Inside

# Inside — AMD Ryzen 5 5600 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080

The measured data for this pairing shows a system that delivers remarkably high frame rates across all tested resolutions and settings in Inside, a puzzle platformer that clearly does not stress modern hardware to its limits. The combination of a 6-core Zen 3 processor and an Ampere-based GPU produces average FPS figures that range from 95.7 at 4K Ultra to 297.2 at 1080p Low, indicating that this is a configuration with substantial headroom for the game's relatively modest graphical demands. The benchmark results reveal interesting scaling behavior that points to different bottleneck dynamics at different resolution and settings combinations.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic but follows an expected pattern for a game with this visual style. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 217.6 at 1920x1080 to 160.1 at 2560x1440, then further to 96.5 at 3840x2160. That represents a 55.7% reduction from 1080p to 4K, which suggests the GPU becomes progressively more involved as pixel count rises. At Low settings, the scaling is even more pronounced: 297.2 at 1080p drops to 265 at 1440p, and then to 197.7 at 4K — a 33.5% decline from 1080p to 4K. The fact that even at 4K Low the system still produces nearly 200 FPS indicates that the GPU is never fully saturated, even at the highest pixel counts tested.

What stands out is the relatively small gap between 1080p and 1440p at lower settings. At Medium, 277.8 at 1080p becomes 246.3 at 1440p — only an 11.3% drop. This suggests that at lower settings, the CPU is playing a significant role in limiting performance, as the frame rate does not scale proportionally with the pixel count increase. The 4K results, however, show a larger relative drop, indicating the GPU's workload becomes more dominant at that resolution. This pattern implies that for this particular game, the CPU is the limiting factor at 1080p and 1440p with lower settings, while the GPU takes over as the primary constraint at 4K.

GPU Role

The RTX 3080's specifications provide context for these results. With 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus, the GPU offers 760.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The GA102 chip contains 8704 shading units, 272 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, with base and boost clocks of 1440 MHz and 1710 MHz respectively. The GPU's FP32 throughput of 29.77 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 164.2 GPixel/s are substantial, yet the benchmark data shows that even at 4K Ultra, the average FPS of 95.7 indicates the card is not working at maximum capacity in this title.

The difference between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution is informative. At 4K, Low produces 197.7 FPS while Ultra yields 95.7 — a 106.6% increase in frame rate when dropping from Ultra to Low. At 1080p, the same comparison shows 297.2 versus 209.2, a 42.1% difference. The fact that the performance gap between Low and Ultra shrinks as resolution decreases suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU becomes the bottleneck, masking the GPU's workload differences. The GPU's 80th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35787, places it in a strong position, yet the neighboring rivals — including the AMD Radeon Pro Duo at 35860 (0.2% lower delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE at 36101 (0.9% lower delta) — indicate this is not an outlier in raw compute terms.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600 brings 6 cores and 12 threads based on Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The processor's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support at 51.2 GB/s bandwidth are relevant for gaming workloads. The benchmark data for this CPU shows a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18309 and single-core of 2584, with a PassMark multithread score of 21541. Its 79th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 21765, places it in the upper tier of desktop processors.

The CPU's influence is most visible in the 1080p results. At that resolution, the FPS difference between Low (297.2) and Medium (277.8) is only 6.5%, and between Medium and High (217.6) it's 21.7%. This non-linear scaling suggests that the CPU's single-thread performance becomes a limiting factor as settings increase, since the game's physics and logic must be processed regardless of graphical fidelity. The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-11700F with an average score of 21957 (0.9% delta), which is interesting because that processor has a different core configuration yet performs similarly in aggregate benchmarks. The 3DMark single-thread score of 882 and 2-thread score of 1737 indicate that the 5600's per-core performance is adequate for this title's demands, but the data suggests it does cap frame rates at lower resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 5 5600 and RTX 3080 achieves a rank of 539 out of 1671 tested combos for Inside. This places the pairing in the 67.7th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning roughly one-third of tested combos outperform it. Given that both components individually sit at the 79th and 80th percentiles respectively, the combined ranking is slightly lower than either component's individual standing. This discrepancy suggests that other factors — such as memory configuration, driver overhead, or the specific nature of this game's engine — may be influencing the overall ranking.

The gap between the combo rank and the component percentiles is worth questioning. If both the CPU and GPU are in the top 21% of their respective categories, why does the combo only reach the top 32.3% of tested systems? The answer likely lies in the game's relatively low requirements. With even 4K Ultra producing nearly 96 FPS, the hardware is rarely stressed, meaning that small differences in other system components or software configurations can have outsized effects on the final ranking. This is a case where the hardware's theoretical capabilities exceed what the game can utilize, making the combo ranking less indicative of actual performance limitations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a complete picture across three resolutions and four settings levels. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 209.2 at Ultra to 297.2 at Low, with High at 217.6 and Medium at 277.8. At 2560x1440, the range shifts to 152.3 at Ultra, 160.1 at High, 246.3 at Medium, and 265 at Low. The 3840x2160 results show 95.7 at Ultra, 96.5 at High, 157.7 at Medium, and 197.7 at Low.

Several observations emerge from this data. First, the difference between High and Ultra is minimal at every resolution — at 4K, the gap is just 0.8 FPS (96.5 vs 95.7), and at 1440p it's 7.8 FPS (160.1 vs 152.3). This suggests that the Ultra preset adds visual features that have negligible performance cost in this game. Second, the jump from Medium to High is substantial at all resolutions, with a 27.4% drop at 1080p, 35% at 1440p, and 38.8% at 4K. This indicates that the High preset introduces rendering techniques that significantly increase GPU load. Third, the Low to Medium transition shows a more modest 6.5% to 20.2% performance decrease depending on resolution, implying that Medium builds upon Low without dramatically increasing the workload.

FAQ

Q: Is 4K Ultra playable with this combination?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra is 95.7, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold typically considered smooth for most players. The High preset at 4K produces 96.5 FPS, showing that even the highest quality settings remain playable.

Q: How much performance is gained by dropping from Ultra to Low?

A: At 1080p, Low produces 297.2 FPS versus 209.2 at Ultra, a gain of 42.1%. At 1440p, the gain is 74.0% (265 vs 152.3). At 4K, the gain is 106.6% (197.7 vs 95.7). The percentage gain increases with resolution, indicating the GPU workload becomes more dominant at higher pixel counts.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data suggests the CPU is more limiting at lower resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low, the system produces 297.2 FPS, which is likely near the CPU's maximum frame rate capability. The GPU becomes more of a limiting factor at 4K, where the FPS drops more significantly across settings.

Q: How does the combo ranking compare to the individual component rankings?

A: The CPU ranks in the 79th percentile and the GPU in the 80th percentile, but the combo ranks 539 out of 1671 (67.7th percentile). This indicates the game's modest requirements mean other factors influence the overall ranking more than raw component performance.

Q: What is the difference between High and Ultra settings?

A: The performance difference is minimal. At 1080p, High produces 217.6 FPS versus 209.2 at Ultra (3.9% difference). At 1440p, the difference is 5.1% (160.1 vs 152.3). At 4K, the difference is just 0.8% (96.5 vs 95.7). The visual upgrade from High to Ultra appears to cost very little performance.

Q: Can this system maintain 144 FPS at 1440p?

A: Yes, but only with lower settings. At 1440p Medium, the average is 246.3 FPS, and at High it's 160.1 FPS. Both exceed 144 FPS. However, at Ultra, the average drops to 152.3 FPS, which is still above 144 but with less headroom.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to Medium settings as the optimal balance for this configuration. At 1080p, Medium produces 277.8 FPS, which is only 6.5% lower than Low but 27.7% higher than High. At 1440p, Medium achieves 246.3 FPS, maintaining a comfortable margin above 240 Hz displays while still offering improved visuals over Low. Even at 4K, Medium delivers 157.7 FPS, which is far above what most 4K displays can show and represents a 63.1% improvement over Ultra.

For players with high refresh rate monitors, the Low preset at 1080p provides 297.2 FPS, which is useful for 240 Hz or 300 Hz displays. However, the visual compromise may not be worth the 6.5% FPS gain over Medium. At 1440p, Medium at 246.3 FPS is the recommended choice for most users, as it offers a substantial improvement over High (160.1 FPS) while maintaining frame rates that exceed all but the most extreme refresh rate displays. For 4K users, the choice between High and Ultra is essentially academic given the 0.8% FPS difference, so selecting Ultra provides the best visuals at essentially no performance cost. The data consistently shows that High settings offer no meaningful advantage over Ultra in this game, making Ultra the better choice for those who want maximum quality.