Inside

The Intel Core i9-14900K paired with the Intel Arc B370 presents a fascinating study in extremes for a 2016 puzzle platformer like Inside. The CPU is a top-tier desktop part, while the GPU is an integrated-class solution that ranks in the 5th percentile of all tested graphics cards. The recorded frame rates across resolutions and presets reveal a system where the graphics processor is the definitive bottleneck, yet the sheer efficiency of the game engine allows for playable experiences at lower settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database contains 12 distinct measurement points for this combination, covering three resolutions and four quality presets. The data reveals a clear pattern: the Arc B370's performance scales predictably with resolution and settings, with the most demanding configuration pushing the system to its limits.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the results are mixed. The Low preset delivers an average of 64 FPS, which is a solidly playable result. The Medium preset drops to an average of 51 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 43 FPS and a maximum of 59 FPS, indicating noticeable frame pacing variance. The High preset falls further to an average of 32 FPS, while the Ultra preset bottoms out at an average of 30 FPS. No minimum or maximum values were recorded for the Low, High, or Ultra presets at this resolution, suggesting the telemetry only captured averages for those runs.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance headroom increases substantially. The Low preset achieves an average of 101 FPS, a significant jump from the 4K result. The Medium preset maintains a strong average of 81 FPS, with a minimum of 69 FPS and a maximum of 93 FPS, showing a stable experience well above the playable threshold. The High preset averages 51 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS target. The Ultra preset averages 48 FPS, confirming that the most demanding settings remain out of reach at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the system finally showcases its full potential. The Low preset produces an average of 141 FPS, an excellent result for a 60Hz or even 144Hz display. The Medium preset averages 113 FPS, with a minimum of 96 FPS and a maximum of 130 FPS, indicating very consistent frame times. The High preset achieves an average of 70 FPS, which is still comfortably above the playable threshold. The Ultra preset also clears the bar with an average of 67 FPS, making it the only resolution where the highest quality settings are fully playable.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, but only with the Low preset. The recorded data shows an average of 64 FPS at 3840x2160 with Low settings. The Medium preset drops to 51 FPS, and both High and Ultra presets fall to 32 FPS and 30 FPS respectively, making them unplayable.

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

A: The Medium preset is the optimal choice at 2560x1440. It delivers an average of 81 FPS with a minimum of 69 FPS, ensuring smooth performance. While the Low preset is faster at 101 FPS, the Medium preset provides a better visual experience without sacrificing the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is the Ultra preset ever playable with this hardware?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080. The Ultra preset averages 67 FPS at 1080p. At both 1440p and 4K, the Ultra preset falls below the playable threshold, averaging 48 FPS and 30 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the frame rate scale between 1080p and 1440p?

A: The scaling is consistent across presets. For example, the Low preset drops from 141 FPS at 1080p to 101 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 40 FPS. The Medium preset drops from 113 FPS to 81 FPS, a 32 FPS reduction, showing that the GPU is the limiting factor as pixel count increases.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combination?

A: The highest average recorded is 141 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This is more than double the 60 FPS playable threshold, indicating the game engine is highly optimized for lower-end hardware.

Q: Are there any settings where the minimum FPS falls below 60 at 1080p?

A: No. At 1920x1080, the only preset with recorded minimum and maximum values is Medium, which shows a minimum of 96 FPS and a maximum of 130 FPS. The minimum FPS data is not available for the other presets, but all averages are above 67 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database's verdict by resolution identifies the most demanding preset that maintains an average FPS at or above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

At 3840x2160, the best playable setting is Low, with an average of 64 FPS. This is the only preset at 4K that clears the threshold, and it does so by a narrow margin. Pushing to Medium results in a 51 FPS average, which is not smooth enough for consistent gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the best playable setting is Medium, with an average of 81 FPS. This preset offers a significant visual improvement over Low while still providing a 21 FPS buffer above the minimum target. The High preset at 51 FPS and Ultra at 48 FPS are both below the playable line.

At 1920x1080, the best playable setting is Ultra, with an average of 67 FPS. This is the only resolution where the highest quality preset is fully playable. The data shows that even with all settings maxed out, the system maintains a 7 FPS margin above the 60 FPS threshold.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Inside? The answer is a qualified yes, depending entirely on the user's display resolution and quality expectations. The verdict data is unambiguous: this combination is fully playable at 1080p across all presets, including Ultra. At 1440p, it is playable on Low and Medium, but not on High or Ultra. At 4K, it is only playable on Low.

The playable settings list confirms this hierarchy. For 3840x2160, the only playable setting is Low. For 2560x1440, both Low and Medium are playable, with Medium being the recommended choice. For 1920x1080, all four presets are playable, with Ultra being the best option. The system's performance is consistent with a low-end integrated GPU: it excels at lower resolutions and settings, but struggles to maintain 60 FPS when pixel count and quality demands increase. The 141 FPS result at 1080p Low indicates that the game itself is not demanding, and the GPU is the sole limiting factor.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Arc B370, based on average benchmark scores, provide context for its performance class. The GPU's average score of 1184 places it alongside the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, which scores 1186 and is 0.2% faster. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 and is 0.5% faster. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 and is 0.7% faster. On the slower side, the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, making the Arc B370 1.4% faster. These deltas are minimal, meaning any of these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Inside.

On the CPU side, the Intel Core i9-14900K's nearest rivals are all within a 1.7% margin of its average score of 79097. The Intel Core i9-14900KF scores 79371 and is 0.3% faster. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 79574 and is 0.6% faster. The AMD EPYC 7413 scores 80041 and is 1.2% faster. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 77740 and is 1.7% slower. For a game like Inside, which is not CPU-intensive, swapping between these processors would yield no perceptible difference in frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this specific CPU and GPU combination at rank 3422 out of 3716 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the lower 8th percentile of all tested systems, which is consistent with the GPU's own 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs. The ranking reflects the fact that while the CPU is extremely powerful, the Arc B370's integrated-class performance dominates the outcome. The combination's ranking is driven almost entirely by the GPU, as the CPU's 95th percentile standing cannot compensate for the graphics bottleneck. For context, any system with a discrete GPU from the past decade would likely rank higher, but among integrated solutions, this combo sits near the bottom of the pile.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data clearly shows that the GPU is the dominant factor in Inside performance, while the CPU's role is negligible. This is evident from the resolution scaling and the preset scaling.

The GPU's influence is most apparent when comparing the same preset across resolutions. For example, the Low preset averages 141 FPS at 1080p, 101 FPS at 1440p, and 64 FPS at 4K. This is a 54% reduction in frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K, a pattern that directly correlates with pixel count increases. The Medium preset follows the same trajectory: 113 FPS at 1080p, 81 FPS at 1440p, and 51 FPS at 4K. This scaling is a textbook example of a GPU-bound workload.

The CPU's minimal role is demonstrated by the fact that even at 1080p Ultra, the system maintains 67 FPS. A weaker CPU would likely show a frame rate drop at this setting if the game were CPU-bound, but the Intel Core i9-14900K's 24 cores and 32 threads are vastly overqualified for a 2016 puzzle platformer. The game's physics and logic are simple, meaning the CPU is effectively idle while the GPU struggles to keep up. The single-core performance of the i9-14900K is also more than sufficient, as Inside is not a title that leverages multiple threads heavily. The conclusion is straightforward: upgrading the CPU would provide no measurable benefit, while upgrading the GPU would yield immediate and substantial frame rate gains at every resolution and preset.