Inside

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 is a combination that decisively outperforms the requirements of Inside, a 2016 Puzzle Platformer. Benchmark data indicates this system delivers a playable experience at every tested resolution and preset, with the most demanding 4K Ultra configuration still maintaining an average of 64 FPS. The performance headroom is substantial, making this PC a definitive overachiever for this specific title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Inside across all resolutions and settings reveals a system with significant untapped potential. The lowest average frame rate recorded in the entire test suite is 64 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, which still clears the 60 FPS playability threshold. This establishes a baseline where even the most demanding scenario is comfortable.

At the native 4K resolution (3840x2160), the scaling between presets is clear. Low settings produce an average of 134 FPS, which jumps to 107 FPS on Medium. The Medium preset provides the only complete min/max data for this resolution, with a minimum of 91 FPS and a maximum of 123 FPS. High settings average 67 FPS, while Ultra drops to 64 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is a 70 FPS difference, representing a 52.2% reduction in average frame rate, but the system never falls below the playable threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance becomes exceptionally fluid. The Low preset achieves a staggering 213 FPS average. Medium settings follow at 170 FPS, with a documented minimum of 145 FPS and maximum of 196 FPS. High settings maintain a 106 FPS average, and even the Ultra preset, which is the most demanding, holds at 101 FPS. This resolution demonstrates excellent scaling, where the jump from Ultra to Low provides a 112 FPS increase.

At 1920x1080, the system's performance borders on excessive for this title. Low settings produce an average of 296 FPS. Medium settings sustain 237 FPS, with the highest recorded minimum of 201 FPS and a maximum of 272 FPS. High settings average 148 FPS, while Ultra still manages a robust 141 FPS. At this resolution, the RTX 5050 is the primary driver, but the frame rates are so high that the experience is limited only by the display's refresh rate rather than the hardware's capability.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The benchmark data shows that the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus sits in the 96th percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest rivals are extremely close in performance. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has an average score of 83807, a delta of only 0.2%, meaning the 290K Plus is effectively identical in compute power. The AMD EPYC 4584PX is 1.1% slower with a score of 83090, and the AMD EPYC 9135 trails by 1.2% with 82980. Interestingly, the AMD EPYC 7F72 is 1.3% faster, scoring 85072. For Inside, a game that relies heavily on single-thread performance, these differences are negligible and would not produce any measurable frame rate variance.

On the graphics side, the RTX 5050 occupies the 66th percentile against all GPUs, with an average score of 21035. Its nearest rivals are a mixed group. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL is 0.6% slower, the AMD Radeon HD 8970M is 1.0% slower, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile is 1.6% slower. The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT is the only rival that is faster, by 1.6%. Given that the RTX 5050 already delivers 141 FPS at 1080p Ultra, any of these alternative GPUs would provide a visually identical experience in Inside, as the game's engine is not demanding enough to differentiate between them at the frame rates achieved.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 in Inside shifts noticeably across resolutions, though both components are never pushed to their limits. At 1920x1080, the GPU is the primary bottleneck, but only because the CPU is so powerful. The 290K Plus, with its 24 cores and 5.80 GHz boost clock, generates frames faster than the GPU can render them at lower resolutions. This is evidenced by the 296 FPS average at Low settings, which is a CPU-bound scenario. The GPU's architecture, Blackwell 2.0, handles the rendering pipeline efficiently, but its 13.17 TFLOPS of FP32 performance becomes the limiting factor as resolution increases.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts. The GPU's workload increases by roughly 78% compared to 1080p (from 2.07 million pixels to 3.69 million), which reduces the frame rate from 141 FPS to 101 FPS at Ultra settings. This 28.4% drop indicates the GPU is now the dominant constraint. The CPU, which has a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303, still has ample headroom to feed the GPU, but the rendering demand is now the limiting factor.

The pattern continues at 3840x2160. The pixel count jumps to 8.29 million, a 124% increase over 1440p. The Ultra preset's frame rate drops from 101 FPS to 64 FPS, a 36.6% reduction. This confirms the RTX 5050 is the definitive bottleneck at 4K. The CPU's role becomes largely passive; its Passmark single-thread score of 4823 is more than sufficient to process the game's physics and logic for a 2016 puzzle platformer. The data indicates that no matter the resolution, the 290K Plus is never the limiting factor, leaving the GPU to determine the final frame rate ceiling.

The Verdict

This PC can run Inside flawlessly, exceeding the 60 FPS playability threshold at every resolution and setting combination tested. The verdict data is unambiguous: at 3840x2160, all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable, with the best settings being Ultra at 64 FPS average. At 2560x1440, the same is true, with Ultra achieving a 101 FPS average. At 1920x1080, Ultra settings produce a 141 FPS average, making the game exceptionally smooth.

The system is not merely capable; it is overqualified. The RTX 5050's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory is sufficient for Inside's modest texture requirements, and the GPU's 320.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than adequate. The CPU, with its 36 MB of shared L3 cache, never becomes a source of stutter or frame drops. The combination rank of 2247 out of 3716 combos might suggest a mid-tier position, but within the context of Inside, this ranking is irrelevant because the game's performance ceiling is reached far before the hardware's limits. The verdict is clear: this system delivers a flawless experience, and users can confidently enable the highest settings at any resolution.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC achieve 60 FPS at 4K with the highest settings?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the system averages 64 FPS, which is 4 FPS above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings average 296 FPS, while Ultra settings average 141 FPS. This is a difference of 155 FPS, with Ultra still delivering more than double the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for this game at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the GPU becomes the primary factor. The frame rate drops from 213 FPS at Low to 101 FPS at Ultra, a 112 FPS reduction, which indicates the RTX 5050's rendering workload is the limiting constraint.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compare to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K?

A: The 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the 285K's 83807 score. In practical terms for Inside, they are indistinguishable.

Q: What is the minimum frame rate recorded for this system?

A: The lowest minimum frame rate recorded across all tests is 91 FPS, which occurs at 3840x2160 with Medium settings. This is still 31 FPS above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Does the system support ray tracing for this game?

A: The RTX 5050 has 20 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, but Inside does not utilize ray tracing. The game's benchmark results are based on traditional rasterization performance.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS is the maximum quality option. The system's performance is so robust that there is no need to sacrifice visual fidelity for frame rate.

At 3840x2160, the best settings are Ultra, which achieves an average of 64 FPS. This is the only resolution where the frame rate is close to the threshold, but it still clears it by 4 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are Ultra, with an average of 101 FPS. This provides a significant margin above the 60 FPS threshold, ensuring smooth gameplay even during complex scenes.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra, with an average of 141 FPS. This delivers an exceptionally fluid experience, and the frame rate is high enough to take advantage of high-refresh-rate displays. Users should select Ultra at every resolution without concern for performance degradation.