Inside

Inside is a puzzle platformer from 2016 that places minimal stress on modern hardware. The combination of an Intel Core i5-12600KF with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 delivers a benchmark profile that is characterized by overwhelming performance margins at every tested setting. The data shows a system that does not merely run the game but completely saturates high-refresh-rate displays, with the lowest recorded average frame rate still sitting far above the 60 FPS playability threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of 3,716 tested CPU and GPU combinations for Inside, this pairing holds the rank of 1,355. This places it in the upper third of all tested systems, though the ranking flatters the hardware's absolute capabilities less than the raw frame rates might suggest. The rank reflects that Inside is not a demanding title, meaning even substantially weaker hardware can achieve high scores, compressing the performance field.

The combo's position is driven by two components that each sit comfortably in their respective performance brackets. The Intel Core i5-12600KF has a percentile rank of 79 against all CPUs, meaning it outperforms roughly four out of five processors in general compute workloads. Its average benchmark score of 27,799 puts it within a fraction of a percent of its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i9-10900K which trails by just 0.3%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D which is also 0.3% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 holds a percentile rank of 61 against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17,208. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT, is only 0.7% ahead, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 is 1% behind.

What these percentile figures indicate is that the CPU is the stronger component relative to its own market segment. However, for Inside specifically, this asymmetry is irrelevant. The game's rendering load is so light that the GPU becomes the limiting factor only at the highest resolution, and even then, the limits are far beyond what the game's visual complexity demands.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the i5-12600KF and RTX 3070 shifts predictably as resolution scales. At 1920x1080, the CPU's single-thread performance dominates the frame rate ceiling. The data shows a Low preset average of 358.5 FPS, which is 2.3 times higher than the 4K Low average of 169.7 FPS. This scaling pattern indicates that at 1080p, the game's draw calls and physics updates are processed faster than the GPU can rasterize frames, but the GPU still has massive headroom.

Moving to 2560x1440, the balance tips toward the GPU. The Low preset average drops to 273.2 FPS, a 23.8% reduction from 1080p Low, which is roughly proportional to the 77% increase in pixel count. This suggests the GPU is now the primary constraint, but the CPU still has enough throughput to feed it efficiently. The Medium preset at 1440p produces 220 FPS, while High produces 136.7 FPS, showing that the GPU's shading and texture bandwidth become more significant as settings increase.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is unambiguously the bottleneck. The Low preset average of 169.7 FPS is only 37.9% of the 1080p Low result, reflecting the fourfold pixel count increase. The gap between Low and High at 4K is notably smaller than at lower resolutions: High produces 88.2 FPS versus 169.7 FPS for Low, a 48% reduction. This compression of performance between presets at 4K indicates that the RTX 3070's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are being fully utilized, whereas at 1080p, the same settings difference produces a 47.9% gap (186.8 FPS High vs 358.5 FPS Low), showing that the CPU is the limiting factor there.

The Intel Core i5-12600KF's 10 cores and 16 threads, with a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, provide single-thread performance that is more than sufficient for Inside's logic. The RTX 3070's 5,888 shading units and 184 texture mapping units are the decisive factor only at 4K Ultra, where the average of 84.2 FPS still exceeds the playability threshold by 40.3%.

FAQ

Q: Can this system maintain 60 FPS at 4K with all settings maxed?

A: Yes. The Ultra preset at 3840x2160 produces an average of 84.2 FPS, which is 40.3% above the 60 FPS threshold. This is the most demanding configuration tested, and it still clears the playability bar with substantial margin.

Q: What is the difference in performance between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: The Low preset averages 358.5 FPS, while Ultra averages 181.3 FPS. This represents a 49.4% reduction in frame rate when switching from the least to the most demanding preset, yet even the Ultra result is more than triple the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does resolution scaling affect the frame rate at Medium settings?

A: Medium settings show a clear resolution progression: 301.6 FPS at 1920x1080, 220 FPS at 2560x1440, and 136.9 FPS at 3840x2160. The step from 1080p to 1440p reduces performance by 27.1%, while the step from 1440p to 4K reduces it by 37.8%.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more important for this game?

A: At 1080p and 1440p, the CPU's single-thread capability sets the upper ceiling, as evidenced by the large gaps between Low and High presets. At 4K, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck, with the performance gap between presets shrinking as pixel count dominates the rendering load.

Q: What is the best preset to use for a 144Hz monitor at 1440p?

A: The High preset at 2560x1440 averages 136.7 FPS, which is slightly below a 144Hz refresh rate. The Medium preset averages 220 FPS, providing sufficient headroom above 144 FPS. For a locked 144Hz experience, Medium is the safest choice.

Q: Does the system ever drop below 60 FPS in any tested configuration?

A: No. The lowest average frame rate recorded across all resolutions and presets is 84.2 FPS at 4K Ultra. Every other configuration produces an average above 126.8 FPS.

The Verdict

This PC can run Inside at every resolution and preset combination tested, with no configuration falling below the 60 FPS playability threshold. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers 181.3 FPS, making it suitable for high-refresh-rate monitors up to 180Hz. At 2560x1440, Ultra produces 126.8 FPS, comfortably driving a 120Hz display. At 3840x2160, Ultra averages 84.2 FPS, which is perfect for a 60Hz 4K display and even allows for a 75Hz or 80Hz refresh rate.

The verdict is unambiguous: this hardware combination is overkill for Inside. The game's 2016 release date and puzzle platformer genre mean that even the weakest tested setting, 4K Ultra, provides performance that is 40.3% above the target. For users with a 144Hz 1080p monitor, the High preset at 186.8 FPS is the most balanced choice, while those with a 240Hz display could use the Medium preset at 301.6 FPS without any compromise in visual quality.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score are all within a 0.3% delta, meaning they would produce nearly identical frame rates in Inside. The Intel Core i9-10900K, with a delta of -0.3%, would perform indistinguishably from the i5-12600KF in this title. The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, also at -0.3%, offers similar compute throughput, though its 3D V-Cache provides no tangible benefit for a game that does not stress cache bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE, at +0.3%, is a lower-powered option that would still match the i5 in Inside due to the game's modest CPU demands.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is the closest rival at 0.7% ahead, which translates to a frame rate difference of roughly 1-2 FPS in the most demanding scenarios. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 and AMD Radeon HD 7970M are within 1.1% of the RTX 3070's average score, but these are older architectures that lack modern driver optimizations. For Inside specifically, any of these GPUs would deliver playable performance, but the RTX 3070's 8 GB memory buffer and 20.31 TFLOPS of FP32 compute provide more headroom for future titles.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset is the best choice, delivering an average of 84.2 FPS. This is the most demanding configuration available and still maintains a 40.3% margin above 60 FPS. There is no reason to reduce settings at this resolution unless targeting a higher refresh rate, in which case the High preset at 88.2 FPS offers a marginal 4.7% improvement.

At 2560x1440, Ultra produces 126.8 FPS, which is optimal for a 120Hz display. For a 144Hz monitor, the Medium preset at 220 FPS is recommended, as it provides a 52.7% headroom above the refresh rate. The High preset at 136.7 FPS would also work, but it leaves only a 5.1% margin, which could result in visible frame pacing dips.

At 1920x1080, Ultra at 181.3 FPS is suitable for a 180Hz monitor. For a 240Hz display, the Medium preset at 301.6 FPS is the most demanding option that stays above 240 FPS. The High preset at 186.8 FPS is a middle ground, but it lacks the headroom needed for a 240Hz panel.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 358.5 FPS, the Medium preset averages 301.6 FPS, the High preset averages 186.8 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 181.3 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 56.9 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra is only 5.5 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset adds minimal visual cost over High.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 273.2 FPS, Medium averages 220 FPS, High averages 136.7 FPS, and Ultra averages 126.8 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p reduces performance by 23.8% for Low, 27.1% for Medium, 26.8% for High, and 30.1% for Ultra. The larger reduction for Ultra suggests that the additional pixel work disproportionately affects the most demanding settings.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 169.7 FPS, Medium averages 136.9 FPS, High averages 88.2 FPS, and Ultra averages 84.2 FPS. The transition from 1440p to 4K reduces performance by 37.9% for Low, 37.8% for Medium, 35.5% for High, and 33.6% for Ultra. The shrinking percentage gap at higher settings indicates that the GPU is becoming fully saturated, with the Ultra preset's additional effects having less relative impact at 4K than at lower resolutions.