Inside

The Intel Core i7-14700KF paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 delivers a benchmark profile that is decisively positioned for high-refresh-rate gameplay in Inside. The measured data shows every resolution and preset combination tested clears the 60 FPS playable threshold, with average frame rates ranging from 77.1 FPS at 4K Ultra to 353.7 FPS at 1080p Low. This analysis walks through the component roles, comparative rankings, and specific settings guidance based solely on the provided measurements.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU each sit near specific rival hardware in aggregate benchmark scores, which helps contextualize their behavior in Inside.

For the processor, the Intel Core i7-14700KF achieves an average benchmark score of 70163, placing it at the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F, which scores 69996, representing a mere 0.2% difference. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX trails by 0.4% with a score of 69875, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X is 0.9% behind at 69515. Interestingly, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K scores slightly higher at 70879, putting the i7-14700KF 1% behind that part. The practical implication is that any of these four CPUs would produce nearly indistinguishable frame rates in Inside, since the game’s workload does not appear to stress the processor heavily at any tested resolution.

On the graphics side, the RTX 5060 posts an average benchmark score of 26331, ranking at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitor is the AMD Radeon 860M, which scores 26401 — a negligible 0.3% advantage. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 also scores 26421, again 0.3% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary is 0.8% ahead at 26553, while the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT falls 1.2% behind at 26011. For Inside, these differences are immaterial; the game’s low graphical demands mean even a GPU scoring slightly lower than the RTX 5060 would still likely clear 60 FPS at all settings, given the massive headroom shown in the measured results.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals that the GPU is the primary scaling factor across resolutions, while the CPU maintains sufficient headroom to avoid becoming a bottleneck. This is evident from the frame rate progression at each quality setting when moving from 1080p to 4K.

At High settings, the average FPS drops from 173.8 at 1920x1080 to 129.6 at 2560x1440, then further to 79.3 at 3840x2160. This represents a 54.4% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The same pattern holds at Ultra settings, where frame rates fall from 166.2 at 1080p to 123.3 at 1440p and 77.1 at 4K — a 53.6% decline. The scaling at Low settings is even more dramatic: 353.7 FPS at 1080p drops to 255.8 at 1440p and 159.5 at 4K, a 54.9% reduction. The consistency of these percentage drops across presets indicates that resolution, not preset, is the dominant variable affecting performance.

The CPU’s role becomes clearer when examining the gap between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low (353.7 FPS) and Ultra (166.2 FPS) is 187.5 FPS, meaning the GPU is still the limiting factor even at lower settings. At 4K, the same gap narrows to 82.4 FPS (159.5 vs 77.1), but the GPU remains the bottleneck. The i7-14700KF’s 20 cores and 28 threads, with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, provide ample processing power; the data shows no evidence of CPU limitation, as frame rates scale smoothly with GPU load across all resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

Among all tested CPU-GPU combinations in the database, this pairing ranks 1525th out of 3716 combos, placing it in the upper 41% of all systems. While this rank reflects the overall performance ceiling of the components, it does not capture the specific suitability for Inside, where the game’s modest requirements mean the combo vastly exceeds the 60 FPS playable threshold at every setting.

The rank of 1525 suggests that many higher-tier combinations exist, but the measured FPS data for Inside shows that this rank does not translate into any practical limitation for this particular title. At 4K Ultra, the combo still produces 77.1 FPS, which is 28.5% above the playable threshold. The gap widens substantially at lower resolutions: 123.3 FPS at 1440p Ultra (105.5% above threshold) and 166.2 FPS at 1080p Ultra (177% above threshold). The rank primarily reflects theoretical maximum performance across diverse workloads; for Inside, the practical outcome is that the system has no trouble maintaining smooth gameplay.

The Verdict

The data confirms that this PC can run Inside without any playability issues. At 3840x2160, all four settings — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — are playable, with the best settings being Ultra at an average of 77.1 FPS. The 2560x1440 resolution similarly shows all settings playable, with Ultra achieving 123.3 FPS. At 1920x1080, Ultra runs at 166.2 FPS, again with all settings exceeding 60 FPS.

The verdict is unambiguous: every resolution and preset combination tested exceeds the 60 FPS playable threshold. The lowest recorded average is 77.1 FPS (4K Ultra), which still provides a comfortable margin above the threshold. For a puzzle platformer like Inside, where precise timing and smooth animation matter, the minimum margin of 28.5% above 60 FPS ensures no visible stuttering or frame pacing issues. There is no scenario in the measured data where this combo fails to deliver a playable experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest quality setting that maintains 60 FPS at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, Ultra settings average 77.1 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. All settings — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — are playable at 4K.

Q: How much faster is 1080p compared to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At Ultra settings, 1920x1080 averages 166.2 FPS while 3840x2160 averages 77.1 FPS. This represents a 115.6% performance increase at the lower resolution.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. Frame rates scale consistently with resolution changes, and the CPU’s 20 cores and 28 threads provide sufficient headroom, as evidenced by the smooth scaling across all settings.

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

A: At 2560x1440, Ultra settings yield 123.3 FPS, which is the best measured result. All settings exceed 60 FPS, so users can select Ultra without concern.

Q: How does the RTX 5060 compare to its nearest rival in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The RTX 5060 scores 26331, while the AMD Radeon 860M scores 26401 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 26421. Both rivals are only 0.3% ahead in average benchmark score.

Q: What is the minimum average FPS recorded across all tests?

A: The lowest average frame rate is 77.1 FPS, which occurs at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This remains 28.5% above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS is Ultra, and in every case the margin is substantial.

At 3840x2160, Ultra settings produce an average of 77.1 FPS. This is the recommended configuration because it delivers the highest visual quality while staying 17.1 FPS above the playable threshold. The next step down, High, runs at 79.3 FPS, offering only marginal performance improvement at a visual cost.

For 2560x1440, Ultra averages 123.3 FPS. This provides a 63.3 FPS cushion above 60 FPS, making it an obvious choice. Medium runs at 203.4 FPS and Low at 255.8 FPS, but neither offers meaningful benefits over Ultra given the high frame rates.

At 1920x1080, Ultra achieves 166.2 FPS. The performance headroom is so large that even the most demanding preset leaves over 100 FPS of margin. High runs at 173.8 FPS, Medium at 284.4 FPS, and Low at 353.7 FPS, but Ultra is clearly the best balance of quality and speed.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured average frame rates shows consistent performance scaling across all resolutions and settings.

At 3840x2160, Low settings average 159.5 FPS, Medium reaches 125.9 FPS, High drops to 79.3 FPS, and Ultra averages 77.1 FPS. The transition from Low to Medium costs 33.6 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra costs only 2.2 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at the highest quality tier.

The 2560x1440 results follow a similar pattern but with higher absolute values. Low averages 255.8 FPS, Medium achieves 203.4 FPS, High runs at 129.6 FPS, and Ultra settles at 123.3 FPS. The step from High to Ultra again shows a small 6.3 FPS difference.

At 1920x1080, the frame rates are exceptionally high across the board. Low averages 353.7 FPS, Medium reaches 284.4 FPS, High runs at 173.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 166.2 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to 7.6 FPS, while the difference between Low and Medium is 69.3 FPS.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: moving from Low to Medium produces a significant frame rate drop, while the difference between High and Ultra is minimal. This suggests that the visual quality difference between High and Ultra is small relative to the performance cost, but since all configurations exceed 60 FPS, users can prioritize visual fidelity without sacrificing playability. The data shows no min or max FPS values recorded, only averages, so the analysis relies on the mean performance, which is uniformly above the playable threshold.