Inside

Inside is a puzzle platformer released in 2016, and the recorded data shows it runs comfortably on a wide range of hardware. Pairing the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 produces frame rates that sit far above the 60 FPS playability threshold at 1080p and 1440p, with only the move to 4K introducing any settings compromises. Below is a full analysis of how this combination ranks, which component matters more, and exactly what frame rates were measured at every resolution and preset.

FAQ

Q: Can the Ryzen 7 3700X + RTX 2060 run Inside at 60 FPS?

A: Yes at 1080p and 1440p at every preset, including Ultra. At 4K, Low and Medium clear 60 FPS (116 and 93 FPS average respectively), while High (58 FPS) and Ultra (55 FPS) fall just short.

Q: What is the best-looking setting that stays at or above 60 FPS at 4K?

A: Medium, with an average of 93 FPS. The recorded minimum at that preset is 79 FPS, so even the worst moments stay well above the threshold.

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

A: It ranks 2960 out of 3716 tested combinations, placing it in the lower portion of the database for this particular game.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU more important for Inside on this system?

A: The GPU. Frame rates scale strongly with resolution (243 FPS at 1080p Low down to 116 FPS at 4K Low), which indicates the RTX 2060 is the limiting factor rather than the 3700X.

Q: How strong are the individual components relative to the rest of the database?

A: The Ryzen 7 3700X sits in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the RTX 2060 sits in the 58th percentile of all GPUs, so the processor is the stronger half of this pairing on paper.

How This Combo Ranks

The pairing ranks 2960 out of 3716 tested combinations for Inside. Taken at face value, that rank suggests a below-average result, but the context matters: Inside is a lightweight puzzle platformer from 2016, and even configurations ranked near the bottom of the chart tend to produce playable frame rates in a title with such modest demands. The recorded data confirms this. This combination averages 122 FPS at 1080p Ultra and 88 FPS at 1440p Ultra, both comfortably above the 60 FPS playability threshold.

The rank therefore reflects the sheer spread of hardware in the database rather than any real deficiency. A rank of 2960 out of 3716 means faster combinations exist, many presumably using newer GPUs, but the practical difference for this game is measured in frames well beyond what a 60 FPS target requires. Only at 4K does the ranking translate into a tangible constraint, where the two heaviest presets dip below 60 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling data points clearly to a GPU-limited configuration. At Low settings, average frame rates go from 243 FPS at 1920x1080, to 184 FPS at 2560x1440, to 116 FPS at 3840x2160. That near-halving of performance as pixel count quadruples is the signature of a graphics-bound game: the CPU would be producing a flat ceiling across resolutions if it were the bottleneck, and nothing of the sort appears in the measurements.

The same pattern holds at the top of the quality ladder. Ultra runs at 122 FPS at 1080p, 88 FPS at 1440p, and 55 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p and from 1440p to 4K is consistent and resolution-driven, with no plateau that would suggest the Ryzen 7 3700X is holding the system back.

That the CPU is not the constraint makes sense given its standing: an 8-core, 16-thread Zen 2 processor in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, with a PassMark multithread score of 22458 and a single-thread score of 2656. For a 2016 puzzle platformer, that is far more processing power than the genre typically calls for. The RTX 2060, in the 58th percentile of all GPUs, is the component setting the performance ceiling, and it does so only at 4K.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at hardware with comparable aggregate scores, several substitutions would behave similarly in this game.

On the CPU side, the nearest rivals to the Ryzen 7 3700X are the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (0.1 percent slower on average), the AMD EPYC 4244P (0.1 percent slower), the Intel Core i5-13450HX (0.2 percent faster), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (0.5 percent slower). All four sit within half a percent of the 3700X's average benchmark score of 34260, which means any of them would leave the GPU as the limiting component in Inside, effectively unchanged behavior.

On the GPU side, the RTX 2060's average score of 15290 is matched almost exactly by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (identical average score), the AMD Radeon 680M (0.1 percent slower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (0.6 percent slower), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (0.8 percent slower). Since Inside on this system is GPU-limited, swapping in any of these cards would be expected to produce broadly similar frame rates, with the RX 7600's 0.8 percent deficit being the largest gap among the group.

Best Settings per Resolution

• 1920x1080: Ultra, averaging 122 FPS. No compromise is needed at this resolution; the heaviest preset clears the 60 FPS threshold by a wide margin.
• 2560x1440: Ultra, averaging 88 FPS. Again the most demanding preset stays comfortably playable.
• 3840x2160: Medium, averaging 93 FPS. High (58 FPS) and Ultra (55 FPS) both fall short of 60 FPS at 4K, so Medium is the highest preset that clears the threshold, and it does so with room to spare.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC runs Inside, decisively so at 1080p and 1440p. At 1920x1080, every tested preset from Low through Ultra is playable, with Ultra averaging 122 FPS. At 2560x1440, the same holds: all four presets clear 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 88 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the verdict is qualified. Low (116 FPS) and Medium (93 FPS) are playable, but High averages 58 FPS and Ultra averages 55 FPS, both just under the 60 FPS line. The practical recommendation is simple: play at 4K Medium, or drop to 1440p Ultra if maximum image quality matters more than native pixel count. Given that Medium at 4K never dipped below 79 FPS in the recorded data, it is the strongest overall choice for a high-resolution display.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All figures below are from recorded measurements of this exact configuration.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: 116 FPS average
• Medium: 93 FPS average, 79 FPS minimum, 106 FPS maximum
• High: 58 FPS average
• Ultra: 55 FPS average

At 4K, the performance curve flattens near the top of the quality ladder. The jump from Low to Medium costs 23 FPS, Medium to High costs 35 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 3 FPS more. That near-convergence of High and Ultra suggests the card is running against its limit at this resolution, and that Medium is the sensible stopping point.

2560x1440

• Low: 184 FPS average
• Medium: 147 FPS average, 125 FPS minimum, 169 FPS maximum
• High: 92 FPS average
• Ultra: 88 FPS average

1440p behaves like a scaled-down version of the 4K picture. Every preset is playable, and the Medium preset's minimum of 125 FPS means frame drops never approach the threshold. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to 4 FPS here, echoing the compression seen at 4K and indicating that the heaviest effects in Inside are inexpensive relative to the raw pixel cost of the resolution.

1920x1080

• Low: 243 FPS average
• Medium: 205 FPS average, 174 FPS minimum, 236 FPS maximum
• High: 128 FPS average
• Ultra: 122 FPS average

At 1080p the system is throughput-rich. Even Ultra doubles the 60 FPS target, and the recorded minimum at Medium, 174 FPS, is nearly triple it. The High-to-Ultra gap shrinks to 6 FPS, the smallest relative difference of any resolution tier, confirming that once the resolution burden is removed, preset choice in Inside has only a marginal effect on this hardware.