Inside

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 combination delivers overwhelming performance for Inside, a 2016 puzzle platformer. Benchmark results show this pairing is not merely capable of running the game but does so with extreme headroom at every resolution tested, making the game's visual style and physics-based puzzles run flawlessly even at maximum settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU in this configuration each sit near specific rivals in benchmark databases, which helps contextualize their performance. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F posts an average benchmark score of 32750, placing it in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs. Its closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, with an average score of 32812, representing a 0.2% delta where the Ryzen 7 holds a slight edge. The Intel Core i5-14600T follows closely at 32707 (0.1% slower), while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H scores 32697 (0.2% slower). The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 trails at 32662 (0.3% slower). These deltas are remarkably small — under one-third of a percent — meaning any of these processors would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Inside.

On the graphics side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 achieves an average benchmark score of 56083, ranking in the 87th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE with a score of 57367, which is 2.2% faster. The AMD Radeon 8060S scores 55757 (0.6% slower), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698 (0.7% slower), and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54828 (2.3% slower). The RTX 5080's position is interesting — it sits sandwiched between these AMD offerings, with the RX 9070 GRE being the only nearby card that outperforms it. In practical terms for Inside, all these GPUs would exceed the 60 FPS threshold by enormous margins, so the choice between them would have negligible impact on gameplay experience.

The data suggests that if a system builder were assembling a machine for Inside specifically, swapping the Ryzen 5 7400F for any of its four nearest CPU rivals or swapping the RTX 5080 for any of its four nearest GPU rivals would produce virtually indistinguishable results. The game's modest graphical demands mean the performance ceiling is so high that these small benchmark deltas become irrelevant in real-world play.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Inside at 4K resolution?

A: Yes, absolutely. Benchmark results show the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and RTX 5080 combination achieves 138 FPS on High settings at 3840x2160, 220 FPS on Medium, and 258 FPS on Low. Even at Ultra settings, it maintains 131 FPS, more than double the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p gaming?

A: At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset is the best choice, delivering 209 FPS average. This is the most demanding preset, and it still operates far above the 60 FPS threshold, so there is no need to compromise on visual quality.

Q: How does the RTX 5080 compare to its nearest competitor?

A: The RTX 5080's average benchmark score is 56083, placing it in the 87th percentile. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE, scores 57367, making it 2.2% faster. The AMD Radeon 8060S and RX 6750 GRE 12 GB are 0.6% and 0.7% slower respectively, while the Radeon Pro W5700X is 2.3% slower.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck for this game?

A: Given that the CPU sits in the 83rd percentile with an average benchmark score of 32750, and the game achieves frame rates between 131 and 337 FPS across all tested configurations, there is no evidence of CPU bottlenecking. The Ryzen 5 7400F's nearest rivals all score within 0.3% of it, and this small delta does not translate to meaningful FPS differences in Inside.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the system delivers 311 FPS average, with a minimum of 264 FPS and a maximum of 357 FPS. Even the minimum frame rate exceeds the playable threshold by more than four times.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations for Inside?

A: This CPU-GPU combination ranks 347th out of 3716 tested combos for Inside, placing it in the top 9.3% of all systems tested for this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this system reveals consistent performance scaling across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the system achieves 337 FPS on Low settings, 311 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 264 and maximum of 357), 259 FPS on High, and 255 FPS on Ultra. The spread between Low and Ultra is 82 FPS, showing that even the most demanding preset at 1080p loses less than a quarter of the performance compared to the least demanding.

Moving to 2560x1440, the system delivers 302 FPS on Low, 278 FPS on Medium (237 minimum, 320 maximum), 219 FPS on High, and 209 FPS on Ultra. The performance drop from 1080p to 1440p ranges from 10.4% at Low settings (337 to 302 FPS) to 18.0% at Ultra settings (255 to 209 FPS). This scaling pattern indicates that higher resolutions affect the more demanding presets slightly more, but the overall impact remains modest.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the system produces 258 FPS on Low, 220 FPS on Medium (187 minimum, 253 maximum), 138 FPS on High, and 131 FPS on Ultra. The jump from 1440p to 4K causes a more significant performance reduction: Low settings drop by 14.6% (302 to 258 FPS), Medium by 20.9% (278 to 220 FPS), High by 37.0% (219 to 138 FPS), and Ultra by 37.3% (209 to 131 FPS). The larger percentage drops at higher presets suggest that pixel throughput becomes more relevant as resolution increases, though the absolute frame rates remain extraordinarily high.

The minimum FPS values recorded only for Medium settings show 187 FPS at 4K, 237 FPS at 1440p, and 264 FPS at 1080p — all far above the 60 FPS threshold. Maximum FPS values at Medium settings reach 253 at 4K, 320 at 1440p, and 357 at 1080p. These figures indicate excellent frame pacing with no dramatic dips that would cause visible stuttering.

The Verdict

This system can definitively run Inside at all tested resolutions and settings with performance far exceeding the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdict data confirms that all four settings presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — are playable at every resolution from 1920x1080 through 3840x2160. At 4K Ultra, the most demanding configuration tested, the system still averages 131 FPS, which is 2.2 times the playable threshold. At 1440p Ultra, it reaches 209 FPS, and at 1080p Ultra, 255 FPS.

The best settings for each resolution are consistently the Ultra preset. At 3840x2160, Ultra delivers 131 FPS; at 2560x1440, 209 FPS; and at 1920x1080, 255 FPS. Since even the most demanding preset clears the 60 FPS threshold by a wide margin at every resolution, there is no scenario where the user would need to reduce settings for playability. The only reason to lower settings would be to pursue extremely high refresh rate gaming, such as 240 Hz or higher displays, where the 1080p Low setting at 337 FPS or 1440p Low at 302 FPS would be more appropriate.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset is the most demanding option that maintains at least 60 FPS, and it achieves 131 FPS average. This represents the best visual quality available while still providing more than double the playable threshold. The gap between Ultra at 131 FPS and High at 138 FPS is only 7 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset does not impose a significant additional cost over High for this game.

For 2560x1440, Ultra again is the optimal choice, delivering 209 FPS average. The progression from Low (302 FPS) to Medium (278 FPS) to High (219 FPS) to Ultra (209 FPS) shows that each step up in quality costs between 10 and 59 FPS, with the largest single drop occurring between Medium and High. Despite this, Ultra remains the clear recommendation because even the largest drop still leaves the system operating at 3.5 times the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, Ultra provides 255 FPS average, which is the strongest result for the highest quality preset at any resolution. The performance hierarchy at 1080p is: Low at 337 FPS, Medium at 311 FPS, High at 259 FPS, and Ultra at 255 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is just 4 FPS, making Ultra the obvious choice for users who want maximum visual fidelity without any meaningful performance sacrifice.

How This Combo Ranks

This CPU-GPU combination ranks 347th out of 3716 tested combos for Inside, placing it in the top 9.3% of all systems in the benchmark database. The rank of 347 with 3716 total combos means there are 3369 configurations that perform worse and 346 that perform better. Given that Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer with relatively modest requirements, this high ranking reflects the system's substantial overperformance relative to what the game demands.

The top 9.3% positioning indicates that this combination is significantly above average, but it is not near the absolute top of the rankings. The 346 systems that rank higher likely include combinations with even more powerful GPUs or CPUs, though the practical difference in Inside would be minimal given that this system already achieves 131 FPS at 4K Ultra. The ranking is a useful data point for understanding the system's position in the broader hardware landscape, but for this specific game, the performance headroom is so large that the exact rank has little bearing on the user experience.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals how CPU and GPU responsibilities shift across resolutions and settings in Inside. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is 82 FPS (337 to 255), representing a 24.3% reduction in performance. At 2560x1440, the same comparison shows 302 to 209 FPS, a 30.8% reduction. At 3840x2160, Low produces 258 FPS while Ultra produces 131 FPS, a 49.2% reduction. This pattern demonstrates that as resolution increases, the graphical settings have a proportionally larger impact on performance, which points to the GPU becoming a more dominant factor at higher resolutions.

Conversely, the CPU's role is more prominent at lower resolutions where the GPU has less pixel work to perform. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 337 FPS — a frame rate that approaches the limits of what many displays can even show. At this point, the CPU's single-thread performance, reflected in its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3072, becomes more relevant because the GPU is not the limiting factor. The Ryzen 5 7400F's 6 cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, provide ample processing power for the game's physics and logic systems.

At 3840x2160 Ultra, the GPU's capabilities become the primary constraint. The RTX 5080, with its 10752 shading units and 960.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, must render over 8.3 million pixels per frame. The fact that it still achieves 131 FPS at this setting demonstrates its substantial pixel throughput capacity. The GPU's 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 293.1 GPixel/s pixel rate are the specifications that matter most at this resolution, and the benchmark results confirm they are more than sufficient.

The scaling between resolutions offers insight into which component matters more. From 1080p Ultra to 1440p Ultra, performance drops from 255 to 209 FPS (18.0% reduction). From 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra, it drops from 209 to 131 FPS (37.3% reduction). This accelerating performance loss with resolution indicates that the GPU is increasingly the bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the CPU maintains consistent performance across all resolution and settings combinations. For Inside, the data clearly shows that users should prioritize GPU selection for 4K gaming, while the CPU becomes more relevant for achieving the highest possible frame rates at 1080p.