Inside

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded data shows this combo is comfortably fast across every preset. Low settings deliver an average of 233.1 FPS, Medium reaches 216.4 FPS, High sits at 147.1 FPS, and Ultra drops to 139.3 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is roughly 94 FPS, which indicates that the GPU still has headroom even when the visual load is maximized. The jump from Medium to High is steep, a loss of about 69 FPS, suggesting that High introduces a significant rendering cost compared to Medium. Still, every preset clears the 60 FPS threshold by a wide margin.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern remains strong but the margins tighten. Low averages 211 FPS, Medium 165.3 FPS, High 106.5 FPS, and Ultra 101.4 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra here is only about 5 FPS, which is a small penalty for the extra quality settings. The drop from Medium to High is again the largest single-step decline, about 59 FPS. At this resolution, even Ultra stays well above 100 FPS, so the system is not being pushed to its limit.

At 3840x2160, the data becomes more interesting. Low still averages 129.8 FPS, and Medium holds at 104.6 FPS. High and Ultra are nearly identical: 63.5 FPS and 63.6 FPS respectively. That is a remarkably small difference, only 0.1 FPS, which implies that the Ultra preset at 4K does not add meaningful extra load over High for this game. Both sit just above the 60 FPS playable threshold. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is harsh: Ultra drops from 101.4 FPS to 63.6 FPS, a reduction of about 37%. Low drops from 211 FPS to 129.8 FPS, a 38% reduction. The GPU is clearly the limiting factor at 4K, but the game remains playable on the highest preset.

One notable observation is the absence of min and max FPS values in the recorded data. Only averages are available, so frame-time stability cannot be assessed directly. However, the average values are high enough that even occasional dips would likely stay above 60 FPS at most settings. At 4K Ultra, the average of 63.6 FPS leaves only 3.6 FPS of headroom, so transient drops could potentially cross below the threshold. The data does not confirm this, but the margin is slim.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Inside at 4K?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows all four presets at 3840x2160 average above 60 FPS. High averages 63.5 FPS, Low 129.8 FPS, Medium 104.6 FPS, and Ultra 63.6 FPS. Ultra is the best playable preset at this resolution.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p?

A: Ultra is playable and averages 101.4 FPS at 2560x1440. That is the most demanding preset that stays above 60 FPS, so it is recommended if visual quality is the priority.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: At Ultra settings, the average drops from 139.3 FPS at 1920x1080 to 63.6 FPS at 3840x2160, a reduction of about 75.7 FPS. At Low settings, the drop is from 233.1 FPS to 129.8 FPS, a reduction of about 103.3 FPS. The relative loss is larger at lower presets.

Q: Is the RX 6650 XT or the i5-10400F more important for this game?

A: The scaling between resolutions suggests the GPU dominates. At 1080p Ultra, the CPU has enough headroom to deliver 139.3 FPS. At 4K Ultra, the same CPU still allows 63.6 FPS, but the GPU's workload increases significantly. The CPU is not the bottleneck at any resolution.

Q: Does Ultra differ much from High at 4K?

A: No. The measured averages are 63.5 FPS for High and 63.6 FPS for Ultra at 3840x2160, a difference of only 0.1 FPS. This suggests Ultra adds negligible extra cost over High at this resolution.

Q: What is the combo's overall rank among tested systems?

A: This combo ranks 2664 out of 3716 tested combinations, placing it in the lower half of the database. The percentile for the CPU is 68, and for the GPU it is 65, but the game's low system requirements mean the rank does not reflect its actual playability.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data shows a clear pattern: the GPU is the primary driver of performance in Inside, and the CPU is rarely a limiting factor. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra is about 94 FPS, which is a GPU-bound scaling. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the gap between presets would be much smaller, as the CPU would cap the frame rate regardless of graphical load. Instead, the frame rate drops consistently as resolution and settings increase, which points to the GPU doing the heavy lifting.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds. The step from Medium to High costs about 59 FPS, while the step from High to Ultra costs only about 5 FPS. This suggests that the High preset introduces a new GPU-intensive effect that Ultra does not significantly extend. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are more than enough for this puzzle platformer, which does not appear to demand high thread counts based on the frame rate stability across resolutions.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the dominant constraint. Ultra averages 63.6 FPS, only 3.6 FPS above the playable threshold. The CPU's single-thread performance, as measured by a 3dmark single-thread score of 688, is sufficient to feed the GPU even at 4K. If the CPU were weak, the 4K frame rate would not scale so directly with GPU load. The fact that Low at 4K reaches 129.8 FPS while High drops to 63.5 FPS shows that the GPU's fill rate and shading power are the deciding factors.

The resolution scaling is informative. From 1080p Ultra to 1440p Ultra, the average drops from 139.3 to 101.4, a 27% reduction. From 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra, it drops from 101.4 to 63.6, a 37% reduction. These are consistent with GPU-bound behavior, where the pixel count grows faster than the GPU's ability to process it. The CPU's role is to provide a stable base, and the benchmark scores support that: the i5-10400F has a passmark multithread score of 12115 and a single-thread score of 2541, both adequate for a game of this scope. The GPU's passmark g3d score of 17166 is the more relevant metric for frame rate scaling.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2664 out of 3716 tested combinations, which places it in the 28th percentile from the bottom. This sounds low, but it is important to interpret the rank in context. The database includes many high-end systems with much stronger GPUs and CPUs, so a mid-range combo from 2020 and 2022 will naturally sit lower. However, the game's playability is not determined by rank alone. The verdict data shows that this combo runs the game at 60+ FPS on every preset at every resolution, which is the relevant metric for a user.

The CPU's percentileVsAllCpus is 68, meaning it is above 68% of all CPUs in the database. The GPU's percentileVsAllGpus is 65, above 65% of all GPUs. These are solid mid-range positions. The combo rank is lower because it is compared against all combinations, many of which pair high-end CPUs with high-end GPUs. For a game like Inside, which is a 2D puzzle platformer with modest graphical requirements, the combo's actual performance is far better than its rank suggests. The rank tells you about the hardware tier, not the gaming experience.

The nearest rivals for the CPU are all within 0.6% of its average benchmark score. The Intel Xeon 6756E is 0.2% ahead, the Intel Core 7 160UL is 0.3% behind, the AMD EPYC 7552 is 0.5% ahead, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C is 0.6% behind. These are negligible differences, meaning any of these CPUs would perform nearly identically in Inside. The GPU's rivals are similarly close: the NVIDIA Tesla K40m is 0.6% behind, the AMD FirePro D300 is 0.7% ahead, the AMD FirePro W7000 is 0.7% behind, and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is 0.8% ahead. Again, these differences are within noise for a game that runs at hundreds of FPS at lower resolutions.

Similar Performance Alternatives

If a user has a system with a CPU that benchmarks similarly to the i5-10400F, the gaming experience in Inside would be nearly identical. The Intel Xeon 6756E, Intel Core 7 160UL, AMD EPYC 7552, and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C all score within 0.6% of the i5-10400F's average benchmark score of 14185. Any of these would provide the same level of CPU headroom. For a game that is GPU-bound, the CPU choice matters less, but these alternatives would not cause a noticeable difference in frame rates.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT has an average benchmark score of 19765. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (0.6% behind), AMD FirePro D300 (0.7% ahead), AMD FirePro W7000 (0.7% behind), and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (0.8% ahead). These are all older workstation cards, but their benchmark scores are close enough that they would produce similar frame rates in Inside. However, the RX 6650 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and a memory bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s, which may give it an advantage in texture-heavy scenes. The benchmark scores alone do not capture memory behavior, so the rivals might not scale exactly the same at 4K.

The practical takeaway is that the CPU is not a differentiator for this game. Any CPU with a similar average benchmark score would behave the same. The GPU is more important, but even the closest rivals, like the Tesla K40m or Quadro K5200, would likely keep the game above 60 FPS at 1080p and 1440p. At 4K, the RX 6650 XT's 63.6 FPS average on Ultra leaves little room for error, and a GPU with a lower score might dip below the threshold. The FirePro D300, being 0.7% ahead, would be a safer alternative if it had similar memory bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: this PC can run Inside. The verdictByResolution data lists all settings as playable at all three tested resolutions. At 1920x1080, the lowest average is 139.3 FPS on Ultra, which is more than double the playable threshold of 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 101.4 FPS, still well above the threshold. At 3840x2160, Ultra averages 63.6 FPS, which clears 60 FPS but with only a 3.6 FPS margin. High at 4K averages 63.5 FPS, essentially identical.

The weakest point is 4K Ultra, where the margin is slim. The recorded data does not include min FPS values, so it is impossible to know if frame times occasionally dip below 60 FPS. Given the average of 63.6 FPS, any transient spike in rendering complexity could push the frame rate lower. Users who are sensitive to frame pacing might prefer High at 4K, but the averages for High and Ultra are nearly the same, so there is no practical difference. For a puzzle platformer, the frame rate is already high enough for smooth gameplay, and the game's art style does not require high refresh rates to be enjoyable.

At 1080p and 1440p, the system has massive headroom. Even Ultra at 1440p leaves over 40 FPS of margin above the threshold. The CPU and GPU are both well above the minimum requirements for this game, based on the benchmark scores and measured frame rates. The verdict is clear: this combo can run the game at maximum settings at every resolution, and the only caveat is the thin margin at 4K Ultra.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the best setting is Ultra, which averages 139.3 FPS. Since the playable threshold is 60 FPS, Ultra is not only playable but also leaves a large margin. There is no reason to lower the preset at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Ultra is also the best setting, averaging 101.4 FPS. The margin over 60 FPS is 41.4 FPS, which is comfortable. The visual quality gain from Ultra over High is worth the small performance cost, since High averages 106.5 FPS, only 5.1 FPS more.

At 3840x2160, Ultra remains the best playable setting, averaging 63.6 FPS. This is just 3.6 FPS above the threshold. High averages 63.5 FPS, which is effectively the same. Medium averages 104.6 FPS, so if a user prefers a larger safety margin, Medium is a strong alternative. However, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 63.6 FPS.

The recommendation is to run Ultra at all resolutions, but at 4K, users should be aware that the margin is small. Medium at 4K offers 104.6 FPS, which is a more comfortable experience if frame rate stability is a concern. For the absolute highest quality, Ultra is playable, but the data suggests that High and Ultra are nearly indistinguishable in performance at 4K, so choosing either is a matter of personal preference.