Inside

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Inside at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the system clears 60 FPS only on the Low preset, where it averages 64 FPS. Medium averages 51 FPS with a minimum of 43 and a maximum of 59, while High averages 32 FPS and Ultra averages 30 FPS. So 4K is playable but only with the lowest visual settings.

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

A: At 2560x1440, both Low and Medium presets exceed 60 FPS. The best playable setting is Medium, which delivers an average of 81 FPS, with a minimum of 69 and a maximum of 93. High drops to 51 FPS average, and Ultra to 48 FPS.

Q: Does the system hit 60 FPS at 1080p on all presets?

A: Yes. Every preset at 1920x1080 averages above the 60 FPS threshold: Low at 141 FPS, Medium at 113 FPS (minimum 96, maximum 130), High at 70 FPS, and Ultra at 67 FPS. The best preset for 1080p is Ultra, with an average of 67 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in general benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600K has an average benchmark score of 48618, placing it in the 90th percentile among all tested CPUs. Its closest rival, the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, scores 48698, which is 0.2% higher. The AMD EPYC 4345P scores 48470, 0.3% lower, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 48995, 0.8% higher.

Q: How does the GPU rank compared to other graphics hardware?

A: The Intel Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its nearest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186 (0.2% higher), while the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168 (1.4% lower).

Q: Which component is more important for this game at 1080p?

A: The data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher presets. At 1080p, the CPU is strong enough to push Low to 141 FPS, but Ultra drops to 67 FPS, a 52% reduction. This gap suggests the graphics card, which ranks in the 5th percentile, constrains performance at higher quality settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-14600K sits in a tight cluster of comparable processors based on average benchmark scores. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318H is the nearest match, with a score of 48698 against the i5-14600K's 48618, a difference of only 0.2%. The AMD EPYC 4345P trails by 0.3% at 48470, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX is 0.7% behind at 48287. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 leads the group by 0.8% with 48995. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, so any of these processors would deliver nearly identical frame pacing in Inside, assuming the same GPU and settings. The i5-14600K's 14 cores and 20 threads, with a 5.30 GHz boost clock, place it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, so it is far more capable than what this game requires.

On the graphics side, the Intel Arc B370 is an integrated part of the Panther Lake platform, using system-shared memory and drawing only 25 W. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 puts it in the 5th percentile, which is extremely low for modern gaming. The nearest rivals are all older or lower-end parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186 (0.2% higher), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% higher). The AMD FirePro M2000 is 1.4% lower at 1168. These differences are negligible, so a system with any of these GPUs would behave almost identically in Inside, meaning all of them would struggle with higher resolutions and presets.

Given the CPU's high percentile and the GPU's low percentile, the practical takeaway is that the processor is not the bottleneck. Any of the rival CPUs listed would produce the same FPS numbers for this game because the graphics card caps performance. Conversely, swapping the Arc B370 for one of its rival GPUs would change little, since the deltas are all under 1.5%. The combination behaves like a very strong CPU paired with a very weak integrated GPU, which is exactly what the data shows.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates. With Low settings, the average is 141 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 113 FPS, with a minimum of 96 and a maximum of 130. High settings average 70 FPS, and Ultra settings average 67 FPS. All four presets exceed the 60 FPS playable threshold, and even the lowest recorded minimum (96 FPS on Medium) stays well above it. The jump from Low to Medium costs 28 FPS (20% lower), while the jump from Medium to High costs 43 FPS (38% lower). The gap between High and Ultra is only 3 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds little additional load over High.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates drop noticeably. Low settings average 101 FPS, which is still comfortable. Medium settings average 81 FPS, with a minimum of 69 and a maximum of 93, so the worst-case frame time remains above 60 FPS. High settings fall to 51 FPS average, which is below the playable threshold, and Ultra drops to 48 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is steep: Low goes from 141 to 101 FPS (28% lower), Medium from 113 to 81 (28% lower), High from 70 to 51 (27% lower), and Ultra from 67 to 48 (28% lower). This consistent ~28% reduction across all presets indicates that resolution scaling is uniform and primarily GPU-bound.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings remain playable, with an average of 64 FPS. Medium averages 51 FPS, with a minimum of 43 and a maximum of 59, so it never reaches 60. High averages 32 FPS, and Ultra averages 30 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K is severe: Low goes from 101 to 64 FPS (37% lower), Medium from 81 to 51 (37% lower), High from 51 to 32 (37% lower), and Ultra from 48 to 30 (37% lower). Again, the scaling is nearly identical across presets, confirming that the GPU is the dominant factor at every resolution.

The minimum and maximum FPS data is only recorded for Medium settings. At 1080p Medium, the range is 96 to 130, which is a 34 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range is 69 to 93, a 24 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 43 to 59, a 16 FPS spread. The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that frame time variance decreases as the GPU becomes more saturated, but the average also drops.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Inside? The answer depends entirely on the resolution and preset. At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS on every preset, including Ultra. The best 1080p setting is Ultra, which averages 67 FPS. This is the only resolution where the player can max out the game and still stay above the playable threshold. At 2560x1440, the system is playable on Low (101 FPS) and Medium (81 FPS). The best 1440p setting is Medium, with an average of 81 FPS and a minimum of 69, so even the lowest recorded frame stays above 60. High (51 FPS) and Ultra (48 FPS) are not playable at 1440p. At 3840x2160, the only playable setting is Low, which averages 64 FPS. Medium (51 FPS), High (32 FPS), and Ultra (30 FPS) all fall short of the 60 FPS threshold.

The verdict is clear: this is a 1080p machine for Inside, with 1440p possible if the player accepts Medium settings. 4K is technically playable but only on the lowest quality preset, and the margin above 60 FPS is thin (64 FPS average). For a puzzle platformer with relatively simple visuals, the Low preset at 4K may be acceptable, but the data shows that the system is most comfortable at 1080p Ultra. The 67 FPS average at 1080p Ultra is just above the threshold, so there is little headroom for background tasks or frame time spikes, but the recorded data does not show any dips below 60 FPS for that preset.

In practical terms, players with a 1080p monitor can run the game at maximum settings. Players with a 1440p monitor should use Medium. Players with a 4K monitor should use Low or consider lowering the resolution. The system never fails to run the game, but it cannot maintain high visual quality at higher resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a strong asymmetry between the CPU and GPU for Inside. The Intel Core i5-14600K ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24491 and a single-core score of 2064. Its Geekbench single-core score is 2491. These numbers indicate a very capable processor for any game. The Intel Arc B370, conversely, ranks in the 5th percentile of GPUs, with a single 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184. This is an extreme disparity, and the measured FPS reflects it.

At 1080p, the CPU is clearly not the bottleneck. Low settings produce 141 FPS, which is a high frame rate for any game. The drop to Ultra (67 FPS) is a 52% reduction, and this drop occurs even though the CPU workload does not change significantly between presets. The GPU is responsible for the difference. At 1440p, the same pattern holds: Low at 101 FPS, Ultra at 48 FPS, a 52% reduction. At 4K, Low at 64 FPS, Ultra at 30 FPS, a 53% reduction. The consistency of this ~52-53% drop across all resolutions points directly to the GPU's shading units, TMUs, and ROPs being the limiting factor.

The resolution scaling further confirms the GPU's role. From 1080p to 1440p, every preset drops by roughly 28%. From 1440p to 4K, every preset drops by roughly 37%. These are pixel-count scaling factors: 1440p has 78% more pixels than 1080p, and 4K has 125% more pixels than 1440p. The FPS drops are smaller than the pixel increases, which suggests that the game is not purely fill-rate bound, but the trend is unmistakable. A stronger CPU would not change these numbers because the GPU is already saturated.

The CPU's role is only visible at the lowest settings and resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system hits 141 FPS, which is likely near the CPU's single-thread limit for this game. The i5-14600K's single-core Cinebench R23 score of 2064 and Geekbench single-core score of 2491 are high, so the CPU can handle high frame rates, but the GPU cannot keep up beyond Low settings. In summary, the GPU dictates performance at all resolutions and presets above Low. The CPU is more than sufficient and would not need an upgrade for this game, but the GPU must be reduced in workload to achieve playable frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested hardware combinations for Inside, this pairing of the Intel Core i5-14600K and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3422 out of 3716 total combos. That places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems for this game. The low rank is almost entirely due to the GPU, which sits in the 5th percentile globally. The CPU, by contrast, is in the 90th percentile, so the combination is a classic mismatch: a top-tier processor paired with a bottom-tier graphics solution.

The rank of 3422 means that the vast majority of other tested combinations deliver higher frame rates in Inside. However, the rank does not tell the whole story. For a game like Inside, which is a side-scrolling puzzle platformer rather than a fast-paced shooter, the playable threshold of 60 FPS is still achievable at 1080p on all presets and at 1440p on Medium. The system is not competitive with dedicated GPUs, but it is functional for this specific title. The rank reflects the GPU's overall weakness, not a failure to run the game.

Compared to other combos, the i5-14600K's high CPU score does not boost the rank because the GPU holds the system back. The nearest rival GPUs, such as the ATI Radeon HD 5770 or AMD Radeon HD 7650M, would produce nearly identical results, and those are also low-ranking parts. The data indicates that any system with a GPU in this performance class will land in the bottom segment of the rankings for Inside. The CPU's 90th percentile score is irrelevant once the GPU becomes the bottleneck, which happens at every resolution above 1080p Low.

In summary, this combo ranks poorly overall, but it still meets the playable threshold at common resolutions. The rank is a reflection of the GPU's extreme weakness relative to the rest of the hardware landscape, and it should be interpreted as a warning to potential buyers: this system is not designed for modern gaming at high settings, even though it can run Inside at 1080p Ultra with an average of 67 FPS. The 3422nd place out of 3716 combos places it just above the bottom 300 systems, and those systems likely feature even older or more limited GPUs. For this specific game, the combo is playable, but barely, and only with careful attention to resolution and quality settings.