Inside

FAQ

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

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest recorded average frame rate is 55 FPS on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS playability threshold. The High preset averages 41 FPS, Medium averages 46 FPS, and Ultra averages 36 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 2560x1440?

A: The High preset is the most demanding playable option, averaging 61 FPS. Medium averages 68 FPS, and Low averages 82 FPS. Ultra falls short at 54 FPS.

Q: Which preset at 1920x1080 delivers the highest quality while maintaining 60 FPS?

A: Ultra averages 72 FPS, making it the best visual option that stays above the threshold. High averages 81 FPS, Medium averages 91 FPS, and Low reaches 108 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. It sits 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% ahead of the GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% ahead of the GT 710 (1443).

Q: Where does this CPU rank among all tested processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus falls in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 84003, placing it 0.2% above the Core Ultra 9 285K (83807) and 1.1% above the EPYC 4584PX (83090).

Q: What frame time variance appears at Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the range spans from 77 FPS minimum to 104 FPS maximum, with an average of 91. At 2560x1440 Medium, the minimum is 58 and the maximum is 78, averaging 68. At 3840x2160 Medium, the minimum drops to 39 and the maximum reaches 53, with an average of 46.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU in this system each have nearby hardware that would produce comparable results, based on the recorded database scores. For the processor, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus averages 84003 across all benchmarks. The closest match is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K at 83807, a delta of only 0.2%. This means the two chips are effectively interchangeable for gaming workloads. The AMD EPYC 4584PX trails by 1.1% with an average score of 83090, and the AMD EPYC 9135 trails by 1.2% at 82980. On the other side, the AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85072, which is 1.3% higher. Any of these four alternatives would sit within a couple of points of the 290K Plus in overall CPU performance, though the EPYC parts are server-class silicon with different platform characteristics.

For the graphics side, the Intel Arc B390 posts a 1482 in the Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark. The nearest rivals are all NVIDIA parts from older generations. The GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, just 1.3% lower. The GeForce 800M is 1.5% behind at 1460. The GT 625 OEM comes in at 1446, a 2.5% gap, and the GT 710 sits at 1443, 2.7% lower. These deltas are small enough that a system with any of these GPUs would land in the same general performance tier, though the Arc B390 holds a consistent edge in the synthetic test. The database percentile for the GPU is 9, meaning it ranks in the lower tenth of all tested graphics hardware. This aligns with the measured frame rates: the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions and presets, while the CPU has ample headroom.

The practical implication is that pairing the 290K Plus with a different GPU from this rival set would not meaningfully change the outcome in Inside. The CPU is far more powerful than what the game needs, so the frame rate differences across systems would come almost entirely from the GPU. Conversely, swapping the Arc B390 for a comparable part like the GT 710 would shave roughly 2.7% off the GPU score, which translates to a few frames at most in the measured scenarios.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data makes it clear that the GPU dominates performance for Inside at all tested resolutions. The CPU, a 24-core, 24-thread Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, sits in the 96th percentile of all processors and averages 84003 in the database. The GPU, an Intel Arc B390 with 1536 shading units and 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, sits in the 9th percentile. This massive gap in relative standing means the graphics pipeline is the bottleneck.

Look at how frame rates scale with resolution. At 1920x1080 Ultra, the system averages 72 FPS. Move to 2560x1440 Ultra, and the average drops to 54 FPS, a 25% reduction. At 3840x2160 Ultra, it falls further to 36 FPS, another 33% drop from the 1440p figure. The pattern repeats across every preset. Low settings at 1080p deliver 108 FPS, at 1440p they deliver 82 FPS, and at 4K they deliver 55 FPS. The consistent decline with resolution indicates a GPU-bound workload, since the CPU workload does not change meaningfully with pixel count.

Preset scaling reinforces this. At 2560x1440, moving from Low (82 FPS) to High (61 FPS) costs 21 FPS, a 26% performance penalty. At 3840x2160, the same preset change costs 14 FPS, from 55 to 41 FPS. The CPU has no trouble feeding the GPU even at low settings and high resolutions, because the frame rate continues to be limited by the graphics hardware. If the CPU were the constraint, lowering resolution would not produce such large gains.

The verdict data confirms which component matters more. At 3840x2160, no settings reach 60 FPS, even with Low preset. The GPU simply cannot push enough pixels. At 2560x1440, High, Medium, and Low all clear the threshold, but Ultra does not. At 1920x1080, all four presets are playable. This progression is exactly what a GPU-limited system looks like: the CPU's capability is constant, while the GPU's output scales with resolution and settings.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Inside, but only at certain resolutions and presets. The database records a playability threshold of 60 FPS, and the measured data shows clear boundaries. At 3840x2160, no preset achieves playable performance. The best case is Low at 55 FPS, which is 5 FPS short of the threshold. Ultra averages 36 FPS, Medium averages 46 FPS, and High averages 41 FPS. None of these are smooth enough for a 60 FPS target.

At 2560x1440, the system becomes playable. The High preset averages 61 FPS, which is just above the threshold. Medium averages 68 FPS, and Low averages 82 FPS. Ultra at 54 FPS is the only setting that fails. The recorded playable settings for this resolution are High, Low, and Medium, with High being the best visual quality that still clears 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the system runs the game comfortably across the board. Ultra averages 72 FPS, High averages 81 FPS, Medium averages 91 FPS, and Low reaches 108 FPS. All four presets are marked as playable. The best settings at this resolution are Ultra, which provides the highest quality while maintaining a 72 FPS average, a full 12 FPS above the threshold.

For a 60 FPS target, the summary is straightforward. 1080p works at every preset, 1440p works up to High, and 4K does not work at any preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results. Low settings average 108 FPS, the highest figure recorded in the entire test suite. Medium averages 91 FPS with a minimum of 77 and a maximum of 104. High averages 81 FPS. Ultra averages 72 FPS. The gap from Low to Ultra is 36 FPS, and every preset stays well above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, performance steps down. Low averages 82 FPS. Medium averages 68 FPS, with a recorded range from 58 to 78 FPS. High averages 61 FPS, which is only 1 FPS above the playability cutoff. Ultra averages 54 FPS, falling below the threshold. The drop from Low to Ultra is 28 FPS, and the High preset sits dangerously close to the line.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles. Low averages 55 FPS. Medium averages 46 FPS, with a minimum of 39 and a maximum of 53. High averages 41 FPS. Ultra averages 36 FPS. The range from Low to Ultra is 19 FPS, and even the best case misses the 60 FPS target by a margin of 5 FPS.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset is the only one with complete min and max data. At 1080p Medium, the variance is 27 FPS between the minimum and maximum. At 1440p Medium, the variance is 20 FPS. At 4K Medium, the variance is 14 FPS. This tightening range at higher resolutions is consistent with the GPU becoming increasingly saturated.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, there is no preset that maintains 60 FPS, so the database records no playable settings and no best settings. The closest option is Low at 55 FPS, but it does not meet the threshold.

At 2560x1440, the best playable setting is High, with an average of 61 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. Medium is also playable at 68 FPS, and Low at 82 FPS, but High offers the highest quality among the options that clear the bar.

At 1920x1080, the best playable setting is Ultra, averaging 72 FPS. This is the highest quality preset available, and it maintains a 12 FPS margin above the threshold. High at 81 FPS, Medium at 91 FPS, and Low at 108 FPS are all playable, but Ultra is the recommended choice for visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness.

The pattern across resolutions is consistent. As resolution increases, the best playable preset drops from Ultra to High to none. At 1080p, the GPU has enough headroom for maximum settings. At 1440p, it can handle High but not Ultra. At 4K, it cannot handle even Low at 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the Intel Arc B390 ranks 3624 out of 3716 tested combos in Inside, placing it in the bottom 2.5% of all systems in the database. This rank reflects the GPU's position more than the CPU's. The processor is in the 96th percentile, but the GPU is in the 9th percentile, and the game's performance is GPU-bound.

The low rank makes sense when considering the measured frame rates. At 1080p Ultra, the system averages 72 FPS, which is playable but not exceptional. At 1440p High, it averages 61 FPS, barely clearing the threshold. At 4K, it fails entirely. A rank of 3624 out of 3716 means the vast majority of tested combos perform better in this specific game.

The disparity between CPU and GPU rankings is notable. The 290K Plus outperforms 96% of all CPUs, while the Arc B390 outperforms only 9% of all GPUs. For a game like Inside, a puzzle platformer that does not demand heavy CPU compute, the GPU is the decisive factor. The database shows that this combo's ranking is driven by the graphics card, and any system with a stronger GPU would move up significantly in the rankings regardless of its CPU.