Inside

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and Intel Arc B370 combination delivers playable performance in Inside, a 2016 Puzzle Platformer, but the data reveals a pairing that is heavily constrained by the graphics processor. Across the measured 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions, the frame rates scale predictably with the workload, yet the GPU consistently acts as the primary limiter, preventing the capable six-core CPU from ever becoming the bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is the clearest indicator of this system's balance. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 70 FPS at 1920x1080 to 51 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 19 FPS. Moving to 3840x2160 High sees the average drop further to 32 FPS, which is only 46% of the 1080p performance. This steep decline suggests that the Intel Arc B370, with its modest 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 20 ROPs, is quickly saturated as pixel count increases.

The scaling pattern is consistent across other presets. At Low settings, the system produces 141 FPS at 1080p, 101 FPS at 1440p, and 64 FPS at 4K. The transition from 1440p to 4K represents a 37% performance loss, while the jump from 1080p to 1440p costs 28%. This non-linear degradation is typical of a GPU that is running out of fillrate and memory bandwidth—the Arc B370 relies on "System Shared" memory, making its bandwidth "System Dependent" rather than a fixed figure.

Ultra settings show the most dramatic scaling. The 1080p Ultra average of 67 FPS drops to 48 FPS at 1440p and then plummets to 30 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result effectively halves the 1440p figure, indicating that the 20 ROPs of the Arc B370 are the hard ceiling here. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s becomes the limiting factor, as Ultra presets typically increase geometric complexity and post-processing effects that demand more from the rasterizer.

Since the Ryzen 5 2600 has 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, it is not the component holding back 4K performance. The data shows the CPU can feed the GPU at lower resolutions—evidenced by the 141 FPS Low result at 1080p—but at 4K, the GPU's architectural limits dominate. The 213 mm² die size and 12 nm process node of the CPU are irrelevant at these pixel counts, whereas the GPU's 3 nm process node and "System Shared" memory configuration are directly responsible for the observed scaling cliff.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows provide a clear hierarchy for optimal playability. Medium settings emerge as the best compromise across all resolutions, offering the only preset with complete min/max FPS data. At 1080p Medium, the system averages 113 FPS with a minimum of 96 FPS and maximum of 130 FPS. This is 61% faster than High settings at the same resolution and only 20% slower than Low.

At 1440p, Medium produces an average of 81 FPS with a 69-93 FPS range. This is the sweet spot for this resolution, as High drops to 51 FPS and Ultra falls to 48 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p is 30 FPS faster than High, making it the only viable option for smooth gameplay on a 1440p display.

For 4K, the choice is starker. Medium delivers 51 FPS average with a 43-59 FPS range, which is just above the threshold for playable, though it may exhibit occasional dips. High and Ultra at 4K produce 32 FPS and 30 FPS respectively, which are below the smoothness threshold for most players. Low at 4K achieves 64 FPS, but this likely sacrifices too much visual fidelity for a puzzle platformer.

The data suggests that Medium is the recommended preset for this combination. It provides the only consistent playable experience across all three resolutions, with the 43 FPS minimum at 4K being the lowest recorded frame time in the entire dataset. Low settings are viable for competitive or high-refresh-rate play at 1080p, where the 141 FPS average exceeds 120 Hz displays, but the visual downgrade may not be worth it given the genre.

High settings are only advisable at 1080p, where 70 FPS is acceptable, but the 32 FPS 4K result shows this preset is too demanding for the Arc B370 at higher resolutions. Ultra should be avoided entirely; even at 1080p, the 67 FPS average is barely better than High, and the 30 FPS 4K result confirms this preset is not optimized for the GPU's 1280 shading units.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 5 2600 provides a solid foundation for this game, though its influence on the measured results is secondary to the GPU. With 6 cores and 12 threads, it offers sufficient parallelism for Inside's physics and logic, which are not heavily multi-threaded but benefit from the extra threads. The CPU's 3.40 GHz base clock and 3.90 GHz boost clock ensure that single-threaded tasks—which puzzle platformers often rely on—are handled competently.

Benchmark data places this CPU at the 75th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 21484. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V, which scores 21440 (0.2% higher), and the Intel Core i9-11900H at 21367 (0.5% higher). The AMD EPYC 9454 is 1.2% faster, while the Intel Xeon D-1746TER is 0.7% slower. This puts the Ryzen 5 2600 in a competitive position for a 2018 processor, even against much newer parts.

The CPU's 16 MB of shared L3 cache and 512 KB L2 per core provide adequate data locality for a game with Inside's modest asset sizes. The dual-channel DDR4 memory support, with a theoretical bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s, is sufficient to feed the CPU, though the GPU's "System Shared" memory means the two components compete for the same memory controller. This is a potential source of stutter, but the measured FPS data shows stable minimums at Medium settings.

The 65 W TDP and unlocked multiplier indicate headroom for overclocking, which could improve the CPU's 157.3 single-core score in Cinebench R15 and 1154 in Geekbench single-core. However, given that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions, additional CPU performance would only marginally impact the 1080p Low result of 141 FPS, where the CPU is more likely to be engaged. The PassMark single-thread score of 2239 confirms that this CPU is not a bottleneck in this title.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2654 out of 2887 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations, which is a poor showing for a game from 2016. The rank reflects the GPU's limitations more than the CPU's capabilities, as the Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad.

The GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, which scores 1186 (0.2% higher), and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 (0.5% higher). The AMD Radeon HD 7650M is 0.7% faster, while the AMD FirePro M2000 is 1.4% slower. These are all legacy or entry-level parts, confirming that the Arc B370 is positioned at the very bottom of the GPU hierarchy.

The combination's rank is dragged down by the GPU's inability to maintain high frame rates at 4K, where it produces a 30 FPS average at Ultra settings. In contrast, the CPU's 75th percentile ranking would suggest a much higher overall position if paired with a more capable GPU. The delta between the CPU's percentile and the GPU's 5th percentile creates a significant imbalance, with the GPU holding back the entire system.

Compared to other combos in the database, this pairing is closer to systems using decade-old integrated graphics than modern discrete GPUs. The 4K High result of 32 FPS is particularly damaging to the overall rank, as it falls below playable thresholds. Even the 1080p Medium result of 113 FPS, which is objectively smooth, cannot lift the rank because the 4K and Ultra results are so poor.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the defining component in this system, and its specifications explain the measured performance. Based on the Panther Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture, this GPU is built on a 3 nm process by Intel. It features 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, with 10 ray tracing cores. The boost clock reaches 2400 MHz, while the base clock is a low 300 MHz, indicating significant power scaling.

The GPU's memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it has no dedicated VRAM. This is a critical limitation for a game like Inside, which may require consistent memory access. The memory bus width is also "System Shared," and bandwidth is "System Dependent," which ties performance to the CPU's dual-channel DDR4-46.9 GB/s memory. This explains why 4K Ultra performance collapses to 30 FPS, as the shared memory bandwidth is insufficient for high-resolution textures and effects.

The FP32 compute of 6.144 TFLOPS and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are modest figures. For a puzzle platformer, these are technically sufficient, but the 20 ROPs create a fillrate bottleneck at higher resolutions. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s means that at 4K (8.3 million pixels), the GPU can theoretically fill around 5,800 frames per second, but real-world efficiency drops this to the observed 30-64 FPS range.

The GPU's TDP of 25 W is extremely low, reflecting its integrated nature (slot width is "IGP"). This limits sustained boost clocks under load, which is evident in the scaling from 1080p to 4K. The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 places it near the ATI Radeon HD 5770, a GPU from 2009, highlighting the performance class. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility are forward-looking, but they do not compensate for the lack of dedicated memory bandwidth.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best results. Low settings produce 141 FPS average, which is the highest recorded figure in the dataset. Medium settings average 113 FPS with a 96-130 FPS range, providing a smooth experience with some headroom. High settings drop to 70 FPS, while Ultra settings average 67 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is minimal, suggesting that Ultra adds effects that the GPU handles inefficiently.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance scales down proportionally. Low settings achieve 101 FPS, which is still playable but 28% slower than 1080p. Medium settings average 81 FPS with a 69-93 FPS range, maintaining smoothness. High settings fall to 51 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 48 FPS. The 1440p Medium result is the best balance of visual quality and frame rate at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations become severe. Low settings produce 64 FPS, which is playable but represents a 37% drop from 1440p. Medium settings average 51 FPS with a 43-59 FPS range, which is borderline for a platformer. High settings fall to 32 FPS, and Ultra settings average 30 FPS, both of which are below acceptable playability. The 4K Medium minimum of 43 FPS is the lowest recorded in any preset, indicating that the shared memory architecture causes occasional frame drops.

The Ultra preset at all resolutions shows a consistent pattern: 67 FPS at 1080p, 48 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K. This roughly halving of performance with each resolution step confirms that the GPU is pixel-bound rather than shader-bound. The Low preset shows a less steep decline (141 to 101 to 64), suggesting that at Low settings, the CPU begins to play a more significant role, though the GPU still dominates.

The data indicates that this combination is best suited for 1080p Medium or 1440p Medium gaming. The 4K results are only viable at Low settings, and even then, the 64 FPS average is not ideal. The lack of min/max FPS data for most settings means the 43 FPS minimum at 4K Medium is the only guaranteed floor, making it the most reliable indicator of worst-case performance.