Inside

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is a combination that sits in the 47th percentile for CPUs and the 85th percentile for GPUs in the database. For a game like Inside, a puzzle platformer released in 2016, this pairing delivers far more performance than the game demands, with measured frame rates that remain well above the 60 FPS playable threshold at every resolution and preset tested. The following analysis breaks down the measured data, component roles, and practical settings for this specific configuration.

FAQ

*Q: Can this PC run Inside at 4K resolution?*

A: Yes. At 3840x2160, the measured average frame rates are 93.6 FPS on High, 168.3 FPS on Low, 153.1 FPS on Medium, and 90.4 FPS on Ultra. All four presets clear the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p?

A: Ultra is the best setting at 2560x1440, producing an average of 146.7 FPS. This is the most demanding preset tested, and it still delivers more than double the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The RX 6800 XT has an average benchmark score of 48477, with the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile scoring 47743 (1.5% slower), the Intel Arc A550M scoring 49737 (2.5% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti scoring 49957 (3% faster), and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 scoring 50001 (3% faster).

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck for this game?

A: The data indicates no practical bottleneck. The i5-9400 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, and its average benchmark score of 2254 places it in the 47th percentile. In Inside, frame rates scale more with resolution than with CPU load, and even at 1080p Low, the configuration achieves 220.3 FPS, suggesting the CPU handles the workload comfortably.

Q: What is the lowest measured frame rate in the dataset?

A: The lowest average FPS recorded is 90.4 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is still 30.4 FPS above the playable threshold of 60 FPS.

Q: Does the game support high refresh rate monitors?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080, the configuration produces 170.1 FPS on Ultra and 220.3 FPS on Low. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 146.7 FPS. These numbers are sufficient for 144 Hz displays, though the 4K Ultra setting at 90.4 FPS is better suited to a 60 Hz or 90 Hz panel.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: Inside is far more sensitive to GPU load than CPU load, especially at higher resolutions. The i5-9400, with its 6 cores and 6 threads, provides a baseline of processing power that never appears to limit the frame rate. The CPU's single-core performance, as indicated by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935 and a Geekbench single-core score of 1389, is sufficient for the game's logic and physics. The GPU, the RX 6800 XT, is the dominant component in determining frame rates.

Examining the scaling between resolutions reveals this dynamic. At 1920x1080 Low, the configuration averages 220.3 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 201.8 FPS, a reduction of about 8.4%. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 168.3 FPS, a 23.6% drop from 1440p Low. This progressive decline with resolution is typical of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU's workload does not increase proportionally with pixel count; it is the GPU's pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth that become the limiting factors.

The gap between presets at the same resolution further confirms the GPU's primary role. At 3840x2160, the difference between Low (168.3 FPS) and Ultra (90.4 FPS) is 77.9 FPS, a substantial range. This spread is driven by the GPU's need to process more complex shading, lighting, and post-processing effects at higher presets. The CPU's involvement in these settings changes is minimal, as the game's core simulation remains constant.

At 1920x1080, the CPU's role becomes slightly more apparent, but it does not become a bottleneck. The difference between Low (220.3 FPS) and Ultra (170.1 FPS) is 50.2 FPS, which is still a significant GPU-driven gap. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rates would cluster closer together across presets, as the GPU would be waiting on the CPU. Instead, the data shows that the RX 6800 XT is doing the heavy lifting, and the i5-9400 has enough headroom to feed it frames even at the highest settings.

For a player, this means that if you want higher frame rates, adjusting GPU-related settings (like shadow quality, texture filtering, and anti-aliasing) will have a much larger impact than any CPU-related setting. The CPU's 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR4 memory support are adequate for this game. The database records no memory bandwidth issues, and the CPU's 9 MB of shared L3 cache is sufficient for the game's data access patterns.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database places the i5-9400 among a tight cluster of CPUs with nearly identical average benchmark scores. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (average score 2259, 0.2% slower), the Intel Core i7-10710U (average score 2248, 0.3% faster), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (average score 2246, 0.4% faster), and the Intel Core i3-10305 (average score 2264, 0.4% slower). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning any of these processors would produce nearly indistinguishable frame rates in Inside. The i5-9400's 6-core, 6-thread configuration with a 4.10 GHz boost clock is representative of this performance tier. If a system builder were to swap in any of these rivals, the measured FPS for Inside would remain effectively the same, as the game does not stress multi-threaded workloads heavily.

On the GPU side, the RX 6800 XT's nearest rivals show a slightly wider but still modest spread. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile scores 47743 (1.5% slower), the Intel Arc A550M scores 49737 (2.5% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti scores 49957 (3% faster), and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 scores 50001 (3% faster). The RX 6800 XT's average score of 48477 places it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs. For Inside, these rival GPUs would all deliver frame rates well above 60 FPS at any resolution. The performance differences among them are small enough that the game's frame rate would be dictated more by the specific resolution and preset than by which of these GPUs is installed. A user with an RTX A1000 Mobile, for instance, would see roughly 1.5% lower performance, translating to a few frames per second at most in the measured scenarios. The RTX 5070 Ti or RX Vega 64, being about 3% faster, would push frame rates slightly higher, but the playability verdict would not change.

The combo rank in the database is 1974 out of 3716 combinations, which indicates that while this pairing is not at the top of the overall list (due to the CPU's mid-range standing), it is still well above the median. The GPU's high percentile (85) compensates for the CPU's 47th percentile, and for a game as undemanding as Inside, the result is a configuration that never struggles.

The Verdict

The recorded data answers the question definitively: yes, this PC can run Inside, and it does so with exceptional headroom. The verdict by resolution shows that all four tested settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable at all three resolutions. At 3840x2160, the best setting is Ultra with an average of 90.4 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold by 30.4 FPS. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 146.7 FPS, more than double the threshold. At 1920x1080, Ultra averages 170.1 FPS, nearly three times the threshold.

The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and every single measurement exceeds it. The lowest recorded average is the 4K Ultra figure of 90.4 FPS, which is still comfortably smooth. There are no min or max FPS values in the dataset, so the analysis relies on averages, but the consistency across all 12 measurements suggests that the configuration is stable. The GPU's 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth are overkill for a game of this scope, and the CPU's 6 threads never become a limiting factor. The game's release date in 2016 means it was designed for hardware that is several generations older, and this pairing exceeds those requirements by a wide margin.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database provides 12 distinct measurements, covering three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the configuration achieves its highest frame rates. Low settings produce an average of 220.3 FPS, Medium averages 208.1 FPS, High averages 171.7 FPS, and Ultra averages 170.1 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 50.2 FPS, with the largest single step occurring between Medium and High (36.4 FPS). The gap between High and Ultra is only 1.6 FPS, suggesting that the visual difference between these two presets is minimal in terms of performance cost.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high but show the expected reduction from 1080p. Low averages 201.8 FPS, Medium averages 181.7 FPS, High averages 152.4 FPS, and Ultra averages 146.7 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 55.1 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is 5.7 FPS, slightly larger than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is beginning to feel the resolution increase.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates are still far above playable, but the scaling becomes more pronounced. Low averages 168.3 FPS, Medium averages 153.1 FPS, High averages 93.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 90.4 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 77.9 FPS, the largest across all resolutions. The steep decline from Medium (153.1 FPS) to High (93.6 FPS) is notable, a drop of 59.5 FPS. This suggests that the High preset introduces a significant increase in GPU workload, likely in the form of more complex lighting or shadow effects. The difference between High and Ultra is only 3.2 FPS, so there is little performance reason to avoid Ultra at 4K.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low and Medium are always above 150 FPS, while High and Ultra hover between 90 and 172 FPS. The minimum measured average is 90.4 FPS, and the maximum is 220.3 FPS, providing a wide range of headroom for monitors with various refresh rates.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the best setting is defined as the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS. In this case, every preset meets that criterion, so the best setting is always Ultra.

At 1920x1080, the best setting is Ultra with an average of 170.1 FPS. This is the optimal choice for a 1080p display, as it delivers the highest visual quality while still providing frame rates that exceed the needs of a 144 Hz monitor. The measured 170.1 FPS is 110.1 FPS above the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the best setting is also Ultra, averaging 146.7 FPS. This is sufficient for a 144 Hz 1440p display, and the visual quality is maximized. The 146.7 FPS average is 86.7 FPS above the threshold, leaving ample room for frame time variance.

At 3840x2160, the best setting is Ultra as well, with an average of 90.4 FPS. This is the most demanding scenario in the dataset, and it still clears the 60 FPS threshold by 30.4 FPS. For a 4K display, Ultra is the recommended preset, as it provides the full visual experience without dropping below the playable threshold. The 90.4 FPS average is also sufficient for a 90 Hz or 100 Hz monitor, though it would not fully saturate a 144 Hz panel at 4K.

In practical terms, a user with this configuration can simply set the game to Ultra at any resolution and expect a smooth experience. The GPU's 16 GB of VRAM and high memory bandwidth ensure that texture-heavy scenes do not cause stuttering, and the CPU's performance is more than adequate for the game's physics and AI. There is no reason to lower settings below Ultra, as even the most demanding preset at 4K remains well above the playable threshold.