Inside

The Intel Core i7-14700F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti delivers exceptional performance in Inside, a 2016 puzzle platformer. Measured data shows this combination produces average frame rates far exceeding the 60 FPS playability threshold at every tested resolution and preset. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 122.9 on Ultra settings to 254.9 on Low settings. Dropping to 2560x1440, the spread narrows between 190.5 FPS on Ultra and 346.5 FPS on Low. At 1920x1080, the averages span from 269.2 FPS on Ultra to 387.4 FPS on Low. These figures indicate that the system is heavily overqualified for this title, with even the most demanding preset at 4K clearing the playability threshold by more than double.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how the system scales across resolutions and presets. All figures are average FPS, with no minimum or maximum values recorded in the dataset.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the system delivers 125 FPS on High settings, 254.9 FPS on Low, 204.7 FPS on Medium, and 122.9 FPS on Ultra. The gap between High and Ultra is minimal at 2.1 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds little graphical overhead beyond High. The jump from Low to Medium is substantial, a 50.2 FPS reduction, while Medium to High drops another 79.7 FPS. This indicates that the Medium-to-High transition carries the most significant performance cost at 4K.

At 2560x1440, the averages rise considerably. High settings produce 203.9 FPS, Low produces 346.5 FPS, Medium produces 323.8 FPS, and Ultra produces 190.5 FPS. Here, the relationship between Low and Medium is interesting: the difference is only 22.7 FPS, which is much smaller than the 50.2 FPS gap seen at 4K. The High-to-Ultra delta is 13.4 FPS, again a modest penalty. The largest drop at 1440p occurs between Medium and High, a 119.9 FPS reduction, reinforcing the pattern observed at 4K where the Medium-to-High step is the most expensive.

At 1920x1080, performance becomes extreme. High settings average 283.9 FPS, Low averages 387.4 FPS, Medium averages 357.1 FPS, and Ultra averages 269.2 FPS. The Low-to-Medium gap is 30.3 FPS, while Medium-to-High is 73.2 FPS, and High-to-Ultra is 14.7 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 1080p is not linear; for example, High settings improve by 80 FPS (203.9 to 283.9), whereas Ultra improves by 78.7 FPS (190.5 to 269.2). This suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU begins to play a larger role in limiting frame rates, though the absolute numbers remain far above any playability concern.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset consistently yields the highest average FPS, followed by Medium, then High, then Ultra. The consistency of this ordering indicates that the presets scale monotonically in terms of graphical load. However, the magnitude of the differences varies by resolution, with the 4K data showing the largest relative gaps between presets, particularly between Medium and High.

FAQ

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

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 122.9, which is more than double the 60 FPS playable threshold. This is the most demanding configuration tested, and it still clears the threshold with significant headroom.

Q: What is the fastest preset and resolution combination?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 387.4, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the least demanding configuration in the dataset, and it represents the upper bound of performance for this combo.

Q: How much performance is lost going from 1080p to 4K at the same preset?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 283.9 at 1920x1080 to 125 at 3840x2160, a reduction of 158.9 FPS. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 269.2 to 122.9, a reduction of 146.3 FPS. The relative loss is larger at High (55.9% reduction) than at Ultra (54.3% reduction).

Q: Is there any preset at any resolution that falls below 60 FPS?

A: No. The lowest average FPS in the entire dataset is 122.9, which occurs at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. Every other configuration produces higher averages, so all tested combinations exceed the playable threshold.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, High settings average 203.9 FPS while Ultra averages 190.5 FPS. The difference is 13.4 FPS, meaning Ultra costs about 6.6% of the High preset's performance. Both remain far above 60 FPS, so the visual upgrade from Ultra comes at a negligible practical cost.

Q: What is the average FPS at 4K with Medium settings?

A: 204.7 FPS. This is the second-highest average at 4K, behind only the Low preset's 254.9 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K still outperforms the High preset at the same resolution by 79.7 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the best settings are defined as the most demanding preset that still maintains an average FPS at or above 60. Since all presets exceed this threshold, the best settings are always the Ultra preset.

At 3840x2160, the best settings are Ultra, producing an average of 122.9 FPS. This is comfortably above the playable threshold, with roughly 63 FPS of headroom. The next most demanding preset, High, averages 125 FPS, a negligible difference of 2.1 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are also Ultra, with an average of 190.5 FPS. This provides over 130 FPS of headroom above the 60 FPS threshold. The difference between Ultra and High at this resolution is 13.4 FPS, with High averaging 203.9 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra, averaging 269.2 FPS. This leaves approximately 209 FPS of headroom, making the system vastly overprovisioned for this resolution. The gap between Ultra and High is 14.7 FPS, with High averaging 283.9 FPS.

In all three cases, the Ultra preset is the recommended choice because the system never approaches the 60 FPS limit. Players seeking maximum visual fidelity can enable Ultra without any risk of dropping below playable frame rates.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide context for how other hardware would behave in this game. These comparisons are based on aggregate benchmark scores, not direct Inside measurements, but they indicate similar overall performance levels.

The Intel Core i7-14700F has an average benchmark score of 53620, ranking in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6505P, scores 53701, a delta of -0.2% relative to the i7-14700F. This means the Xeon 6505P is essentially identical in performance. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 scores 53469, a delta of 0.3%, also effectively the same. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X scores 53288, a delta of 0.6%, making it marginally slower. The AMD EPYC 7313P scores 53206, a delta of 0.8%, the largest difference among the listed rivals but still under 1%. In Inside, any of these CPUs would likely produce frame rates within a few FPS of the i7-14700F, given the game's modest CPU demands.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti has an average benchmark score of 49957, ranking in the 86th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, scoring 50001, a delta of -0.1%, indicating near-identical aggregate performance. The Intel Arc A550M scores 49737, a delta of 0.4%, also very close. The AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT scores 50951, a delta of -2%, meaning it is 2% faster on average. The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT scores 48477, a delta of 3.1%, making it 3.1% slower. For Inside, the RX 6900 XT might deliver slightly higher average FPS at 4K, but the differences would be small given the game's high frame rates. The RX 6800 XT would be a modest step down, likely still clearing 60 FPS at all presets.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data across resolutions and presets reveals how the CPU and GPU contribute to performance in Inside. The game is not demanding by modern standards, and the data shows the GPU is the primary scaling factor, but the CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck. The average FPS drops from 254.9 on Low to 122.9 on Ultra, a 132 FPS reduction driven entirely by increasing graphical load. The CPU, an Intel Core i7-14700F with 20 cores and 28 threads, has ample headroom at this resolution because the GPU is working harder to fill the higher pixel count. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 4K is steep, indicating that the GPU's shading and rasterization throughput limits performance.

At 2560x1440, the GPU remains the dominant factor, but the CPU starts to show its influence. The average FPS on Low is 346.5, which is 91.6 FPS higher than at 4K Low (254.9). However, the gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 156 FPS (346.5 to 190.5), which is larger than the 132 FPS gap at 4K. This suggests that at 1440p, the GPU is still the primary constraint, but the CPU's ability to feed frames becomes more relevant at lower pixel counts.

At 1920x1080, the CPU's role grows further. The average FPS on Low is 387.4, which is only 40.9 FPS higher than at 1440p Low (346.5). This is a smaller improvement than the 91.6 FPS jump from 4K to 1440p, indicating that the CPU is beginning to limit frame rates. The Ultra preset at 1080p averages 269.2 FPS, which is 78.7 FPS higher than 1440p Ultra (190.5). The scaling from 1440p to 1080p is less pronounced than from 4K to 1440p, confirming that CPU overhead becomes a factor at 1080p.

The preset scaling reinforces this interpretation. At 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra is 132 FPS, representing a 51.8% reduction. At 1440p, the difference is 156 FPS, a 45% reduction. At 1080p, the difference is 118.2 FPS, a 30.5% reduction. As resolution decreases, the percentage drop from Low to Ultra shrinks, meaning the GPU has less work to do and the CPU's frame generation capability becomes more limiting. However, even at 1080p, the CPU is not a hard bottleneck, as the system still produces 269.2 FPS on Ultra, far above the 60 FPS threshold.

The Verdict

This PC can run Inside with overwhelming success. The verdict data shows that all four presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — are playable at every tested resolution, with average FPS values far above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

At 3840x2160, all settings are playable, with the best settings being Ultra at 122.9 FPS average. This clears the threshold by 62.9 FPS, providing a smooth experience even in graphically intense scenes.

At 2560x1440, all settings are playable, with Ultra as the best choice at 190.5 FPS average. This is over three times the playable threshold, leaving substantial headroom for any potential frame drops.

At 1920x1080, all settings are playable, with Ultra averaging 269.2 FPS. This is more than four times the threshold, making the system effectively overkill for this resolution.

The minimum average FPS across all configurations is 122.9, which occurs at 4K Ultra. This means that no tested setting combination ever approaches the 60 FPS limit, and players can confidently enable the highest visual quality at any resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i7-14700F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti combination ranks 229th out of 3716 tested combos for Inside, placing it in the top 6.2% of all configurations. This rank reflects the system's position in the benchmark database, where the measured FPS data is normalized against other CPU-GPU pairings.

Given the game's release in 2016 and its modest graphical requirements, this high rank is expected. The combo's percentile ranking of 91 for the CPU and 86 for the GPU further contextualizes its standing. The CPU outperforms 91% of all tested CPUs, while the GPU outperforms 86% of all tested GPUs. The combined rank of 229 out of 3716 indicates that while there are faster configurations, this combo sits comfortably in the upper echelon of tested hardware.

The nearest rival hardware — the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X for the CPU and the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT for the GPU — would likely produce similar Inside performance, given their aggregate benchmark scores are within a few percent of this combo's components. For a game that already runs at over 120 FPS at 4K Ultra, the differences between these alternatives would be imperceptible in practice. The 229th rank underscores that this system is far more capable than required, and users seeking higher rankings would need to invest in significantly more powerful components to see meaningful FPS gains in this title.