Inside

Inside is a 2D puzzle platformer that places far more emphasis on atmosphere and logic than on raw graphical horsepower. However, the database records show that the combination of an Intel Core i5-14600KF and a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 produces a wide range of frame rates depending on resolution and quality preset. The data indicates that this pairing is more than capable of delivering a smooth experience at standard 1080p displays, and even at 1440p with modest settings. At 4K, the results are mixed, with only the lowest preset approaching the 60 FPS threshold. The following analysis breaks down the measured performance, the role of each component, and what users can expect from this specific configuration.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Inside at 60 FPS on a 1080p monitor?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows that at 1920x1080, all four tested presets (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra) maintain an average frame rate above 60 FPS. The lowest average is 62.1 FPS at Ultra settings, so even the most demanding preset clears the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best setting for 1440p gameplay?

A: At 2560x1440, the best setting that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, which produces an average of 76 FPS. Low also works at 98.6 FPS, but Medium offers a better visual balance while still being smooth. High and Ultra fall below 60 FPS, with averages of 45.5 and 47.5 FPS respectively.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: Not comfortably. At 3840x2160, the only preset that comes close to 60 FPS is Low, which averages 59.7 FPS. Medium drops to 50.6 FPS, while High and Ultra average 27.9 and 28.7 FPS. None of the 4K presets officially clear the 60 FPS threshold, so the verdict marks 4K as not playable.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600KF has an average benchmark score of 49394, placing it in the 90th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, scores 49228, which is only 0.3% lower. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and Intel Core Ultra 5 245 are also within 0.8% of its score. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is slightly ahead at 49796, a 0.8% delta.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, placing it in the 40th percentile among all GPUs. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 (0.3% lower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425 (0.6% lower). The Intel Arc A310 is the only rival that scores higher, at 7550, which is 1% above the GTX 1650.

Q: Does the GPU bottleneck the CPU in this game?

A: The data suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU can push the frame rate well beyond 100 FPS on Low and Medium, but at 4K, even Low settings only reach 59.7 FPS. This pattern indicates that the GTX 1650 is the primary constraint when resolution and preset demands increase.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database provides measured average frame rates for three resolutions and four presets. The goal is to find the most demanding preset that still maintains an average of at least 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 62.1 FPS. This is the highest quality setting available, and it still clears the 60 FPS threshold. Lower presets run faster (Low at 134.2, Medium at 104.8, High at 64.8), but Ultra is the best visual option without sacrificing smoothness.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset averages 76 FPS, making it the most demanding preset that remains playable. Low runs at 98.6 FPS, but Medium provides a better visual experience. High and Ultra fall short, with averages of 45.5 and 47.5 FPS respectively, so they are not recommended for a 60 FPS target.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The closest is Low at 59.7 FPS, which is just below the playable cutoff. Medium drops to 50.6 FPS, and High and Ultra are far behind at 27.9 and 28.7 FPS. The verdict for 4K lists no playable settings, so users should avoid this resolution for a smooth experience.

The data shows a clear pattern: at 1080p, the system has headroom to run the game at maximum quality; at 1440p, it requires a middle-ground preset; at 4K, it cannot maintain 60 FPS even on the lowest settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured frame rates across resolutions and presets reveal which component dominates performance for Inside.

At 1080p, the CPU appears to be the more influential component. The frame rate scales strongly with preset quality: Low averages 134.2 FPS, Medium 104.8, High 64.8, and Ultra 62.1. The GPU has enough headroom at this resolution to allow the CPU to drive high frame rates, but the drop from Medium to High (from 104.8 to 64.8 FPS) suggests that the GPU begins to struggle as shader and texture demands increase. Still, the fact that Low and Medium exceed 100 FPS indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor at this resolution.

At 1440p, the GPU becomes more significant. Low averages 98.6 FPS, but Medium drops to 76 FPS, and High falls to 45.5 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is larger than the gap between Low and Medium, which points to the GPU being pushed harder at higher presets. The CPU, with its 90th percentile benchmark score, is unlikely to be the bottleneck here; the GTX 1650, with its 40th percentile score, is the obvious constraint.

At 4K, the GPU is clearly the dominant factor. Low averages 59.7 FPS, Medium drops to 50.6, and High and Ultra fall to 27.9 and 28.7 FPS respectively. The dramatic decline from Medium to High (a 43% drop) shows that the GTX 1650 cannot handle the increased pixel count and shading work. The CPU’s performance is nearly irrelevant at this point, as the GPU is saturated.

The scaling between resolutions reinforces this interpretation. At Low settings, moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces the average from 134.2 to 98.6 FPS (a 26.5% decrease), and moving from 1440p to 4K reduces it further to 59.7 FPS (a 39.5% decrease). These drops are consistent with GPU-bound behavior, as pixel count increases by roughly 1.78x from 1080p to 1440p and by 2.25x from 1440p to 4K. The CPU, with its high single-thread and multi-thread scores, does not exhibit any signs of limiting performance in these measurements.

In summary, at 1080p the CPU and GPU share the load, but the GPU becomes the limiting factor at 1440p and is overwhelmingly the constraint at 4K.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database lists nearest rivals for both the CPU and GPU based on average benchmark scores. These alternatives should behave similarly in terms of overall compute capability, which translates to comparable frame rates in Inside.

For the Intel Core i5-14600KF, the closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, which has an average score of 49228 versus 49394 for the i5-14600KF, a delta of only 0.3%. In practical terms, this means nearly identical CPU throughput. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, 0.4% lower) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 (48995, 0.8% lower) are also effectively equivalent. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is slightly faster at 49796, but the 0.8% delta is negligible for gaming. Any of these CPUs would produce essentially the same frame rates in Inside, as the game is not particularly CPU-intensive at the resolutions tested.

For the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, which scores 7447 versus 7472 for the GTX 1650, a delta of 0.3%. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, 0.4% lower) and AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425, 0.6% lower) are also close. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1% higher. These GPUs are all within a narrow performance band, so users with any of these alternatives should expect similar behavior: playable frame rates at 1080p on most presets, playable at 1440p on Low or Medium, and not playable at 4K.

It is notably the GTX 1650 sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU sits in the 90th percentile. This mismatch means that the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing, and swapping the CPU for one of its rivals would have little effect on Inside’s frame rates. Swapping the GPU for a rival would also yield similar results, as the differences are all under 1% except for the Arc A310’s 1% advantage.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table lists all recorded average frame rates from the database for this specific CPU and GPU combination.

3840x2160 (4K):

• High: 27.9 FPS
• Low: 59.7 FPS
• Medium: 50.6 FPS
• Ultra: 28.7 FPS

2560x1440 (1440p):

• High: 45.5 FPS
• Low: 98.6 FPS
• Medium: 76.0 FPS
• Ultra: 47.5 FPS

1920x1080 (1080p):

• High: 64.8 FPS
• Low: 134.2 FPS
• Medium: 104.8 FPS
• Ultra: 62.1 FPS

The data shows a consistent pattern: at each resolution, Low is the fastest preset, followed by Medium, then High and Ultra (which are close to each other but significantly slower than Medium). At 1080p, all presets exceed 60 FPS, with Low more than doubling the playable threshold. At 1440p, Low and Medium are playable, but High and Ultra are not. At 4K, only Low approaches 60 FPS (59.7), and it does not officially clear the threshold.

The gap between Medium and High is notable. At 1080p, Medium runs at 104.8 FPS while High drops to 64.8 FPS, a 38% reduction. At 1440p, Medium is 76 FPS and High is 45.5 FPS, a 40% reduction. At 4K, Medium is 50.6 FPS and High is 27.9 FPS, a 45% reduction. This suggests that the High preset introduces a significant rendering cost, likely related to shadow quality or post-processing effects, that disproportionately affects the GTX 1650.

Ultra presets are only marginally slower than High at each resolution, which indicates that the jump from High to Ultra adds less overhead than the jump from Medium to High. This is a useful detail for users who want to maximize visual fidelity without a large frame rate hit.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, this PC can run Inside smoothly at certain resolutions and presets, but not all.

At 1920x1080, the system is fully capable. All four presets exceed 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 62.1 FPS. This means users can play at maximum quality without worrying about frame rate drops. The verdict confirms that High, Low, Medium, and Ultra are all playable at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the system is partially capable. Low and Medium are playable, with Medium at 76 FPS being the best balance of quality and performance. High and Ultra fall below 60 FPS, so they are not recommended. The verdict lists Low and Medium as playable, with Medium as the best setting.

At 3840x2160, the system is not capable of maintaining 60 FPS on any preset. Low comes closest at 59.7 FPS, which is just below the threshold. Medium averages 50.6 FPS, and High and Ultra are in the 27-29 FPS range, which is not smooth for a puzzle platformer. The verdict lists no playable settings for 4K.

Overall, this configuration is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can handle the game at its highest settings. For 1440p users, Medium is the recommended preset. 4K is not a viable option with this hardware. The CPU is more than adequate for this title, but the GTX 1650’s limitations become apparent as resolution and preset demands increase. The database shows a clear playable boundary: 60 FPS is achievable at 1080p on all presets, at 1440p on Low and Medium, and not at all at 4K.