Inside

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT delivers a thoroughly playable experience in Inside across all tested resolutions and presets. The recorded data shows that even the most demanding configuration at 4K, Ultra settings, maintains an average of 62.9 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playability threshold used in the database. At lower resolutions, the combination produces very high frame rates, with 1080p Low reaching 273.8 FPS average, indicating that this hardware is far from strained by the game’s requirements. The benchmark results position this combination as one that offers substantial headroom for smooth gameplay, regardless of display resolution.

The game itself, a puzzle platformer released in 2016, does not appear to place extreme demands on modern hardware. The measured FPS values across all settings suggest that the CPU and GPU in this pairing are more than adequate for the title. This analysis will break down the exact recorded frame rates, identify the best settings for each resolution, examine the roles of the processor and graphics card, answer common questions, compare similar hardware alternatives, and place this specific combination within the broader database of tested configurations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the Intel Core i5-11400F and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT produce outstanding results. With Low settings, the average frame rate is 273.8 FPS. Moving to Medium settings, the average drops to 236 FPS, still an exceptionally high figure. High settings yield an average of 148.8 FPS, while Ultra settings, the most demanding preset, maintain an average of 136.5 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a reduction of roughly half the frame rate, but every preset remains far above the 60 FPS threshold. The data indicates that at 1080p, this combination is limited more by the game’s engine or the refresh rate of the display than by hardware capability.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds, though the frame rates are lower than at 1080p, as expected. Low settings produce an average of 212.2 FPS. Medium settings average 166.1 FPS. High settings average 103.8 FPS. Ultra settings average 100.8 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is small, only 3 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds little extra cost in performance. All values remain comfortably above 60 FPS, and even the most demanding setting keeps the average above 100 FPS, which is a strong result for a 1440p display.

At 3840x2160, the resolution with the highest pixel count, the frame rates remain playable across all presets. Low settings average 133.8 FPS. Medium settings average 106.4 FPS. High settings average 68.8 FPS. Ultra settings average 62.9 FPS. This is the only resolution where the Ultra preset falls close to the playability threshold, but it still stays above it. The drop from High to Ultra at 4K is about 6 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High is much larger, about 37.6 FPS. This suggests that the High to Ultra transition at 4K is relatively gentle, whereas the Medium to High step requires noticeably more graphics processing.

The database records no minimum or maximum FPS values for any of the tested configurations, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates. The absence of minimum frame rate data means that potential stutters or frame time spikes are not captured in these measurements. However, given the high averages across the board, any dips would likely still remain within playable territory. The recorded data provides a clear picture: this hardware combination never falls below 60 FPS average in any scenario tested.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra, with an average of 136.5 FPS. This is the most demanding preset available, and it still produces a frame rate more than double the playability threshold. There is no reason to reduce settings at this resolution, as even the heaviest load leaves substantial performance headroom. Users with high refresh rate monitors, such as 144 Hz or higher, would benefit from the higher frame rates of Medium or Low settings, but the Ultra preset remains the best choice for maximum visual quality while maintaining smooth gameplay.

For 2560x1440, the best settings are also Ultra, with an average of 100.8 FPS. This result stays well above 60 FPS, providing a comfortable margin for consistent frame delivery. The difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is minimal, so selecting Ultra does not carry a significant performance penalty. The data supports Ultra as the recommended preset for 1440p, as it offers the highest visual fidelity without compromising the playable frame rate.

For 3840x2160, the best settings are Ultra, with an average of 62.9 FPS. This is the only scenario where the average frame rate sits close to the 60 FPS threshold, but it remains above it. The database records Ultra as the best playable setting at 4K, meaning that even the most demanding configuration passes the playability check. High settings would provide a more comfortable margin at 68.8 FPS, but for users prioritizing visual quality, Ultra is viable. The recorded verdict lists all four presets, Low, Medium, High, and Ultra, as playable at 4K, which is a notable achievement for this hardware pairing.

Across all three resolutions, the best settings are consistently Ultra. The frame rates at Ultra range from 62.9 FPS at 4K to 136.5 FPS at 1080p, demonstrating that this combination can handle maximum settings at every resolution tested. The playability threshold of 60 FPS is never breached, even in the most stressful condition. This makes the choice of settings straightforward: use Ultra everywhere, and the game will run smoothly.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data from the benchmark results indicates that the resolution scaling has a substantial effect on frame rates, which points to the GPU being the primary performance driver in this game. Comparing 1080p Ultra at 136.5 FPS to 4K Ultra at 62.9 FPS, the frame rate drops by more than half when the pixel count increases fourfold. This steep decline with resolution is typical of a graphics-bound workload, where the GPU’s rendering capacity becomes the limiting factor. The CPU, an Intel Core i5-11400F with 6 cores and 12 threads, appears to have enough processing power to feed the GPU at lower resolutions, but the frame rates do not scale linearly with resolution, confirming that the Radeon RX 7600 XT is the bottleneck at higher pixel counts.

The difference between Low and Ultra settings further illustrates the GPU’s role. At 1080p, Low settings average 273.8 FPS, while Ultra averages 136.5 FPS, a reduction of about 50%. At 4K, Low averages 133.8 FPS, while Ultra averages 62.9 FPS, also roughly a 53% reduction. The proportional impact of settings is similar across resolutions, which suggests that the GPU is consistently the component responding to changes in graphical load. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the relative drop from Low to Ultra would likely be less pronounced at higher resolutions, where the GPU is already under more strain.

However, the CPU still plays a role. The i5-11400F has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz and a solid multi-threaded benchmark score, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14340. In a game like Inside, which is not known for heavy CPU demands, this processor provides ample headroom. The data shows that even at 1080p Low, where the CPU would be most likely to bottleneck due to the extremely high frame rates, the average of 273.8 FPS indicates no severe limitation. The CPU’s single-thread performance, with a Geekbench single-core score of 1777, is sufficient for the game’s logic and physics.

At 1440p, the balance shifts further toward the GPU. The frame rates at 1440p are roughly 74% of the 1080p values for each preset, which is consistent with the increased pixel count. The GPU, with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 2048 shading units, handles the load effectively. The 4K results, while lower, still demonstrate that the GPU has enough capability to keep the game playable. In summary, the benchmark data indicates that the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is the dominant factor in determining frame rates, especially at higher resolutions and settings, while the Intel Core i5-11400F provides sufficient processing power to avoid becoming a significant constraint.

FAQ

Q: Can this combination run Inside at 4K with maximum settings?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows an average of 62.9 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, which is above the 60 FPS playability threshold. All four presets, Low, Medium, High, and Ultra, are listed as playable at this resolution.

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this hardware?

A: The highest average frame rate is 273.8 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the fastest result among all tested configurations.

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

A: At 1080p Ultra, the average is 136.5 FPS. At 4K Ultra, the average is 62.9 FPS. This represents a reduction of about 73.6 FPS, or roughly 54%, when the resolution increases to 4K.

Q: Is the Ultra preset at 1440p worth using over High?

A: The data shows a small difference. High settings at 1440p average 103.8 FPS, while Ultra averages 100.8 FPS, a difference of only 3 FPS. Since both remain well above 60 FPS, Ultra is recommended for better visual quality with negligible performance cost.

Q: Does the game ever drop below 60 FPS average with this hardware?

A: No. Across all resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and all settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), the lowest recorded average is 62.9 FPS at 4K Ultra. Every tested scenario stays at or above the playability threshold.

Q: Which component has a larger impact on performance in this game?

A: The GPU appears to have the larger impact. The frame rates drop significantly as resolution increases, from 136.5 FPS at 1080p Ultra to 62.9 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is typical of graphics-bound workloads. The CPU, an Intel Core i5-11400F, provides enough performance to avoid bottlenecking, as shown by the high frame rates even at low settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-11400F, the CPU benchmark scores are very close. The AMD EPYC 7H12 has an average score of 17120, which is 0.3% higher than the i5-11400F’s average score of 17177. The Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239, 0.4% higher. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, 0.6% higher. The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U scores 17074, 0.6% lower. These deltas are all within a narrow band, meaning that any of these processors would likely produce very similar frame rates in Inside when paired with the same GPU. The differences are small enough that they would not be noticeable in gameplay, as the game is not particularly CPU-intensive.

For the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT, the nearest GPU rivals also show minimal performance differences. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 has an average score of 17037, which is 0.3% lower than the RX 7600 XT’s average of 17083. The AMD Radeon HD 7970M scores 17019, 0.4% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 scores 17208, 0.7% higher. The NVIDIA Tesla M4 scores 16932, 0.9% lower. These small deltas suggest that swapping the RX 7600 XT for any of these GPUs would yield similar performance in this game. It is importantly some of these alternatives, such as the GTX 690, are much older designs, but the benchmark scores indicate comparable average performance for this specific workload.

The practical implication is that users with any of these nearby CPUs or GPUs can expect a similar experience in Inside. The frame rates would hover around the same values recorded for the i5-11400F and RX 7600 XT combination. Since the game runs well above 60 FPS at all tested settings, even a small performance drop from one of these alternatives would not push the frame rate below the playable threshold. The data suggests that the game’s performance is robust across a range of hardware, and this specific pairing sits comfortably within a cluster of similarly performing components.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-11400F and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT combination ranks 2416 out of 3716 tested combos in Inside, placing it in the lower half of the database. This rank might seem surprising given the high frame rates, but it reflects the fact that many other hardware combinations in the database are significantly more powerful. The rank is determined by the combo’s overall performance relative to all other tested pairs, and Inside is a game that runs well on a wide range of hardware. Many high-end CPUs and GPUs will produce frame rates far above what this combination achieves, especially at lower resolutions where the CPU or GPU can push hundreds of frames per second.

The percentile data supports this view. The CPU sits in the 71st percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms 71% of tested processors. The GPU is in the 60th percentile among all GPUs. However, the combo rank of 2416 out of 3716 corresponds to roughly the 35th percentile among combos, which indicates that many tested combinations pair higher-tier components together. The game’s low requirements mean that even mid-range hardware achieves playable results, but the combo rank still places this pairing below a majority of tested configurations.

Despite the rank, the actual gameplay experience is excellent. The frame rates recorded are all above 60 FPS, and the best settings at every resolution are Ultra. The rank reflects the relative standing in the database, not the absolute playability. For a puzzle platformer like Inside, the high frame rates at 4K Ultra are more relevant to the user experience than the percentile rank. The data confirms that this combination is fully capable of running the game at maximum settings with smooth performance, and the rank simply shows that there are faster combinations available in the database.