Inside

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Inside at 1920x1080 with maximum settings?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows an average of 65.2 FPS at 1080p with Ultra settings, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. High settings are also playable at 65.5 FPS, Medium at 105.8 FPS, and Low at 132.2 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware in Inside?

A: The data indicates 1920x1080 is the only resolution where all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) remain at or above 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low and Medium are playable. At 3840x2160, only Low is playable.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to other GPUs in the database?

A: The GPU sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its closest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% faster), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% faster), AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% faster), and Intel Arc A310 (1% slower).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor for this game?

A: The benchmark data shows that resolution changes affect FPS dramatically, which points to the GPU being the primary constraint. For example, at High settings, dropping from 4K to 1080p more than doubles the average FPS from 31.6 to 65.5, while the CPU load remains constant.

Q: What is the highest playable setting at 2560x1440?

A: Medium settings at 1440p produce an average of 77.3 FPS, which is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. High and Ultra at this resolution fall below the threshold at 48.2 FPS and 44 FPS respectively.

Q: How demanding is Inside compared to other games in the database?

A: This specific CPU and GPU combination ranks 3621 out of 3716 tested combinations for this game, placing it in the lower portion of the database. Despite that, the game is light enough that 1080p Ultra remains fully playable.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i3-12100F sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13494. Hardware that would behave nearly identically includes the Intel Core 3 N355 (0% difference), the Intel Core i5-9500 (0.3% faster), the Intel Core 5 120UL (0.7% slower), and the Intel Core i7-1250U (1.1% faster). Any of these processors would deliver effectively the same frame pacing in Inside.

For the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 records an average benchmark score of 7472 and ranks at the 40th percentile. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 0.3% faster, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is 0.4% faster, the AMD Radeon R7 350 is 0.6% faster, and the Intel Arc A310 is 1% slower. These four alternatives bracket the GTX 1650 so closely that in-game FPS differences for Inside would be within measurement noise.

A system built with the Intel Core i5-9500 instead of the i3-12100F would show nearly identical CPU-bound behavior, and swapping the GTX 1650 for an Intel Arc A310 would cost roughly 1% of GPU performance. The practical takeaway: any of these near-neighbor components would produce the same playability verdict at every resolution and preset combination tested.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded FPS data for Inside makes the division of labor clear. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset averages 27.1 FPS, while Low averages 61.9 FPS. That is a span driven almost entirely by GPU workload, since the CPU is doing the same game logic at every quality level. At 2560x1440, Low delivers 96.7 FPS and Ultra drops to 44 FPS. At 1920x1080, Low reaches 132.2 FPS and Ultra still holds 65.2 FPS.

The pattern across resolutions is consistent: lowering settings always produces a large FPS gain, which indicates the GTX 1650 is the bottleneck. Compare the 1080p High result of 65.5 FPS to the 1440p High result of 48.2 FPS, a 26% drop from increasing pixel count alone. The same settings at 4K High drop further to 31.6 FPS. This scaling behavior is typical of a GPU-limited scenario.

The Core i3-12100F, with its 4 cores and 8 threads, is capable of feeding the GTX 1650 in this title. Single-thread performance is strong, as shown by its 3DMark single-thread score of 893 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1674. Inside is not a heavily threaded game, so the CPU's multithreaded scores (Cinebench R23 multi-core of 11860, Geekbench multi-core of 7252) matter less. The data suggests that even at 1080p Low with 132.2 FPS, the CPU does not become the limiting factor, otherwise the FPS would plateau regardless of resolution changes.

At 4K Ultra, the GPU is clearly overwhelmed at 27.1 FPS, and no CPU change would fix that. Conversely, at 1080p Low, the game is running at 132.2 FPS, which shows the CPU is capable of pushing well beyond the 60 FPS target. In short, GPU selection determines playability here; the CPU is sufficient across all tested resolutions and presets.

The Verdict

This PC can run Inside. The verdict data from the database confirms playable performance at all three tested resolutions, though the available settings vary.

At 1920x1080, every preset clears the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra runs at 65.2 FPS, High at 65.5 FPS, Medium at 105.8 FPS, and Low at 132.2 FPS. This is the resolution where the system is fully comfortable with maximum quality.

At 2560x1440, the playable settings are Low and Medium. Medium averages 77.3 FPS, which is the best visual quality available while staying above 60 FPS. High at 48.2 FPS and Ultra at 44 FPS fall short.

At 3840x2160, only Low is playable, averaging 61.9 FPS. Medium drops to 47.7 FPS, High to 31.6 FPS, and Ultra to 27.1 FPS.

The combination ranks 3621 out of 3716 tested combinations for this game, which places it near the bottom of the database. That ranking sounds alarming, but Inside is an undemanding title, and the absolute FPS numbers tell the real story: 1080p Ultra is comfortably playable, and 1440p Medium is a solid experience. For 4K owners, Low settings will get across the finish line, but the visual compromise is substantial.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080

• Low: 132.2 FPS average
• Medium: 105.8 FPS average
• High: 65.5 FPS average
• Ultra: 65.2 FPS average

At 1080p, the jump from Low to Medium costs 26.4 FPS, and Medium to High costs another 40.3 FPS. Interestingly, High and Ultra are nearly identical, with only 0.3 FPS separating them. That makes Ultra essentially free in performance terms at this resolution.

2560x1440

• Low: 96.7 FPS average
• Medium: 77.3 FPS average
• High: 48.2 FPS average
• Ultra: 44 FPS average

The 1440p results show a sharper drop between Medium and High, a 29.1 FPS loss. High and Ultra both land below the 60 FPS playable threshold, so the playable ceiling here is Medium.

3840x2160

• Low: 61.9 FPS average
• Medium: 47.7 FPS average
• High: 31.6 FPS average
• Ultra: 27.1 FPS average

At 4K, only Low stays above 60 FPS, and barely so at 61.9 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 14.2 FPS, and the step from Medium to High costs another 16.1 FPS. Ultra is nearly half the frame rate of Low.

The database records only average FPS for this game, with no minimum or maximum values available. The average figures are consistent across resolution and preset scaling, which indicates stable measurement conditions.

Best Settings per Resolution

3840x2160: Low is the only preset that remains at or above 60 FPS, with an average of 61.9 FPS. The margin above the threshold is slim, so players who want a safety buffer should consider reducing internal resolution or accepting occasional dips. Medium at 47.7 FPS is not playable by the 60 FPS standard.

2560x1440: Medium is the best playable setting, averaging 77.3 FPS. This provides a comfortable 17.3 FPS margin above the 60 FPS threshold. High at 48.2 FPS and Ultra at 44 FPS are both below the playable line. Low at 96.7 FPS remains an option for players who prioritize high frame rates over visual quality.

1920x1080: Ultra is the best setting and stays at 65.2 FPS, which is 5.2 FPS above the threshold. High at 65.5 FPS is statistically identical in performance but slightly lower in visual quality. Medium at 105.8 FPS and Low at 132.2 FPS are available for higher refresh rate displays, though the 60 Hz target is already met at maximum settings.

The recommendation structure is straightforward: use Ultra at 1080p, Medium at 1440p, and Low at 4K. Each of these configurations achieves the 60 FPS goal while delivering the highest quality tier available at that resolution. The 1080p Ultra result is particularly notable because the game is a 2016 puzzle platformer with modest graphical demands, and this hardware combination, despite ranking near the bottom of the database for this title, handles it without breaking a sweat.