Inside

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti produces a highly constrained experience in Inside, a 2016 puzzle platformer. Measured data shows this combo ranks 1635th out of 1671 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 2% of all systems. The GTX 1050 Ti, with its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 112.1 GB/s bandwidth, sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, while the Ryzen 5 4600G’s six Zen 2 cores place it at the 75th percentile among CPUs. This massive imbalance—a strong processor paired with a weak graphics card—shapes every result in the benchmark set, making the GPU the definitive bottleneck across all tested resolutions and settings.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Inside at 1080p with playable frame rates?*

A: Yes, but only at lower settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 105.8 FPS, while Medium drops to 84.2 FPS. High produces 56.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 51.4 FPS, which is still above the 30 FPS threshold but noticeably less fluid.

Q: How does the GPU’s memory capacity affect performance at higher resolutions?

A: The 4 GB VRAM pool becomes a limiting factor at 4K. At 3840x2160, High and Ultra both yield 25.8 FPS, while Medium reaches 38.7 FPS and Low jumps to 49.5 FPS. The consistent drop from 1440p to 4K suggests the GPU’s memory bandwidth (112.1 GB/s) and 128-bit bus cannot sustain higher resolutions.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a balanced experience at 1440p?

A: The Medium preset at 2560x1440 provides 61.3 FPS, which is the only setting above 60 FPS at that resolution. Low achieves 80.6 FPS but sacrifices visual quality, while High (41.7 FPS) and Ultra (38.4 FPS) fall below the smooth threshold.

Q: Is the CPU holding back performance in this game?

A: No. The Ryzen 5 4600G’s six cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 4.20 GHz are far more capable than what Inside requires. The CPU’s 75th percentile ranking versus the GPU’s 30th percentile shows the processor is not the constraint; the GTX 1050 Ti is.

Q: How does this combo compare to similar hardware in terms of raw GPU compute?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti’s average benchmark score is 5316, placing it just 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 940M and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 240. Its FP32 performance of 2.138 TFLOPS and 768 shading units are modest, explaining the low FPS at high settings.

Q: Does the game scale well with settings at 1080p?

A: Yes, but with diminishing returns. Dropping from Ultra (51.4 FPS) to Low (105.8 FPS) more than doubles the frame rate, a 54.4 FPS improvement. However, the gap between High and Ultra is only 5.5 FPS, suggesting Ultra adds graphical load without proportional performance loss.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 1635 out of 1671 tested systems is a stark indicator of its overall capability. This places it in the bottom 2.2% of all combinations, which is expected given the GPU’s age and position in the market. The GTX 1050 Ti was released on 2016-10-24 and is now end-of-life, while the Ryzen 5 4600G launched on 2020-07-20 with a 65 W TDP. The data shows this pairing is severely GPU-limited; the CPU’s average benchmark score of 17489 sits within 1% of rivals like the Intel Core i5-12450H (17475, deltaPct 0.1) and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE (17482, deltaPct 0). Meanwhile, the GPU’s score of 5316 is virtually tied with the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, deltaPct 0) and 940M (5297, deltaPct 0.4). This means the processor could drive a much stronger graphics card, but the 1050 Ti caps every frame rate measurement.

The ranking reflects real-world gaming performance, not synthetic benchmarks. In Inside, the combo’s best result is 105.8 FPS at 1080p Low, which is impressive for the hardware but still below the 144 Hz threshold many gamers target. At 4K, the worst result is 25.8 FPS at High and Ultra, which is unplayable for a puzzle platformer requiring precise timing. The data suggests this combo is only viable for 1080p gaming at low-to-medium settings, and even then, the frame pacing may suffer due to the GPU’s 14 nm Pascal architecture and 75 W TDP.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience depends heavily on the display resolution. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset offers the best balance: 84.2 FPS average, which is smooth and above the 60 FPS standard, while still providing better visuals than Low. High at 56.9 FPS is acceptable but dips below 60, and Ultra at 51.4 FPS trades fluidity for marginal graphical gains. For 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 61.3 FPS is the only viable option above 60; Low at 80.6 FPS is smoother but sacrifices too much detail, while High (41.7) and Ultra (38.4) are too stuttery.

At 3840x2160, no setting achieves 60 FPS. Low at 49.5 FPS is the only playable option, but the game’s visual style likely benefits from higher detail. Medium at 38.7 FPS is borderline, while High and Ultra at 25.8 FPS are not recommended. The data implies that users with 4K displays should either drop to 1440p or accept Low settings. The pattern across all resolutions shows that the Low preset provides roughly double the FPS of Ultra, but the absolute numbers reveal the GPU’s limits: even at 1080p Low, the 105.8 FPS result is far from the 200+ FPS that modern hardware achieves.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p is playable, 1440p is marginal, and 4K is mostly unusable. At 1920x1080, the progression from Low (105.8 FPS) to Medium (84.2 FPS) to High (56.9 FPS) to Ultra (51.4 FPS) shows a 54.4 FPS spread between extremes. The step from Medium to High is the largest drop at 27.3 FPS, indicating that High settings introduce a significant shader or texture load. At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds: Low (80.6 FPS), Medium (61.3 FPS), High (41.7 FPS), Ultra (38.4 FPS). Here, the Medium-to-High drop is 19.6 FPS, again the largest single-step decline.

At 3840x2160, the results compress dramatically: Low (49.5 FPS), Medium (38.7 FPS), High (25.8 FPS), Ultra (25.8 FPS). Notably, High and Ultra produce identical averages, suggesting the game’s Ultra preset at 4K is not adding extra GPU load beyond what High already imposes—likely due to VRAM exhaustion. The 4 GB memory pool is saturated, causing the GPU to stall on texture fetches. The 4K Low result of 49.5 FPS is surprisingly high, but it still falls short of the 60 FPS target. Across all resolutions, the data shows that Low settings provide the most consistent frame rates, with 1080p Low being the only config to exceed 100 FPS.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the primary determinant of performance in this combo. Its specifications—4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus, 112.1 GB/s bandwidth, 768 shading units, and 32 ROPs—are modest by modern standards. The base clock of 1291 MHz and boost clock of 1392 MHz are low, and the FP32 throughput of 2.138 TFLOPS limits pixel fill. The pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s and texture rate of 66.82 GTexel/s are the physical constraints that explain the FPS drops at higher resolutions.

The GPU’s 30th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5316, places it in the entry-level category. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5297, deltaPct 0.4) and AMD Radeon R7 240 (5280, deltaPct 0.7), both of which are older or lower-end parts. The 4 GB VRAM is sufficient for Inside at 1080p, but at 4K, the memory bandwidth becomes a bottleneck. The fact that High and Ultra both hit exactly 25.8 FPS at 4K suggests the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling, likely due to memory latency rather than compute. The GDDR5 running at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) cannot feed the 32 ROPs fast enough at that resolution.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G is vastly overqualified for this workload. With six cores, 12 threads, a base clock of 3.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, it provides ample compute for a puzzle platformer. The CPU’s 75th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 17489 show it is competitive with modern mid-range processors; its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-13100F (17665, deltaPct -1) and Core i3-14100T (17636, deltaPct -0.8). In synthetic tests, the 4600G achieves 13593 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1919 in single-core, both far above what Inside requires.

The CPU’s 8 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support (51.2 GB/s bandwidth) are more than sufficient. The Zen 2 architecture, built on TSMC’s 7 nm process, offers excellent efficiency at 65 W TDP. The integrated Radeon Vega 7 GPU is irrelevant here since the discrete GTX 1050 Ti handles rendering. In this game, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations, but with frame rates capped at 105.8 FPS at 1080p Low, the processor is never stressed. The data shows zero evidence of CPU bottlenecking; the FPS scaling with resolution and settings directly mirrors the GPU’s capabilities, not the CPU’s.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU’s limitations clearly. At Low settings, the progression is 105.8 FPS (1080p) → 80.6 FPS (1440p) → 49.5 FPS (4K), representing a 53.2% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Medium, it’s 84.2 → 61.3 → 38.7, a 54.0% drop. High goes from 56.9 → 41.7 → 25.8, a 54.7% drop, and Ultra from 51.4 → 38.4 → 25.8, a 49.8% drop. These percentages are remarkably consistent, suggesting the GPU is scaling linearly with pixel count, which is typical of a memory-bandwidth-bound scenario.

The fact that High and Ultra both hit 25.8 FPS at 4K, while Medium achieves 38.7 FPS and Low 49.5 FPS, indicates that the 1050 Ti’s 112.1 GB/s bandwidth is the hard limit. At 4K, the pixel fill rate of 44.54 GPixel/s is overwhelmed, and the 4 GB VRAM cannot hold the necessary textures for High or Ultra, forcing the GPU to swap data. The data implies that the CPU is not a factor in resolution scaling; if it were, the FPS would remain constant across resolutions. Instead, the consistent ~50% drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings proves the GTX 1050 Ti is the sole bottleneck. For users seeking higher frame rates, lowering resolution has a greater impact than lowering settings, as evidenced by 1080p Low (105.8 FPS) versus 4K Low (49.5 FPS), a 56.3 FPS difference.