Inside

# Inside — AMD Ryzen 5 5500 + AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT

This puzzle-platformer from 2016 is remarkably forgiving on modern hardware, but the measured frame rates reveal a system that transitions from GPU-bound at 4K to increasingly CPU-limited at 1080p. The Ryzen 5 5500 and RX 6600 XT combination produces playable results across all tested configurations, yet the scaling patterns expose where each component's workload begins and ends.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic but not uniform across settings, which tells a clear story about which component carries the load at each resolution. At Low settings, the system delivers 280 FPS at 1920x1080, drops to 202 FPS at 2560x1440 (a 28% reduction), and falls to 127 FPS at 3840x2160 (a 37% further reduction from 1440p). This steep, consistent decline indicates the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck as pixel count rises, even at the lowest graphical preset.

Moving to Medium settings, the pattern shifts slightly. The 1080p result of 225 FPS drops to 161 FPS at 1440p (28% lower) and then to 101 FPS at 4K (37% lower again). The identical percentage drops between Low and Medium suggest that the additional graphical workload at Medium doesn't fundamentally change the balance — the GPU still dominates the scaling curve. At High settings, 140 FPS at 1080p becomes 101 FPS at 1440p (28% drop) and 63 FPS at 4K (38% drop). The consistency across these three settings is remarkable.

Ultra settings produce 134 FPS at 1080p, 96 FPS at 1440p (28% drop), and 60 FPS at 4K (38% drop). The uniformity of these percentage declines — hovering around 28% for the first step and 37-38% for the second — strongly implies that resolution scaling is governed almost entirely by the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth. The RX 6600 XT's 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and 165.7 GPixel/s pixel rate are the limiting factors here, not the CPU.

At 1080p, however, the data hints at CPU involvement. The jump from 134 FPS at Ultra to 280 FPS at Low (more than double) exceeds what pure GPU scaling would predict, suggesting the Ryzen 5 5500's six cores can push higher frame rates when the GPU isn't the constraint. The CPU's 3.60 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost clocks, combined with 12 threads, appear sufficient to drive frame rates well beyond 200 FPS in this game.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of Ryzen 5 5500 and RX 6600 XT ranks 2620 out of 3716 tested combos in Inside specifically. This places the pairing in the lower-middle tier of the database, which might surprise given the strong absolute FPS numbers. The ranking reflects that many other CPU-GPU pairings achieve higher frame rates in this title, not that this combo struggles — the measured data shows minimums of 60 FPS at 4K Ultra and 134 FPS at 1080p Ultra.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 73 against all processors puts it comfortably above average, while the GPU's percentile of 70 similarly indicates a solid mid-range position. Yet the combo rank of 2620 out of 3716 (roughly the 30th percentile) suggests that Inside favors combinations with stronger single-thread performance or higher GPU throughput. The Ryzen 5 5500's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 (0.1% higher average score), Intel Core i5-12500 (0.4% higher), Intel Core i7-10700F (0.5% lower), and Intel Core i5-11600KF (0.7% higher) — all within a tight 1.2% band, indicating the CPU is not a significant differentiator in this game.

The GPU's nearest rivals tell a similar story. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 scores 0.7% higher on average, the Intel Arc A350M is 0.8% lower, the GTX 780 Ti is 0.8% higher, and the RTX 2080 SUPER is 1.1% higher. This tight clustering around the RX 6600 XT's average benchmark score of 24442 suggests that Inside's performance is not particularly sensitive to GPU architecture differences within this performance class. The measured FPS data confirms this: even at 4K Ultra, the combo maintains 60 FPS, which is the minimum acceptable for smooth gameplay.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 5 5500's six cores and 12 threads operate at a base clock of 3.60 GHz with a boost of 4.20 GHz, built on TSMC's 7 nm process with Zen 3 architecture. The 16 MB L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s provide adequate feeding for the GPU in most scenarios, but the data suggests the CPU's role in Inside is secondary to the GPU.

At 1080p Low, the 280 FPS result is likely approaching the CPU's maximum frame delivery capability. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16429 and single-core score of 2319 indicate solid processing power, but the 3DMark single-thread score of 836 and 2-thread score of 1645 show that heavy single-threaded workloads are not this chip's strongest suit. Inside, being a puzzle-platformer from 2016, likely relies more on consistent frame pacing than extreme CPU throughput.

The CPU's 65 W TDP and 10,700 million transistors on a 180 mm² die make it an efficient choice, but the real question is whether the six cores are fully utilized. The PassMark multithread score of 19330 versus single-thread score of 3058 suggests a 6.3x scaling factor, which is reasonable for a 6-core/12-thread part. However, Inside's engine probably doesn't scale perfectly across all 12 threads, which would explain why the combo's rank (2620 of 3716) lags behind what the raw CPU and GPU scores might predict.

The nearest rivals' delta percentages — all within 1% of the Ryzen 5 5500's average benchmark score of 19593 — indicate that in this game, the CPU choice among these similar performers barely matters. The Intel Core i5-12500's 0.4% higher score and the Core i7-10700F's 0.5% lower score would translate to negligible FPS differences in Inside. The CPU's job here is to avoid being the bottleneck, and the measured frame rates show it succeeds at 1440p and 4K, where the GPU clearly dominates the scaling curve.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates. Low settings produce 280 FPS average, Medium hits 225 FPS (with a minimum of 191 and maximum of 258), High reaches 140 FPS, and Ultra drops to 134 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium (55 FPS) is larger than the gap between High and Ultra (6 FPS), suggesting that the Medium preset includes significant visual upgrades that cost performance, while the Ultra preset adds little beyond High in this game.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain highly playable. Low settings average 202 FPS, Medium averages 161 FPS (minimum 137, maximum 186), High averages 101 FPS, and Ultra averages 96 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent at approximately 28% across all settings, reinforcing that resolution scaling is the dominant factor. Notably, the 1440p Medium result (161 FPS) still exceeds the 1080p High result (140 FPS), indicating that users can increase resolution and maintain or improve visual quality simultaneously.

At 3840x2160, the system begins to show its limits but never becomes unplayable. Low settings average 127 FPS, Medium averages 101 FPS (minimum 86, maximum 117), High averages 63 FPS, and Ultra averages 60 FPS. The 4K High and Ultra results are essentially identical (63 vs 60 FPS), suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional effects are nearly free at this resolution — or that the GPU is already maxed out and the extra settings don't add measurable load. The 4K Medium result of 101 FPS is particularly strong, offering a 67% performance increase over High while presumably looking close to High in most scenes.

The minimum FPS data for Medium settings across all resolutions (86 at 4K, 137 at 1440p, 191 at 1080p) shows that frame pacing remains stable even under load. The maximum FPS values (117 at 4K, 186 at 1440p, 258 at 1080p) indicate headroom that could be exploited with adaptive sync displays.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Inside?

A: Yes. The measured data shows 60 FPS at 4K Ultra and 63 FPS at 4K High, with 101 FPS at 4K Medium. Even the lowest 4K result (60 FPS at Ultra) meets the standard for smooth gameplay.

Q: What settings provide the best experience at 1440p?

A: Medium settings at 2560x1440 deliver 161 FPS average with a minimum of 137 FPS, which exceeds the 1440p High result of 101 FPS. This makes Medium the strongest balance of visual quality and performance in the measured data.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: The data suggests the CPU becomes more influential at 1080p. The 280 FPS Low result versus 134 FPS Ultra shows a 2.1x range, and the consistent 28% drops from 1080p to 1440p indicate GPU scaling dominates. However, the CPU's 73rd percentile ranking versus the combo's 2620th rank of 3716 suggests the CPU holds back higher frame rates at low resolutions.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT compare to its nearest GPU rivals in this game?

A: The RX 6600 XT's nearest rivals are all within 1.1% of its average benchmark score. The GTX 1630 scores 0.7% higher, the Arc A350M 0.8% lower, the GTX 780 Ti 0.8% higher, and the RTX 2080 SUPER 1.1% higher. These small deltas would produce negligible FPS differences in Inside.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded in the measured data?

A: The lowest minimum FPS is 86, recorded at 3840x2160 with Medium settings. This is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, indicating the combo never stutters badly in this title.

Q: Does the Ultra preset provide meaningful gains over High?

A: At 1080p, Ultra delivers 134 FPS versus High's 140 FPS — a 4% difference. At 1440p, the difference is 96 vs 101 FPS (5%). At 4K, it's 60 vs 63 FPS (5%). The consistent small gap suggests Ultra adds minimal visual impact while costing little performance in Inside.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to Medium as the optimal preset for most users. At 1080p, Medium delivers 225 FPS with a minimum of 191 — a 61% improvement over High's 140 FPS and a 68% improvement over Ultra's 134 FPS. At 1440p, Medium's 161 FPS (minimum 137) beats High's 101 FPS by 59% and Ultra's 96 FPS by 68%. Even at 4K, Medium's 101 FPS (minimum 86) is 60% faster than High's 63 FPS and 68% faster than Ultra's 60 FPS.

The consistency of these percentages — Medium always delivers roughly 1.6x the frame rate of High or Ultra across all resolutions — suggests that the Medium preset in Inside includes the core visual features that matter most, while High and Ultra add progressively diminishing returns. For users with 60 Hz displays, 4K Medium at 101 FPS provides substantial headroom for frame time variance. For competitive play at 1080p, Low settings at 280 FPS would minimize input latency, but Medium's 225 FPS is already far beyond what most displays can show.

The minimum FPS data reinforces this recommendation. Medium's minimums (191 at 1080p, 137 at 1440p, 86 at 4K) are all comfortably above 60 FPS, whereas High and Ultra minimums are not recorded in the dataset — implying they may have dropped below the recording threshold. For a puzzle-platformer where precise timing matters, consistent frame delivery is more important than peak FPS, and Medium delivers that consistency at every resolution.

GPU Role

The RX 6600 XT's RDNA 2.0 architecture with 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs provides the core rendering throughput for Inside. The GPU's boost clock of 2589 MHz and game clock of 2359 MHz, combined with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivering 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, explain why resolution scaling follows such a predictable curve. The 165.7 GPixel/s pixel rate directly governs how fast the GPU can fill frames at higher resolutions, and the measured data confirms this.

The GPU's 70th percentile ranking against all GPUs and average benchmark score of 24442 place it in the upper-mid range, but its nearest rivals' tight clustering (all within 1.1%) indicates that Inside doesn't heavily differentiate between GPUs in this performance class. The 10.60 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is more than sufficient for a 2016 puzzle-platformer, even at 4K, where the GPU still manages 60 FPS at Ultra settings.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is ample for Inside, which launched in 2016 when 4 GB was the high-end standard. The GPU's 32 ray accelerators and DirectX 12 Ultimate support are irrelevant for this title, but they don't hurt. The 160 W TDP and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface are adequate for the workload, though the GPU's end-of-life production status suggests it's a mature product that won't see further optimizations.

The data shows the GPU is the dominant bottleneck at 1440p and 4K, where the consistent 28% and 37-38% FPS drops across settings track closely with the pixel count increases (2.25x from 1080p to 1440p, 2.25x from 1440p to 4K). The RX 6600 XT's 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth becomes the limiting factor at 4K, where the 60-127 FPS range demonstrates that even this capable GPU cannot fully saturate a 4K display with Ultra settings, though it comes close enough for playable performance.