ultra, so High is 3.6 FPS faster. At 3840x2160, High averages 105.4 FPS versus 100.5 FPS for Ultra, so High is 4.9 FPS faster. The differences are small but consistent at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the slowest recorded average frame rate in the entire dataset?

A: The slowest average is 100.5 FPS, recorded at 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset. Even this slowest configuration remains well above the 60 FPS threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database provides nearest rival comparisons for both the CPU and GPU individually. For the AMD Ryzen 5 3600, the closest alternative is the Intel Core i7-1260P, which has an average benchmark score of 17007, just 0.2% lower than the Ryzen 5 3600's average score of 17035. The Intel Core i5-11400 scores 17067, which is 0.2% higher, making it essentially equivalent. Two AMD EPYC server processors also appear in the nearest rivals list: the EPYC 7573X with a score of 17070 (0.2% higher) and the EPYC 7742 with a score of 16998 (0.2% lower). These deltas are all within 0.2 percentage points, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Inside when paired with the same GPU.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla P4 with an average score of 37628, just 0.1% lower than the RTX 4070's 37648. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 scores 37507, which is 0.4% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile scores 38135, which is 1.3% higher, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 37157, which is 1.3% lower. These deltas are slightly larger than the CPU comparisons but still small enough that gaming performance differences would be minor. In practice, a system with any of these rival GPUs paired with the Ryzen 5 3600 would deliver very similar average frame rates in Inside, all comfortably above 60 FPS at every resolution and preset.

The benchmark data suggests that the RTX 4070 sits in a performance tier where its nearest competitors span from mobile laptop parts to professional workstation cards. The RTX 4080 Mobile is the only rival that edges ahead, and even then by just 1.3%. The RX Vega 56, a much older architecture, trails by only 0.4%, which indicates that Inside is not heavily dependent on modern GPU features like ray tracing or DLSS. The game's rendering workload appears to be well within the capabilities of any of these cards.

The Verdict

This PC configuration can run Inside with exceptional performance at all tested resolutions and presets. The verdict data confirms that every setting combination is playable, meaning all averages are at or above the 60 FPS threshold. At 1920x1080, the best setting is Ultra with an average of 179.9 FPS. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 159.1 FPS. At 3840x2160, Ultra averages 100.5 FPS. There is no configuration in the database where this combination fails to meet the playable threshold.

The margin of safety is substantial. Even the most demanding scenario, 4K Ultra, delivers an average frame rate that is 67.5% higher than the playable threshold. The least demanding scenario, 1080p Low, delivers an average that is nearly four times the threshold. This suggests that the game would remain playable even if there were background processes consuming system resources or if the hardware were thermally constrained. The data shows no reason to lower settings on any display resolution up to 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 ranks 1656 out of 3716 tested combos within the database for Inside. This places it in the 44.6th percentile of all combinations, meaning roughly 55% of tested systems perform better in this specific game. The rank is based on actual measured performance, not on theoretical specifications. Given that Inside is a puzzle platformer with modest graphics demands, the ranking reflects the fact that many modern high-end systems can achieve high frame rates, and the RTX 4070, while strong, is not at the very top of the GPU hierarchy.

The rank of 1656 out of 3716 indicates that this combo is slightly below the median for this game. This is not a criticism of the hardware, as the absolute frame rates are excellent. Rather, it reflects the competitive field: many systems with higher-end GPUs or newer CPUs achieve even higher averages. The percentile placement does not affect playability, as the combo clears the 60 FPS threshold by a wide margin at every setting. For a game like Inside, where the visual style is minimalist and the gameplay is not twitch-reflex dependent, the difference between 100 FPS and 200 FPS is unlikely to be perceptible to most players.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data allows for an analysis of how the CPU and GPU each contribute to performance in Inside. The CPU, AMD Ryzen 5 3600, has a multi-threaded benchmark score of 6318 in Cinebench R20 and a single-core score of 892. The GPU, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070, has a PassMark G3D score of 26927 and a PassMark GPU Compute score of 14720. In a puzzle platformer with simple 2D graphics, the GPU typically handles the rendering pipeline while the CPU manages game logic and physics. The large frame rate headroom suggests that neither component is a bottleneck.

Examining the scaling between resolutions reveals the GPU's role. Moving from 1080p to 1440p to 4K increases the pixel count by factors of 1.78 and 2.25 respectively. The average frame rate for Ultra drops from 179.9 FPS to 159.1 FPS to 100.5 FPS across these resolutions. The drop from 1440p to 4K is 36.8%, which is roughly proportional to the 44.4% increase in pixel count. This indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as expected. The CPU's workload does not change with resolution, so any frame rate decrease must be attributed to the GPU's rendering load.

At lower resolutions, the CPU's role becomes relatively more important. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is only 56.9 FPS, while at 4K the difference is 77.9 FPS. This widening gap suggests that the GPU is more stressed at higher resolutions and presets, while the CPU maintains a consistent level of performance. The fact that even 1080p Ultra exceeds 179 FPS means the CPU is not holding back the system, but the data implies that if a faster CPU were paired with the same GPU, the 1080p frame rates might increase slightly, assuming the game's engine can take advantage of additional CPU throughput.

The preset scaling also shows an interesting pattern. At every resolution, Low and Medium are close together, while High and Ultra are close together, but there is a significant jump between Medium and High. For example, at 4K, Low averages 178.4 FPS, Medium 169.1 FPS, High 105.4 FPS, and Ultra 100.5 FPS. The jump from Medium to High costs 63.7 FPS, while the jump from Low to Medium costs only 9.3 FPS. This suggests that the High preset enables a rendering feature that is computationally expensive, likely related to lighting or shadow quality, and that feature scales with resolution. The CPU's role in this transition is minimal, as the feature is GPU-bound.

The overall picture is that the GPU is the dominant factor for Inside at all tested resolutions, with the CPU providing ample headroom. The RTX 4070 is strong enough to push 4K Ultra above 100 FPS, and the Ryzen 5 3600 does not appear to create any CPU-bound scenarios, even at 1080p Low where the GPU is least stressed. For players using this combination, the experience will be smooth regardless of settings, and the data indicates that the GPU would need to be upgraded to a significantly faster model before the CPU becomes the limiting factor.