Inside

The Intel Core i5-14600KF paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is a remarkably strong combination for Inside, a game that places far more weight on the graphics card than the processor. In the database of tested hardware combos for this title, this pairing sits at rank 2377 out of 3716, placing it in the upper third of all systems tested. That rank reflects the GPU's 60th percentile standing among all graphics cards and the CPU's 90th percentile among all processors, but the actual frame rates suggest the pairing performs even better than its raw rank implies, particularly because the game is light enough to let the RX 7600 XT stretch its legs.

How This Combo Ranks

With a combo rank of 2377 out of 3716 tested configurations, this system falls just above the 36th percentile of all tested combos in Inside. While that number might sound mid-pack, the actual measured performance tells a different story: the combination clears 60 FPS at every preset and every resolution tested, including 4K Ultra. The ranking is skewed by the fact that the database includes many high-end enthusiast builds with far more expensive components, but for the specific task of running Inside, this combo is effectively overkill at 1080p and 1440p, and perfectly capable at 4K. The CPU's average benchmark score of 49394 places it within 0.8% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 and 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, meaning the processor is never the bottleneck here. The GPU's average score of 17083 puts it within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, which is the closest real competitor in terms of raw compute. For a game like Inside, which is a side-scrolling puzzle platformer with modest geometry, the gap between this combo's rank and its actual playability is substantial — the rank reflects a broad hardware spectrum, while the measured FPS reflects a game that simply does not demand much from either component.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows a clear pattern: the RX 7600 XT is the dominant component in this pairing, and the i5-14600KF is essentially idle headroom. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo delivers 289.5 FPS, which is more than four times the 60 FPS playable threshold. Dropping the resolution from 1440p to 1080p at High settings increases average FPS from 104.1 to 145.0, a 39.3% gain that is entirely attributable to the GPU having fewer pixels to render. The CPU's role is minimal because Inside is not a CPU-intensive title; the i5-14600KF's single-core Cinebench R23 score of 4594 and multi-core score of 32544 are far beyond what this game requires. The scaling between resolutions is the key tell: from 4K to 1440p at High settings, FPS jumps from 65.5 to 104.1 (a 58.9% increase), and from 1440p to 1080p it jumps another 39.3%. This is textbook GPU-bound behavior — the CPU is not limiting performance at any resolution, and the frame rate scales almost linearly with pixel count. The GPU's 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are also more than sufficient for Inside's art style, which uses simple textures and flat shading. At 4K Ultra, the combo still manages 63.9 FPS, which means even the most demanding preset at the highest resolution leaves the GPU with headroom; the CPU's 14 cores and 20 threads are simply never taxed.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for both components provides useful context for what else would behave similarly. On the CPU side, the i5-14600KF's average benchmark score of 49394 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, which scores 49228 (a 0.3% difference). The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G scores 49196 (0.4% away), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 48995 (0.8% away). Any of these processors would deliver virtually identical frame rates in Inside because the game is not CPU-limited; the i5-14600KF's 24 MB of L3 cache and 5.30 GHz boost clock are irrelevant when the GPU is doing all the heavy lifting. On the GPU side, the RX 7600 XT's average score of 17083 is within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (17208), and within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17019). The RTX 3070 is the most relevant comparison in practice — it would deliver nearly identical frame rates in this game, though it has only 8 GB of VRAM compared to the RX 7600 XT's 16 GB. The other two rivals (GTX 690 and HD 7970M) are older architectures that would likely struggle with driver support but would theoretically produce similar average FPS in this specific title. For a builder considering alternatives, swapping the CPU to a Ryzen 9 7900 or the GPU to an RTX 3070 would change the measured FPS by less than one frame per second in every scenario.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can absolutely run Inside — and it does so with substantial margin at every resolution and preset combination. The verdict data is unambiguous: at 3840x2160, all four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are listed as playable, with Ultra averaging 63.9 FPS. At 2560x1440, all four settings are playable, with Ultra averaging 102.3 FPS. At 1920x1080, all four settings are playable, with Ultra averaging 138.7 FPS. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the lowest recorded average across the entire test matrix is 63.9 FPS at 4K Ultra. This means the system never dips below the playable threshold in any tested configuration. The 4K Ultra result of 63.9 FPS is worth highlighting: it is just barely above 60 FPS, so there is little headroom for future patches or background processes, but as measured, it clears the bar. At 1440p and below, the margin is enormous — even 1440p Ultra is 102.3 FPS, which is 70% above the threshold. For a game like Inside, which has no competitive multiplayer component, these frame rates are more than sufficient for smooth, responsive gameplay. The only caveat is that the data shows average FPS only, with no minimum or maximum values reported, so there is no way to assess frame time consistency or 1% lows from this dataset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four quality presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), with only average FPS recorded — no minimum or maximum values are available. At 1920x1080, the lowest average is 138.7 FPS at Ultra, followed by 145.0 at High, 234.4 at Medium, and 289.5 at Low. The jump from High to Medium is particularly large (89.4 FPS), indicating that the High preset introduces a significant graphical cost relative to Medium. At 2560x1440, the averages are 102.3 at Ultra, 104.1 at High, 169.8 at Medium, and 212.3 at Low. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 1.8 FPS at this resolution, suggesting that Ultra is only marginally more demanding than High. At 3840x2160, the averages are 63.9 at Ultra, 65.5 at High, 105.6 at Medium, and 130.1 at Low. The 4K Ultra result is the only one in the entire matrix that is close to the 60 FPS threshold, while 4K High is 5.5% above it. Across all resolutions, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, with 4K Medium hitting 105.6 FPS — 76% above the threshold. The data shows consistent scaling: moving from Low to Medium costs roughly half the FPS, moving from Medium to High costs another 30-40%, and moving from High to Ultra costs only 1-2% at 1440p and 4K, but a full 4.4% at 1080p (from 145.0 to 138.7).

Best Settings per Resolution

At each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, and the exact FPS at that setting varies by resolution. At 3840x2160, Ultra averages 63.9 FPS — this is the best visual quality available in the game, and it barely clears the playable threshold. For players who want a safety margin at 4K, High is a better choice at 65.5 FPS, but the data confirms Ultra is technically playable. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 102.3 FPS, which is 70% above the threshold and leaves ample room for any frame rate fluctuations. This is the sweet spot for this combo: 1440p Ultra delivers near-4K visual fidelity in a side-scrolling game while maintaining triple-digit frame rates. At 1920x1080, Ultra averages 138.7 FPS, which is more than double the threshold and well into high-refresh-rate territory. For a 144 Hz monitor, this combo at 1080p Ultra would be perfectly matched. The practical advice is straightforward: at 1080p and 1440p, enable Ultra without hesitation; at 4K, Ultra is playable but only just, so High is the safer recommendation for consistent performance. The data does not include any minimum FPS values, so it is impossible to know whether 4K Ultra experiences any dips below 60 FPS during intense scenes, but the average of 63.9 suggests there is very little headroom.