Inside

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX combination delivers exceptionally high frame rates in Inside, a 2016 puzzle platformer. The data shows that this pairing is heavily overqualified for the game’s graphical demands, resulting in performance that is limited more by the CPU’s single-thread capabilities at lower resolutions and by the GPU’s raw throughput at higher ones. The measured results reveal that even at 4K Ultra settings, the system maintains an average above 100 FPS, indicating a smooth experience across all tested configurations.

Settings Recommendations

For this specific pairing, the benchmark data suggests that the Ultra preset is the optimal choice for the best experience, provided that the user prioritizes visual fidelity. The performance drop from High to Ultra is minimal in percentage terms, while the jump from Medium to High is also small, making Ultra the most sensible target. At 1920x1080, the average frame rate is 203 FPS on Ultra, compared to 206 FPS on High, a negligible difference of roughly 1.5%. Similarly, at 2560x1440, the scores are 182 FPS for Ultra versus 185 FPS for High, again a near-identical result. Even at 3840x2160, the gap narrows to just 5% (115 FPS for Ultra versus 121 FPS for High). Because the visual enhancements of Ultra settings typically come at a cost, and the data shows that cost is nearly zero for this game, there is no practical reason to select High over Ultra.

The Medium preset offers higher frame rates but at a significant sacrifice in visual quality for this title. At 4K, Medium produces an average of 190 FPS, which is 65% higher than Ultra, but the game is already running at a playable 115 FPS on Ultra. The Low preset is unnecessary for this hardware. While it yields the highest frame rates—268 FPS at 1080p, 240 FPS at 1440p, and 206 FPS at 4K—the visual downgrade from Low to Medium is substantial and not justified when the system can comfortably exceed 100 FPS on Ultra settings at 4K. The data indicates that the GPU and CPU have enough headroom to run the game at its maximum visual settings without dropping below 100 FPS average, making Ultra the clear recommendation for the best balance of image quality and smoothness.

How This Combo Ranks

The benchmark database ranks this specific CPU and GPU combination as 816th out of 2887 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the 72nd percentile of all tested systems, meaning it outperforms roughly 72% of the configurations in the database. This ranking is somewhat surprising given the high-end nature of the GPU, but it underscores the fact that Inside is not a demanding title for modern hardware. The ranking is likely influenced by the CPU’s performance in single-threaded tasks, as the game’s engine does not heavily utilize the multi-threaded capabilities of the processor.

The rank of 816 suggests that while this combo is fast, it is not at the absolute top tier for this game. Many other combinations, likely featuring higher-clocked CPUs or more optimized pairings, achieve higher average frame rates. However, the absolute numbers from the measured FPS data show that this ranking does not translate to a poor experience. The combo’s performance is so far above the threshold for smooth gameplay that the relative ranking becomes a matter of academic interest rather than a practical concern. For a game like Inside, the difference between 115 FPS and 150 FPS is imperceptible on most displays, so the 816th rank should not be interpreted as a weakness, but rather as a reflection of the vast number of modern systems that can run this lightweight title easily. The data shows a system that is overkill for the task, and the ranking reflects its position among equally overqualified hardware.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is the dominant component in this pairing, and its specifications explain the high frame rates observed. The GPU features 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 960.0 GB/s. This vast memory pool and bandwidth are far beyond what Inside requires, which is a game released in 2016. The GPU’s clock speeds are also high, with a base clock of 1929 MHz, a game clock of 2365 MHz, and a boost clock of 2498 MHz. These high clocks, combined with 6144 shading units, allow the GPU to process the game’s 2D and simple 3D geometry with extreme efficiency.

The GPU’s role becomes more apparent at higher resolutions. The measured data shows that the frame rate drops from 268 FPS at 1080p Low to 206 FPS at 4K Low, a reduction of 23%. This is a direct consequence of the increased pixel count, which places more load on the GPU’s render output units (ROPs) and texture units (TMUs). The RX 7900 XTX has 192 ROPs and 384 TMUs, which are high counts, but the sheer number of pixels at 4K still requires more work. The GPU is also the limiting factor in the Ultra settings at 4K, where the average FPS drops to 115. This is still a very high frame rate, but the scaling from 1080p to 4K on Ultra shows a 43% reduction (from 203 to 115 FPS), indicating that the GPU’s fill rate is the bottleneck when pushing maximum visual quality at high resolution. The card’s 61.39 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power is more than sufficient for this title, and the data confirms that the GPU is never the cause of a poor experience, even at the most demanding settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of the system’s capabilities across different resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the system is heavily CPU-bound. On Low settings, the average FPS is 268, but this drops to 247 on Medium and 206 on High. The jump to Ultra brings the score down to 203 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 65 FPS, which is a 24% reduction. The minimum FPS recorded on Medium at this resolution is 210, with a maximum of 285, showing a fairly tight range.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain exceptionally high. Low settings produce 240 FPS, Medium produces 222 FPS (with a minimum of 188 and maximum of 255), High produces 185 FPS, and Ultra produces 182 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is modest, with the Ultra setting dropping from 203 to 182 FPS, a 10% reduction. This suggests that the CPU is still a significant factor at this resolution, as the GPU has enough headroom to handle the increased pixel count with only a small performance penalty.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck. Low settings yield 206 FPS, Medium yields 190 FPS (minimum 161, maximum 218), High yields 121 FPS, and Ultra yields 115 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra is only 5%, but the drop from Medium to High is a substantial 36%. This indicates that the High preset introduces graphical features that are significantly more demanding on the GPU’s compute units. The data shows a consistent trend: at 4K, the frame rate is still playable on all settings, but the performance scaling is steeper when moving from Low to High, confirming the GPU’s increased workload.

Resolution Scaling

The performance scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the nature of the bottleneck in this system. For Low settings, the average FPS goes from 268 at 1080p to 240 at 1440p and finally to 206 at 4K. This is a total reduction of 23% from 1080p to 4K. The scaling is nearly linear, suggesting that the CPU is the primary limiter. The GPU is capable of rendering the frames faster, but the CPU cannot issue draw calls quickly enough to keep up. This is a classic CPU-bound scenario at low graphical settings.

For High settings, the average FPS goes from 206 at 1080p to 185 at 1440p and 121 at 4K. This is a 41% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The steeper drop indicates that the GPU is starting to become a more significant factor at higher resolutions and settings. The jump from 1440p to 4K is particularly pronounced, showing a 35% drop in frame rate. This suggests that the GPU’s pixel throughput is becoming the limiting factor. The Ultra settings show a similar trend, with a 43% reduction from 1080p (203 FPS) to 4K (115 FPS).

The data indicates that the system is CPU-bound at 1080p and 1440p, with the CPU’s single-thread performance capping the frame rate. At 4K, the GPU’s raw rendering power becomes the limiting factor, especially at higher settings. This is an important consideration for users with high refresh rate monitors. At 1080p, the CPU prevents the system from reaching its full potential, as the GPU could likely push beyond 268 FPS if the CPU allowed it. However, at 4K, the system is more balanced, with the GPU working harder to fill the extra pixels.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture. It has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, with a substantial 96 MB of shared L3 cache. This large cache is beneficial for gaming, but the relatively low clock speeds for a gaming CPU suggest that its single-thread performance is moderate. The benchmark data shows a PassMark single-thread score of 2941, which is decent but not exceptional for a modern processor. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 37018 places it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, but its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and Intel Core Ultra 5 225, which are within 0.2% of its score.

In Inside, the CPU’s role is significant at lower resolutions. The measured FPS at 1080p on Low settings is 268, which is likely near the CPU’s limit for this game. The game’s engine is not highly threaded, so the 6 cores and 12 threads are underutilized. The CPU’s performance is more dependent on its single-thread speed and cache latency. The large 96 MB L3 cache helps with data access patterns, but the 4.00 GHz boost clock is lower than what many other CPUs offer. The data implies that the CPU is the primary bottleneck for achieving frame rates above 200 FPS at 1080p. The PassMark multi-thread score of 20363 shows the CPU is capable, but the game does not leverage this capability. The results show that a faster CPU with higher clock speeds would likely push the 1080p frame rates higher, but the current configuration already provides an excellent experience. The CPU’s 105 W TDP and AM4 socket make it a practical choice, but its performance in this game is more about single-thread efficiency than core count.