Inside

The pairing of an Intel Core i3-12100F with an AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is, on paper, a lopsided combination for Inside: the CPU sits in the 68th percentile of all tested processors with an average benchmark score of 13494, while the GPU sits in the 67th percentile of all tested graphics cards with an average benchmark score of 22549. That balance of a mid-range quad-core and a capable RDNA 3 card turns out to be dramatic overkill for a 2016 puzzle platformer, and the measured data confirms it — every resolution and every preset tested clears the 60 FPS playable threshold with enormous headroom.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the Core i3-12100F's average score of 13494 is effectively identical to the Intel Core 3 N355 at 13492 (deltaPct 0) and only 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-9500 at 13452. It trails the Intel Core 5 120UL (13594) by 0.7% and leads the Intel Core i7-1250U (13351) by 1.1%. Any of these processors would deliver effectively the same CPU-side behavior in Inside; the spread across the entire rival group is barely more than one percent, so the choice among them amounts to platform considerations rather than frame-rate outcomes. The i3-12100F brings 4 cores and 8 threads on the Alder Lake-S architecture at 10 nm, a 3.30 base and 4.30 boost clock, and a 58 W TDP on Intel Socket 1700 — a modest part whose single-thread strength (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1674, Geekbench single-core score of 1932) matters more for an older game engine than its multi-thread figures.

On the graphics side, the RX 7700 XT's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile (22435, within 0.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile (22729, 0.8% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (22895, 1.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 (22170, 1.7% behind). A system built around any of these GPUs would behave nearly identically in Inside, since the game's demands fall so far below what a Navi 32-based card with 3456 shading units, 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, and 432.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth can deliver. The card's 35.17 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 5 nm TSMC fabrication are wasted capacity here, but they guarantee that the GPU is never the limiter at any tested setting.

CPU and GPU Roles

For this game, neither component is meaningfully stressed, but the scaling data reveals which one sets the ceiling. Moving from 1920x1080 Ultra (184 FPS average) to 2560x1440 Ultra (132 FPS) and then to 3840x2160 Ultra (83 FPS) shows a clear, resolution-driven decline — 52 frames lost between 1080p and 1440p, another 49 between 1440p and 4K. That pattern is characteristic of GPU-bound behavior: the frame rate scales inversely with pixel count while the CPU would otherwise be happy to push far higher.

At 1080p Low the system averages 315 FPS, and at 1440p Low it still manages 278 FPS — at those levels the quad-core CPU is plausibly the constraint, since the i3-12100F's maximum-thread 3DMark score of 4023 barely exceeds its 8-thread score of 4026, indicating a chip that saturates quickly once many draw calls and simulation ticks pile up. For practical purposes the GPU matters more at higher resolutions and higher presets, the CPU matters marginally at low settings where frame rates push past 300, and neither is a bottleneck at the 60 FPS threshold the database uses for playability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured averages are 315 FPS on Low, 291 on Medium (with a recorded minimum of 247 and maximum of 334), 193 on High, and 184 on Ultra. That Medium figure is notable: the frame-rate range spans 87 frames, and even the minimum of 247 sits more than four times above the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 278 FPS on Low, 222 on Medium (minimum 189, maximum 256), 139 on High, and 132 on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is 146 frames — a 52.5% reduction in going from the cheapest preset to the heaviest — yet the worst result still more than doubles the 60 FPS bar.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 175 FPS on Low, 140 on Medium (minimum 119, maximum 161), 87 on High, and 83 on Ultra. The Medium range is tight, with the minimum only 21 frames below the average, indicating consistent frame delivery rather than spiky performance. Ultra at 4K is the single most demanding configuration tested, and it still lands 23 frames above the playable threshold.

Note that min/max figures were captured only at Medium preset across all three resolutions; the Low, High, and Ultra rows carry average-only data.

The Verdict

Yes — unambiguously. The verdict data shows all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) playable at all three resolutions, with Ultra designated the best setting at every resolution: 184 FPS average at 1920x1080, 132 at 2560x1440, and 83 at 3840x2160. There is no configuration in the dataset, at any resolution, that falls below 60 FPS. The weakest measured result — 4K Ultra at 83 FPS — still clears the threshold by 23 frames. For a genre like puzzle platformer, where precise timing and smooth traversal matter, the 119 FPS minimum recorded at 4K Medium indicates that even worst-case frame times stay comfortably fluid.

How This Combo Ranks

Across the database, this pairing ranks 1382 out of 3716 tested combinations in Inside — roughly the 37th percentile from the top, or the upper third of all tested systems. That placement is consistent with the component percentiles: the CPU's 68th percentile and the GPU's 67th percentile against their respective pools translate into a mid-pack-to-upper-mid finish for the combination. Given that Inside is a 2016 release and the RX 7700 XT launched in 2023, the rank reflects the ceiling of what the game itself can scale to rather than any weakness in the hardware — the majority of combinations ranking above this one are likely running into engine-side frame-rate limits similar to those suggested by the 315 FPS average at 1080p Low.

Best Settings per Resolution

The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra at every resolution — there is no trade-off decision to make with this hardware.

• 1920x1080 — Ultra: 184 FPS average. Low would deliver 315 FPS and Medium 291 (minimum 247), but nothing about Inside's visual design benefits from reduced settings when Ultra already triples the threshold.
• 2560x1440 — Ultra: 132 FPS average. Medium is the only other preset with recorded range data here (189 to 256 FPS), but Ultra remains more than double the playable bar.
• 3840x2160 — Ultra: 83 FPS average. This is the tightest result in the dataset, 23 frames above the threshold, with Medium offering a 140 FPS average (119 to 161 range) for anyone wanting extra margin at 4K.

FAQ

Q: Can the i3-12100F + RX 7700 XT run Inside at 4K?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 every preset is playable, and even Ultra averages 83 FPS — above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium at 4K averages 140 FPS with a 119 FPS minimum.

Q: What is the single highest frame rate recorded for this combo in Inside?

A: 315 FPS average at 1920x1080 on the Low preset. The highest recorded instantaneous maximum is 334 FPS at 1080p Medium.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the bottleneck?

A: The data indicates GPU-bound scaling at higher presets: Ultra drops from 184 FPS at 1080p to 132 at 1440p and 83 at 4K. At low settings, where averages reach 278–315 FPS, the 4-core/8-thread i3-12100F becomes the plausible limiter.

Q: How does this combination compare to other systems tested in Inside?

A: It ranks 1382 of 3716 tested combinations, placing it in the upper third of the database for this game.

Q: Which CPU would perform nearly identically to the i3-12100F?

A: The Intel Core 3 N355 is a statistical twin (13492 vs 13494 average score, deltaPct 0), and the Core i5-9500 trails by just 0.3%. The Core 5 120UL and Core i7-1250U are also within roughly 1% of it.

Q: Do any presets drop below 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. All twelve measured resolution-and-preset combinations average at or above 83 FPS; the 60 FPS playable threshold is cleared everywhere with at least 23 frames to spare.