Inside

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and Intel Arc B570 combination delivers a highly playable experience in Inside, a puzzle platformer from 2016 that proves remarkably scalable across resolutions and settings. The measured data places this pairing at rank 2359 out of 2887 tested combos, which puts it in the 18th percentile of all systems—a figure that reflects the aging CPU more than the capable GPU. Despite the modest overall ranking, the actual frame rates tell a story of smooth performance, with the combo easily clearing 60 FPS at 4K on medium settings and exceeding 100 FPS at 1080p on ultra.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 5 2600 and Arc B570 sits at rank 2359 out of 2887 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the lower half of all systems tested, but the ranking must be interpreted with context. The Ryzen 5 2600, while a six-core processor from 2018, holds a 75th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms three-quarters of all processors cataloged. However, its average benchmark score of 21484 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals: the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V scores 21440 (0.2% faster), the Intel Core i9-11900H scores 21367 (0.5% faster), and the AMD EPYC 9454 scores 21223 (1.2% slower). The Intel Xeon D-1746TER edges ahead by 0.7% with a score of 21635.

The GPU side is more encouraging. The Intel Arc B570 ranks in the 65th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20556. Its nearest competitors are remarkably close: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile is 0.1% faster at 20534, the Intel Arc A750 is 0.1% slower at 20582, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is 0.4% faster at 20480, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X is 0.5% slower at 20662. This clustering suggests the Arc B570 delivers performance squarely in a competitive mid-range band.

The low combo rank relative to these individual component rankings indicates that Inside, being a 2016 title, likely does not stress the GPU heavily, leaving the older CPU as the primary bottleneck in certain scenarios. Yet, the measured FPS data reveals that this bottleneck rarely manifests as a problem in practice, as the game's modest graphical demands allow even this pairing to shine.

FAQ

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

A: Yes. At 3840x2160, the combo achieves 54 FPS on High settings and 87 FPS on Medium settings. The Low preset reaches 108 FPS, while Ultra drops to 52 FPS. For a locked 60 FPS experience at 4K, Medium settings are the recommended choice.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 144Hz monitor at 1080p?

A: The Ultra preset at 1920x1080 delivers 114 FPS, which is sufficient for most 144Hz displays, though not a perfect match. For complete headroom, the High preset at 120 FPS or Medium at 189 FPS provides more margin above the refresh rate.

Q: How does the CPU compare to modern processors in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 2600 scores 1248 in Cinebench R15 multicore and 157.3 in single-core. In Geekbench, it scores 5648 multicore and 1154 single-core. Its Passmark multithread score is 13160, placing it within 0.7% of the Intel Xeon D-1746TER and 1.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9454.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B570 more powerful than the RTX 3070 Mobile?

A: Based on average benchmark scores, the Arc B570 (20556) is 0.1% slower than the RTX 3070 Mobile (20534). In practical terms, they are statistically identical, with the Arc B570 also being 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A750.

Q: What kind of frame pacing can I expect at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Medium preset shows an average of 138 FPS with a minimum of 117 FPS and a maximum of 159 FPS. This indicates consistent frame delivery with no severe drops, making it ideal for high-refresh-rate gaming at this resolution.

Q: Does the 10 GB VRAM on the GPU limit performance in this game?

A: No. Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer with modest graphical requirements. The measured FPS data shows no indication of VRAM-related stutters or limitations, as even 4K Ultra runs at 52 FPS, suggesting the memory capacity is more than sufficient.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimizing the experience across different display capabilities. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers 114 FPS, which is ideal for 120Hz displays but falls short of 144Hz. For 144Hz monitors, the High preset at 120 FPS is a better fit, while the Medium preset at 189 FPS provides ample headroom for any high-refresh-rate panel. The Low preset hits 205 FPS, which is unnecessary for most displays but useful for competitive play on 240Hz monitors.

At 2560x1440, the High preset achieves 86 FPS, making it suitable for 60Hz and 75Hz displays. The Medium preset at 138 FPS is the standout choice for 144Hz monitors, offering a comfortable margin above the refresh rate with a minimum of 117 FPS ensuring no drops below 100 FPS. The Ultra preset at 82 FPS is acceptable for 60Hz displays but leaves little room for demanding scenes.

For 4K gaming, the Medium preset at 87 FPS is the sweet spot, providing a smooth experience on 60Hz displays with a minimum of 74 FPS. The High preset at 54 FPS is borderline for 60Hz, while the Low preset at 108 FPS offers a high-frame-rate alternative. The Ultra preset at 52 FPS is playable but not ideal for a locked 60 FPS experience. Overall, the Medium preset at each resolution offers the best balance of visual fidelity and frame rate consistency, as evidenced by the min/max data showing tighter frame pacing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the performance envelope is broad. The Low preset delivers 205 FPS, Medium jumps to 189 FPS with a minimum of 161 FPS and maximum of 217 FPS, High reaches 120 FPS, and Ultra settles at 114 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 44% reduction in frame rate, indicating that the game's visual settings have a meaningful impact on GPU load.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain robust. Low hits 172 FPS, Medium achieves 138 FPS with a minimum of 117 FPS and maximum of 159 FPS, High runs at 86 FPS, and Ultra drops to 82 FPS. The transition from 1080p to 1440p at Medium settings shows a 27% performance reduction, from 189 FPS to 138 FPS, which is a reasonable cost for the resolution increase.

At 3840x2160, the GPU begins to feel the strain. Low produces 108 FPS, Medium delivers 87 FPS with a minimum of 74 FPS and maximum of 100 FPS, High manages 54 FPS, and Ultra falls to 52 FPS. The gap between Medium and High at 4K is substantial, representing a 38% drop in performance, which suggests that the High preset introduces effects that are particularly demanding at this resolution. The min/max data at Medium settings across all resolutions shows consistent frame delivery, with the 4K run maintaining a 26 FPS spread between minimum and maximum.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals important insights into the system's balance. At Medium settings, the frame rate drops from 189 FPS at 1920x1080 to 138 FPS at 2560x1440, a 27% reduction, and then to 87 FPS at 3840x2160, a 54% reduction from 1080p. This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor as resolution increases, with the Arc B570's 380.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 11.52 TFLOPS of FP32 performance being taxed more heavily at higher pixel counts.

At High settings, the drop is steeper: 120 FPS at 1080p falls to 86 FPS at 1440p (28% reduction) and then to 54 FPS at 4K (55% reduction from 1080p). The similar percentage drops across settings suggest that the resolution scaling is consistent regardless of the visual preset, which is a sign of a well-balanced GPU bottleneck. The Low preset shows the most dramatic absolute drop, from 205 FPS at 1080p to 172 FPS at 1440p (16% reduction) and then to 108 FPS at 4K (47% reduction from 1080p).

The fact that 4K performance at Medium (87 FPS) is nearly identical to 1440p performance at High (86 FPS) demonstrates that the GPU's workload scales predictably with both resolution and settings. This behavior points to the Arc B570 being the limiting component at 4K, while the Ryzen 5 2600 has sufficient headroom to keep up with the GPU's output at lower resolutions.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 brings six cores and twelve threads to the table, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. This 2000-series processor uses the Zen architecture on a 12 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, with a 16 MB shared L3 cache. Its Passmark single-thread score of 2239 and Cinebench R15 single-core score of 157.3 indicate modest per-core performance compared to modern CPUs, but this is rarely a limitation in Inside, a game that does not demand high single-thread throughput.

The CPU's multi-threaded capabilities are more robust, with a Passmark multithread score of 13160 and a Cinebench R15 multicore score of 1248. The Geekbench multicore score of 5648 shows that the processor can handle parallel workloads effectively. However, Inside is not a heavily threaded game, so the twelve threads are unlikely to be fully utilized. The CPU's 75th percentile ranking among all CPUs suggests it remains capable for modern gaming, even if it is not a top-tier performer.

The measured FPS data suggests that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck in this pairing. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 205 FPS, which is a high frame rate that would typically be limited by CPU performance in many games. The fact that the Arc B570 can push beyond 200 FPS at this resolution indicates that the Ryzen 5 2600 is capable of feeding the GPU adequately. The CPU's 65W TDP and DDR4 memory support with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for this workload, and the PCIe Gen 3 x16 interface does not appear to impede the GPU, which uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 connection.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V and Intel Core i9-11900H, with the Ryzen 5 2600 scoring within 0.5% of both. This places the CPU in a performance tier that, while not modern, remains relevant for the demands of Inside. The game's release date of 2016 predates the CPU by two years, meaning the processor has more than enough architectural headroom to handle the title's logic and physics calculations without becoming a limiting factor.