Inside

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data for Inside shows that this combination of components is never stressed to the point of dropping below 60 FPS, even at the highest preset across all three tested resolutions. The most demanding preset that remains at or above 60 FPS is Ultra at every resolution, which is the ceiling of the game's settings menu.

At 1920x1080, Ultra settings produce an average of 176.5 FPS. This is the maximum quality preset, and it clears the 60 FPS threshold by a wide margin. The gap between Ultra and the next step down, High, is relatively small: High averages 179.1 FPS, only 2.6 FPS higher. The scaling from High to Ultra costs just 1.5% of average frame rate, which is a modest penalty for the visual upgrade.

Moving to 2560x1440, Ultra settings still hold an average of 150.6 FPS. This is 25.9 FPS lower than the same preset at 1080p, but the experience remains far beyond playable. The 1440p Ultra result is still 90.6 FPS above the 60 FPS threshold, meaning there is substantial headroom for any additional background processes or future driver overhead.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding resolution in the dataset, Ultra settings deliver an average of 97.1 FPS. This is the lowest average recorded for any preset in the entire dataset, but it still exceeds the playable threshold by 37.1 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is 79.4 FPS lower than the 1080p Ultra figure, showing that 4K imposes a significant load, but the hardware absorbs it without falling below 60 FPS.

The verdict across all resolutions is consistent: Ultra is the best settings preset, and no resolution tested requires lowering quality to maintain smooth gameplay. The database shows that this game is not particularly demanding on the GPU at any of the three resolutions, and the CPU has no trouble feeding frames.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured data reveals an interesting distribution of workload between the Intel Core i5-10400F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080. The game's performance scaling across resolutions and presets indicates that the GPU becomes more relevant as resolution increases, but the CPU still has a measurable influence.

At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra is 58.9 FPS: Low averages 235.4 FPS, while Ultra averages 176.5 FPS. This 25% reduction from the lowest to highest preset suggests that the GPU is handling the increased shading and texture work, but the fact that Low still reaches 235.4 FPS indicates the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at very high frame rates. The gap between Medium and High is smaller: Medium averages 217.4 FPS, High averages 179.1 FPS, and Ultra drops to 176.5 FPS. The step from High to Ultra is only 2.6 FPS, which implies that the Ultra preset adds features that are not heavily taxing the GPU.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern emerges but with lower absolute numbers. Low averages 210 FPS, Medium 191.4 FPS, High 157.3 FPS, and Ultra 150.6 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 59.4 FPS, nearly identical to the 1080p spread of 58.9 FPS. This consistency suggests that the GPU is the primary limiter for preset scaling, since the relative cost of each preset remains stable regardless of resolution.

At 3840x2160, the preset spread widens dramatically. Low averages 179.3 FPS, Medium 156.9 FPS, High 101.3 FPS, and Ultra 97.1 FPS. The gap between High and Medium is now 55.6 FPS, compared to 24.1 FPS at 1440p and 15.7 FPS at 1080p. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU is becoming the dominant factor: the higher resolution multiplies the cost of each preset, especially the jump from Medium to High. The CPU's role diminishes as the GPU becomes the bottleneck at higher pixel counts.

The data suggests that at 1080p, both components are contributing, with the CPU able to push very high frame rates on Low settings. At 1440p, the GPU starts to take more responsibility, and at 4K, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, has enough headroom to avoid becoming the primary constraint in this game, which is a puzzle platformer with relatively lightweight physics and AI demands.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full recorded dataset covers three resolutions and four settings presets, with all results expressed as average FPS. No minimum or maximum FPS values were recorded in the database, so the analysis relies on averages alone.

1920x1080:

• Low: 235.4 FPS
• Medium: 217.4 FPS
• High: 179.1 FPS
• Ultra: 176.5 FPS

The 1080p results show a clear hierarchy: Low is fastest, then Medium, then High, with Ultra nearly tied with High. The difference between Low and Medium is 18 FPS, between Medium and High is 38.3 FPS, and between High and Ultra is only 2.6 FPS. This suggests that the High preset is the point of diminishing returns, with Ultra adding minimal visual improvements at a negligible cost.

2560x1440:

• Low: 210 FPS
• Medium: 191.4 FPS
• High: 157.3 FPS
• Ultra: 150.6 FPS

At 1440p, the same ordering holds. Low to Medium is a drop of 18.6 FPS, Medium to High is 34.1 FPS, and High to Ultra is 6.7 FPS. The High-to-Ultra cost is larger than at 1080p, indicating that Ultra's additional effects scale with resolution. The 1440p Low result of 210 FPS is still very high, showing that the CPU can sustain well over 200 FPS when the GPU has less work to do.

3840x2160:

• Low: 179.3 FPS
• Medium: 156.9 FPS
• High: 101.3 FPS
• Ultra: 97.1 FPS

The 4K results are the most revealing. Low to Medium costs 22.4 FPS, but Medium to High costs 55.6 FPS, a massive jump. High to Ultra costs 4.2 FPS, returning to the small delta seen at lower resolutions. The disproportionate cost of High at 4K suggests that this preset enables some rendering feature that is disproportionately expensive at higher pixel counts, such as more complex lighting or shadow algorithms. The Ultra preset builds on High but adds relatively little overhead.

The overall pattern across all resolutions is that Low and Medium are always far above 60 FPS, High and Ultra are also above 60 FPS at every resolution, and the largest performance cliff occurs between Medium and High at 4K.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database provides nearest rival comparisons for both the CPU and GPU, based on average benchmark scores. These rivals indicate what other hardware would produce broadly similar frame rates in this game.

For the Intel Core i5-10400F, the nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6756E, Intel Core 7 160UL, AMD EPYC 7552, and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C. The Xeon 6756E has an average score 0.2% higher, the Core 7 160UL is 0.3% lower, the EPYC 7552 is 0.5% higher, and the Ryzen 3 7320C is 0.6% lower. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical performance in Inside. The Ryzen 3 7320C being so close is notable, as it suggests that the game does not require high core counts or advanced threading features to maintain its frame rates.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA P106-100, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, AMD Radeon RX 6600M, and AMD Radeon R9 M290X. The P106-100 scores 0.3% higher, the Pro Vega 16 is 0.3% lower, the RX 6600M is 0.4% lower, and the R9 M290X is 0.4% lower. All four rivals are within a fraction of a percent in aggregate benchmark score. While these GPUs differ substantially in architecture and features, their overall benchmark averages are close enough that they would produce similar average FPS in this game. The RX 6600M being a mobile GPU makes it a surprising match, but the data indicates it performs similarly in aggregate.

It is important to note that these rival comparisons are based on average benchmark scores across many workloads, not specifically on Inside. The measured frame rates for this game could vary slightly from these aggregate predictions, but the small deltas suggest that any of these alternatives would keep the game comfortably above 60 FPS at all resolutions and presets.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Inside at 4K with the highest settings?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the recorded average FPS is 97.1, which is 37.1 FPS above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 1440p?

A: Ultra is the best preset at 2560x1440, producing an average of 150.6 FPS. All four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable at this resolution.

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

A: At Ultra settings, the average FPS drops from 176.5 at 1920x1080 to 97.1 at 3840x2160, a reduction of 79.4 FPS. At Low settings, the drop is from 235.4 to 179.3, a reduction of 56.1 FPS.

Q: Which is more important for this game, the CPU or GPU?

A: The data shows that at 1080p, both components contribute, with the CPU able to push very high frame rates. At 4K, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck, as the cost of High settings jumps from 24.1 FPS at 1440p to 55.6 FPS at 4K.

Q: Is there a big difference between High and Ultra settings?

A: No. Across all resolutions, the gap between High and Ultra is small: 2.6 FPS at 1080p, 6.7 FPS at 1440p, and 4.2 FPS at 4K. The larger step is between Medium and High, especially at 4K where it costs 55.6 FPS.

Q: What other CPUs perform similarly to the i5-10400F?

A: The nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6756E (0.2% higher average score), Intel Core 7 160UL (0.3% lower), AMD EPYC 7552 (0.5% higher), and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.6% lower). Any of these would deliver nearly identical frame rates.

Q: What other GPUs perform similarly to the RTX 3080?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA P106-100 (0.3% higher), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (0.3% lower), AMD Radeon RX 6600M (0.4% lower), and AMD Radeon R9 M290X (0.4% lower). These all have aggregate benchmark scores within a fraction of a percent.

The Verdict

The question posed is whether this PC can run Inside, and the recorded data provides a definitive answer: yes, it can run the game at maximum quality across every resolution tested.

The verdict by resolution from the database is unambiguous. At 1920x1080, all four settings presets are playable, with Ultra averaging 176.5 FPS. At 2560x1440, all four presets are also playable, with Ultra averaging 150.6 FPS. At 3840x2160, the highest resolution in the dataset, all four presets remain playable, with Ultra averaging 97.1 FPS. There is no resolution or preset combination in the measured data that falls below the 60 FPS threshold.

The lowest recorded average in the entire dataset is 97.1 FPS, which occurs at 4K Ultra. Even this most demanding scenario leaves 37.1 FPS of headroom above the playable threshold. This means that not only can the PC run the game, it can do so with every graphical option maxed out and still maintain a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

The practical implication is that users of this hardware can enable Ultra settings at any resolution without concern for frame rate dips below playable levels. The game's art style and puzzle platforming mechanics do not appear to stress the hardware in ways that would create sudden frame rate crashes, as evidenced by the consistent averages across all tested configurations.

For users with high refresh rate monitors, the 1080p and 1440p results offer additional flexibility. At 1080p Low, the average of 235.4 FPS could support a 240Hz display, while 1440p Low at 210 FPS could also approach that range. Even at 4K, the Ultra average of 97.1 FPS is sufficient for a 120Hz display, though not for higher refresh rates.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 ranks 1749 out of 3716 tested combos for Inside. This places the configuration in the 47th percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly 53% of tested combinations performed better in this specific game.

This ranking is interesting given the absolute performance levels. The combo delivers 176.5 FPS at 1080p Ultra and 97.1 FPS at 4K Ultra, which are objectively high numbers. Yet the rank shows that many other combos in the database achieve even higher frame rates. This is likely because Inside is not a demanding title, so even mid-range hardware can hit very high FPS, and the ranking is influenced by combos with newer or higher-tier CPUs and GPUs that push frame rates even further.

The CPU's percentile of 68 among all CPUs and the GPU's percentile of 68 among all GPUs indicate that both components are in the upper third of their respective categories. The combo rank of 1749 suggests that while the individual components are strong, the game's low system requirements mean that many other combinations, including those with less powerful GPUs but faster CPUs, can achieve similar or better results.

The gap between the combo's raw performance and its rank highlights that Inside is a game where the GPU is not the limiting factor for most systems. The RTX 3080 is significantly more powerful than necessary for this title, and the ranking reflects that other combos with more balanced or newer hardware can extract even higher frame rates. For the purposes of this analysis, the rank confirms that this is a mid-to-high tier configuration for Inside, capable of max settings at all resolutions, but not at the very top of the database's tested combos.