Inside

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER ranks 2591 out of 3716 tested combos in Inside. This places the pairing in the lower-middle portion of the database, but that ranking must be interpreted in context. Inside is a puzzle platformer from 2016, a title with modest graphical demands compared to modern AAA releases. The rank reflects the absolute position among all CPU and GPU pairings, yet the measured frame rates tell a far more capable story.

The CPU itself sits at the 68th percentile among all processors in the database. Its average benchmark score is 13494, which puts it in the same performance band as the Intel Core 3 N355 (13492, essentially identical), the Intel Core i5-9500 (13452, 0.3% lower), the Intel Core 5 120UL (13594, 0.7% higher), and the Intel Core i7-1250U (13351, 1.1% lower). The i3-12100F is a four-core, eight-thread part based on Alder Lake, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its multicore results in Cinebench R23 reach 11860, while single-core performance hits 1674 in the same test. In Geekbench, it scores 7252 multicore and 1932 single-core. These are respectable numbers for a budget-oriented desktop chip, and they indicate that the processor is not the limiting factor in Inside.

The GPU, the RTX 2060 SUPER, sits at the 62nd percentile among all graphics cards. Its average benchmark score is 18093. The nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18159, 0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18189, 0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18373, 1.5% higher), and the Intel Arc A770M (18383, 1.6% higher). The RTX 2060 SUPER is based on the TU106 chip, uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, and delivers 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its FP32 throughput is 7.181 TFLOPS. In PassMark G3D, it scores 16462, and in Geekbench Vulkan it reaches 77402. These are mid-range figures from a 2019 GPU, but the data for Inside shows that this hardware far exceeds what the game requires.

The ranking of 2591 out of 3716 might suggest a mediocre pairing, but that impression is misleading. The database rank aggregates performance across many titles, many of which are far more demanding than Inside. When the focus narrows to this specific game, the measured FPS numbers reveal a system that is dramatically overqualified. The 3716 tested combos include many modern high-end configurations, so landing at position 2591 simply reflects the relative standing of a mid-range 2022 CPU with a 2019 GPU in a broad field. The actual gameplay experience, as documented by the measured frames, is far smoother than the rank implies.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Core 3 N355, the Intel Core i5-9500, the Intel Core 5 120UL, and the Intel Core i7-1250U. The Core 3 N355 is essentially a dead match, with an average score of 13492 against the i3-12100F's 13494, a delta of 0%. The Core i5-9500 trails by just 0.3% with a score of 13452. The Core 5 120UL leads by 0.7% at 13594, and the Core i7-1250U trails by 1.1% at 13351. Any of these processors would produce nearly identical frame rates in Inside, assuming the same GPU. The differences among them are negligible in real-world gaming, especially in a title like this where the CPU load is light.

For the GPU, the closest alternatives are the RTX 3060 Mobile (18159, 0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18189, 0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18373, 1.5% higher), and the Intel Arc A770M (18383, 1.6% higher). The RTX 3060 Mobile is the most interesting comparison because it represents a laptop chip that nevertheless scores within a fraction of a percent of the desktop RTX 2060 SUPER. The Radeon Pro 5700 is a workstation-oriented card that lands very close as well. The RX 460 and Arc A770M are both slightly ahead in average score, but again, the deltas are small enough that in Inside the frame rates would be effectively indistinguishable.

What this means for a user considering this combo is that swapping the CPU for any of its nearest rivals, or the GPU for any of its nearest rivals, would not change the gameplay experience in Inside. The game is not sensitive to the small benchmark differences between these components. The recorded data shows that the pairing already delivers well above 60 FPS at every resolution and preset, so even a 1.6% drop in GPU score would still leave the system far above the playable threshold. These alternatives are useful reference points for understanding where this hardware sits in the broader ecosystem, but none of them would meaningfully alter the outcome in this particular game.

CPU and GPU Roles

Inside is a game that places relatively little stress on either component, but the measured data reveals how the load shifts across resolutions. Looking at the 1920x1080 results, the Low preset produces 278.8 FPS, Medium reaches 222.1 FPS, High hits 141.6 FPS, and Ultra drops to 136.2 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is roughly a factor of two. At 2560x1440, the same presets yield 202.3, 161.9, 101.9, and 96.7 FPS respectively. At 3840x2160, the numbers are 127.9, 100.7, 60.9, and 60.3 FPS.

The scaling pattern indicates that the GPU becomes more influential as resolution increases. At 1080p, the CPU is capable of pushing very high frame rates, and the GPU has ample headroom. The drop from Low to Ultra at 1080p is about 142 FPS, which is a substantial reduction driven primarily by increased GPU workload. At 1440p, the same preset change reduces FPS by about 105 FPS. At 4K, the reduction is about 67 FPS. This narrowing gap suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is working closer to its limit, while the CPU's role diminishes.

However, even at 4K Ultra, the system manages 60.3 FPS, which is just above the playable threshold of 60 FPS. The fact that the Ultra preset at 4K only produces 0.6 FPS more than the High preset at the same resolution (60.9 FPS) suggests that the game's Ultra settings do not add a significant additional burden over High at this resolution. Both are hovering right around the 60 FPS mark, indicating that the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K. The CPU, with its 4 cores and 8 threads, is not the bottleneck here.

At 1080p, the picture is different. The CPU's single-thread performance, measured at 1674 in Cinebench R23 and 893 in 3DMark single-thread, is more than sufficient for this game. The very high frame rates, reaching 278.8 FPS at Low, suggest that neither component is being pushed to its absolute ceiling. The GPU's role becomes more pronounced as resolution climbs, but the CPU consistently keeps up without issue. In short, for Inside, the GPU is the primary driver of performance differences across resolutions, while the CPU provides a stable foundation that never limits the frame rate.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Inside, and it can run it well at every resolution and preset combination tested. The verdict data is unambiguous: at 3840x2160, all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable, with the best settings being Ultra at 60.3 FPS average. At 2560x1440, again all four presets are playable, with Ultra achieving 96.7 FPS. At 1920x1080, all four presets are playable, with Ultra reaching 136.2 FPS.

The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and the system clears that bar in every single measured configuration. Even the most demanding scenario, 4K Ultra, lands at 60.3 FPS, which is just barely above the line. Every other combination is comfortably above it. The lowest recorded average across all tests is that 60.3 FPS at 4K Ultra, and the highest is 278.8 FPS at 1080p Low. There are no configurations in the measured data that fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

This means a user can confidently select any preset and any resolution from the tested set and expect a smooth experience. The system does not require compromises. At 1080p, the frame rates are so high that they exceed most display refresh rates, making the experience exceptionally fluid. At 1440p, the performance remains well above 60 FPS even at Ultra. At 4K, the system just barely holds 60 FPS at the highest settings, so users with a 4K display who want a guaranteed margin could step down to High, which offers 60.9 FPS, or Medium at 100.7 FPS for a larger buffer.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data covers three resolutions and four presets each, for a total of twelve configurations. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 278.8 FPS. Medium drops to 222.1 FPS. High comes in at 141.6 FPS. Ultra is the lowest at 136.2 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 5.4 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds minimal additional load over High at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Low produces 202.3 FPS. Medium reaches 161.9 FPS. High hits 101.9 FPS. Ultra yields 96.7 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra here is 5.2 FPS, again quite small. The step from Medium to High is larger, a drop of 60 FPS, which indicates a significant increase in GPU workload when moving from Medium to High.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 127.9 FPS. Medium reaches 100.7 FPS. High drops to 60.9 FPS. Ultra is nearly identical at 60.3 FPS. The transition from Medium to High at 4K is the largest single drop in the entire dataset, a reduction of 39.8 FPS. This suggests that the High preset at 4K introduces a substantial increase in rendering complexity. The near-identical results for High and Ultra at 4K (60.9 vs 60.3 FPS) imply that the Ultra preset may be adding effects that are not heavily taxing, or that the system is hitting a performance ceiling tied to the GPU.

All values in the dataset are average FPS; no minimum or maximum frame times were recorded. The consistency of the data, with no min or max values listed, means that the analysis relies solely on averages. Still, the averages are consistently high enough that even typical frame time variance would not push the system below 60 FPS in any scenario except possibly 4K Ultra, where the average is already only 0.3 FPS above the threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 60.3 FPS. This is the highest preset available, and it just clears the threshold. For users who prefer a safety margin, High at 60.9 FPS offers a slightly higher average, but the difference is minimal. Medium at 100.7 FPS provides a much larger buffer while still being a high-quality setting. The data shows that Ultra is technically playable at 4K, but it leaves almost no headroom.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are Ultra, achieving 96.7 FPS. This is well above the 60 FPS threshold, leaving a comfortable margin of 36.7 FPS. All lower presets are also playable, but Ultra is the optimal choice because it delivers the highest visual quality without sacrificing smoothness. The jump from High (101.9 FPS) to Ultra (96.7 FPS) costs only 5.2 FPS, making Ultra an easy recommendation at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra, with an average of 136.2 FPS. This is more than double the playable threshold, so there is no reason to reduce settings. Even the most demanding preset at 1080p leaves enormous headroom. Users with high-refresh-rate displays will benefit from the raw frame rates, and those with standard 60 Hz monitors will experience perfectly smooth gameplay with no risk of drops below the threshold.

The pattern across resolutions is clear: the system can handle Ultra settings at every resolution, with the only borderline case being 4K Ultra at 60.3 FPS. For 1080p and 1440p, Ultra is the obvious choice. For 4K, Ultra works, but users who prioritize consistent frame rates over absolute maximum quality might prefer High, which is essentially identical in performance (60.9 FPS) and likely visually indistinguishable in this game.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Inside at 4K?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160, all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable. The Ultra preset averages 60.3 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium reaches 100.7 FPS, and Low hits 127.9 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset for 1080p?

A: Ultra is the best choice at 1920x1080, delivering an average of 136.2 FPS. This is well above the playable threshold, and no other preset offers a meaningful advantage since even Ultra leaves enormous headroom.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Inside?

A: The combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER ranks 2591 out of 3716 tested combos. This rank reflects the broad database, but the measured frame rates show the system is far more capable than the rank might imply for this specific game.

Q: Which component is more important for Inside at 1440p?

A: The GPU becomes more important as resolution increases. At 2560x1440, the drop from Low (202.3 FPS) to Ultra (96.7 FPS) is driven primarily by GPU workload. The CPU, with its single-thread score of 1674 in Cinebench R23, is not a limiting factor at this resolution.

Q: Are there any settings that fall below 60 FPS?

A: No. Every measured configuration in the database stays at or above 60 FPS. The lowest average is 60.3 FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra, and the highest is 278.8 FPS at 1920x1080 Low. No preset or resolution combination drops below the playable threshold.

Q: What GPU is most similar to the RTX 2060 SUPER in this game?

A: The closest rival in the database is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile, with an average score of 18159 compared to 18093 for the RTX 2060 SUPER, a delta of 0.4%. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is also very close at 18189, just 0.5% higher. Any of these would produce nearly identical frame rates in Inside.