Inside

Similar Performance Alternatives

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D sits in a tight cluster of high-end desktop processors. Its average benchmark score of 75,779 is nearly indistinguishable from the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, which scores 75,738 and trails by just 0.1%. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D is equally close at 75,716, also a 0.1% gap. The AMD EPYC 8224P scores 75,582, a 0.3% deficit, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 finishes the group at 75,488, just 0.4% behind. For Inside, any of these CPUs would deliver essentially identical frame pacing, as the game's logic demands are far below what this processor tier provides. The 9950X3D lands in the 95th percentile among all CPUs, placing it firmly at the top of the desktop stack.

The Intel Arc B370 presents a very different picture. Its single recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, yields a score of 1,184, which places it in only the 5th percentile among all GPUs. The nearest rivals are all legacy parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1,186 (0.2% faster), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1,190 (0.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1,192 (0.7% faster). The AMD FirePro M2000 trails at 1,168, a 1.4% gap. This means the Arc B370 performs at the level of roughly a decade-old discrete GPU or a modest integrated solution. It is an integrated graphics part itself, built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with 1,280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operations units. Its 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate are modest figures, and the memory subsystem is entirely system-shared, making bandwidth dependent on the host platform.

For users considering alternatives, the CPU side offers no meaningful performance spread; the four nearest rivals are within 0.4% of each other. The GPU side, however, shows that the Arc B370's performance class has no modern competition. Any modern discrete GPU would be a significant step up, but within the database's recorded measurements, the Arc B370 is bracketed exclusively by older ATI and AMD parts. This combination of a top-tier CPU with a bottom-tier graphics solution creates an extreme bottleneck scenario, where the GPU dictates playability almost entirely.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data for Inside shows a clear pattern: the GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution, while the CPU's role is essentially negligible. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D, with 16 cores, 32 threads, and a 128 MB L3 cache, is far beyond what a 2D puzzle platformer requires. Its multi-threaded Cinebench R23 score of 42,018 and single-thread score of 2,259 indicate massive headroom for any game logic, physics, or AI routines that Inside might run. The game released in 2016, and its computational demands are minimal by modern standards.

The GPU's influence becomes apparent when examining the scaling between presets at each resolution. At 3840x2160, dropping from High to Medium improves the average frame rate from 32 to 51 FPS, a 19 FPS gain. Dropping further to Low yields 64 FPS, another 13 FPS improvement. At 2560x1440, the same preset progression goes from 51 FPS at High to 81 FPS at Medium, then to 101 FPS at Low. At 1920x1080, the numbers are 70 FPS at High, 113 FPS at Medium, and 141 FPS at Low. In every case, the preset choice moves the frame rate by a substantial margin, confirming that pixel throughput and shading complexity, not CPU logic, determine performance.

Resolution scaling reinforces this conclusion. At Medium settings, the frame rate drops from 113 FPS at 1920x1080 to 81 FPS at 2560x1440 (a 28% reduction), then to 51 FPS at 3840x2160 (another 37% reduction). The pixel counts increase by roughly 78% from 1080p to 1440p, and by another 125% from 1440p to 4K, and the frame rate falls accordingly. The GPU's fill rate and shading capacity are the binding constraints. The CPU, by contrast, shows no such scaling behavior; its benchmark scores are constant regardless of resolution, and they are so far above the game's requirements that they never become a factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the Arc B370 delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 141 FPS, well above the 60 FPS playability threshold. Medium settings average 113 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 96 and maximum of 130. High settings drop to 70 FPS average. Ultra settings, the most demanding preset, still manage 67 FPS on average. All four presets at 1080p clear the 60 FPS line, and the margin is comfortable even at Ultra.

At 2560x1440, performance degrades noticeably. Low settings average 101 FPS, still solidly playable. Medium settings average 81 FPS, with a minimum of 69 and maximum of 93, keeping the frame rate above 60 FPS even in the worst recorded moment. High settings fall to 51 FPS average, which misses the playability threshold. Ultra settings drop further to 48 FPS. Only Low and Medium remain viable at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the picture tightens considerably. Low settings average 64 FPS, just barely clearing the 60 FPS bar. Medium settings average 51 FPS, with a minimum of 43 and maximum of 59, meaning even the peak frame rate falls short of 60. High settings average 32 FPS. Ultra settings average 30 FPS. Only the Low preset achieves playable performance at 4K, and it does so with a slim 4 FPS margin.

The minimum and maximum frame rate data, where recorded, show consistent behavior. At 1080p Medium, the 96 FPS minimum and 130 FPS maximum bracket the 113 average tightly, indicating stable frame pacing. At 1440p Medium, the 69 to 93 range around the 81 average shows slightly more variance but remains smooth. At 4K Medium, the 43 to 59 range around the 51 average reveals that the GPU is consistently near its limit, with no headroom for spikes. The lack of minimum and maximum values for the other presets suggests that the recording methodology captured only averages for those configurations, but the available data points align with the overall trend.

The Verdict

This PC can run Inside, but only under specific conditions. At 1920x1080, every preset from Low through Ultra exceeds 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 67 FPS. This makes 1080p fully playable at maximum quality. At 2560x1440, the system clears 60 FPS on Low (101 FPS) and Medium (81 FPS), but High and Ultra fall short at 51 and 48 FPS respectively. At 3840x2160, only Low achieves playability, averaging 64 FPS, while Medium, High, and Ultra all miss the threshold with 51, 32, and 30 FPS.

The verdict by resolution is clear. For 1080p, all four settings are playable, and the best is Ultra at 67 FPS. For 1440p, the playable settings are Low and Medium, with Medium being the best at 81 FPS. For 4K, the only playable setting is Low at 64 FPS. The system is a capable 1080p machine for this game, a solid 1440p machine with reduced settings, and a marginal 4K machine that requires the lowest preset to stay above 60.

The bottleneck is unambiguous. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D has enormous compute reserves, but the Arc B370's modest shading units, TMUs, and ROPs limit how much of that CPU power can be utilized. The game's 2D side-scrolling nature means that resolution and preset scaling directly translate to GPU load, and the integrated graphics part simply runs out of throughput at higher demands. Players targeting 60 FPS should prioritize resolution and preset choices accordingly.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which averages 67 FPS. This is the maximum quality configuration, and it still provides a 7 FPS cushion over the playability threshold. High settings, at 70 FPS, are nearly identical in performance, but Ultra offers the full visual feature set without sacrificing playability.

At 2560x1440, the best playable setting is Medium, averaging 81 FPS. This provides a 21 FPS margin over the 60 FPS threshold, with a recorded minimum of 69 FPS ensuring that dips stay above the line. Low settings at 101 FPS offer more headroom, but Medium delivers the better visual experience while remaining comfortably playable.

At 3840x2160, the only playable setting is Low, averaging 64 FPS. This is a slim margin: only 4 FPS above the threshold. The recorded data shows no minimum frame rate for this configuration, so it is unclear how much variance exists, but the average suggests that 4K playability is achievable only with the most aggressive quality reductions. Medium settings at 51 FPS, with a maximum of 59 FPS, cannot reach 60 even in the best case.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3,422 out of 3,716 tested combinations for Inside. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems. The ranking reflects the severe GPU bottleneck: despite having one of the fastest desktop CPUs available, the integrated Arc B370 holds the entire system back.

The CPU alone would rank near the top of any processor list, sitting in the 95th percentile with an average benchmark score of 75,779. The GPU alone, however, sits in the 5th percentile with a score of 1,184. When combined, the system's effective performance for a GPU-bound game like Inside is dictated almost entirely by the graphics component. The rank of 3,422 out of 3,716 underscores that most tested combinations, even those with much weaker CPUs, outperform this pairing because they include a more capable GPU.

For context, the nearest CPU rivals (the Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, EPYC 8224P, and Core Ultra 9 285) would all produce identical frame rates in Inside when paired with the same GPU, since the game does not stress the processor. The nearest GPU rivals (the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, and AMD Radeon HD 7650M) would perform similarly, within 0.7% or less, meaning the entire performance class is clustered at the same level. This combination is fundamentally limited by its graphics solution, and the database's ranking reflects that reality.