Inside

Inside is not a demanding title by modern standards, but the measured results for the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT combination reveal a configuration that is heavily overqualified for the task. The data indicates that this pairing delivers exceptionally high frame rates across all tested resolutions, with the primary bottleneck shifting decisively to the GPU only at 4K Ultra settings. The benchmark results show a system capable of exploiting high-refresh-rate monitors even at maximum quality presets, making it a robust choice for this puzzle platformer.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear hierarchy for the best experience in Inside. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 168 FPS, which is more than sufficient for smooth gameplay on standard displays. However, the Medium preset at the same resolution produces an average of 283 FPS, with a minimum of 240 FPS, representing a 68% performance uplift over Ultra while maintaining what is visually a near-identical experience in a game with simple, monochromatic art direction. The data suggests that Medium is the optimal choice for 1080p, as it guarantees frame rates well above the refresh rate of most high-end monitors, eliminating any possibility of screen tearing without adaptive sync.

At 2560x1440, the High preset yields an average of 127 FPS, while Medium achieves 203 FPS with a minimum of 173 FPS. The difference between High and Medium is a 60% improvement in average frame rate. Given that Inside features minimal texture detail and relies on atmospheric lighting rather than complex geometry, the visual penalty for dropping from High to Medium is negligible in practice. The Medium preset at 1440p is the recommended setting, as it maintains an average above 200 FPS and a minimum that never dips below 173 FPS, providing a flawless experience on 144Hz monitors.

For 3840x2160, the situation changes. The High preset delivers 80 FPS on average, while Medium produces 128 FPS with a minimum of 109 FPS. The Ultra preset drops to 76 FPS, which is still playable but begins to approach the threshold where frame pacing issues could become noticeable on high-refresh displays. The Medium preset at 4K is the clear winner, offering a 60% advantage over High in average frame rate and a minimum that stays comfortably above 100 FPS. This makes 4K Medium the best overall experience for users with 4K panels, as it balances the game's visual presentation with a performance margin that ensures consistent fluidity. The Low preset, while reaching 160 FPS at 4K, sacrifices too much of the game's atmospheric lighting to be recommended over Medium.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. In the context of Inside, which is a puzzle platformer with relatively simple physics and AI, the CPU's role is primarily to feed the GPU with draw calls and manage game logic. The benchmark results show that the CPU is never the limiting factor at any resolution or setting tested, as evidenced by the frame rates scaling largely with GPU workload.

The processor's benchmark scores reinforce its capability. In Cinebench R23, it scores 21765 points in multi-core and 3072 points in single-core, placing it at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600T, which is 0.1% faster, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, which is 0.2% slower. These margins are negligible, indicating that the 7400F sits in a performance tier where single-threaded performance is more than adequate for older game engines like the one powering Inside.

The low frame times and high average FPS at 1080p Low (337 FPS) suggest that the CPU can process the game's logic at a rate far exceeding what the GPU can render, even with the GPU's boost clock of 2600 MHz. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 12 threads provide ample headroom for background tasks without impacting game performance. For a game released in 2016, the 7400F's single-core performance is roughly 30% higher than what would have been flagship desktop silicon at that time, based on the PassMark single-thread score of 3689. This explains why the CPU never becomes a bottleneck in the measured data.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is the primary driver of performance in Inside, and its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth proves more than sufficient for the game's modest texture requirements. The GPU's base clock of 2150 MHz and boost clock of 2600 MHz, combined with 2560 shading units, deliver frame rates that scale predictably with resolution. The data shows a clear GPU-bound scenario at higher settings, where the average FPS drops by roughly 40-50% when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same preset.

At 1080p Ultra, the GPU produces 168 FPS, which is only 0.5% higher than the 4K High result of 80 FPS, indicating that the GPU is the limiting factor even at lower resolutions when settings are maxed out. The Radeon RX 6750 XT's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 2548 and PassMark G3D score of 20700 place it at the 71st percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon R9 M395X at 0.5% slower and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile at 1.1% faster. These comparisons are misleading for this game, however, as Inside's rendering engine does not stress the GPU's compute or ray tracing capabilities.

The GPU's memory configuration is a non-factor in this title. The 12 GB VRAM is never fully utilized, even at 4K Ultra, as evidenced by the 76 FPS average at that setting, which is limited by the GPU's shading rate rather than memory capacity. The 40 ray tracing cores are irrelevant for a game with no RT effects, and the FP32 performance of 13.31 TFLOPS is more than enough to handle the game's pixel shader workload. The measured results show that the RX 6750 XT is overkill for Inside at 1080p, where even the Low preset achieves 337 FPS, but it becomes the clear bottleneck at 4K Ultra, where the frame rate drops to 76 FPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Inside with this hardware?

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 at Medium settings provides the best balance, with an average of 203 FPS and a minimum of 173 FPS. This offers a 60% performance headroom over High settings while maintaining a visually identical experience in this game's simple art style.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in Inside?

A: No. The measured results show that the CPU is never the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 337 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 76 FPS, which is a GPU-bound scenario. The Ryzen 5 7400F's single-core score of 3072 in Cinebench R23 is far above what this game requires.

Q: How much performance is lost between Medium and Ultra settings?

A: At 1080p, Ultra produces 168 FPS compared to Medium's 283 FPS, representing a 41% reduction in average frame rate. At 1440p, the drop is from 203 FPS to 121 FPS, a 40% reduction. At 4K, the drop is from 128 FPS to 76 FPS, a 41% reduction. The consistency across resolutions indicates that Ultra settings impose a fixed rendering cost that scales with pixel count.

Q: Is 12 GB of VRAM sufficient for Inside at 4K?

A: Yes. The GPU's 12 GB of GDDR6 memory is never a limiting factor in this game. The 4K Ultra average of 76 FPS is limited by the GPU's compute throughput, not memory bandwidth or capacity, as evidenced by the fact that lowering settings to Medium at 4K increases the frame rate to 128 FPS without any indication of memory-related stuttering.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested configurations?

A: This combination ranks 1222 out of 2887 tested combos for Inside, placing it in the top 42% of all configurations. This is a strong result given that the game is not graphically intensive, and the ranking reflects that many higher-end GPUs are also tested but do not offer proportional gains in this title.

Q: Can this system handle high refresh rate gaming in Inside?

A: Yes, at 1080p and 1440p. At 1080p Medium, the average is 283 FPS with a minimum of 240 FPS, which exceeds the refresh rate of most 240Hz monitors. At 1440p Medium, the average of 203 FPS with a minimum of 173 FPS is sufficient for 144Hz displays. At 4K, the 128 FPS average at Medium is suitable for 120Hz panels.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent scaling pattern across resolutions. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at the same settings results in a frame rate reduction of approximately 28-30%. Specifically, at High settings, the drop is from 177 FPS to 127 FPS, a 28% reduction. At Medium settings, the drop is from 283 FPS to 203 FPS, a 28% reduction. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 168 FPS to 121 FPS, a 28% reduction. This consistency indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at all settings, as the frame rate scales with pixel count.

Moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 results in a more significant drop of approximately 37-40%. At High settings, the drop is from 127 FPS to 80 FPS, a 37% reduction. At Medium settings, the drop is from 203 FPS to 128 FPS, a 37% reduction. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 121 FPS to 76 FPS, a 37% reduction. The larger drop at 4K is expected because the pixel count more than doubles from 1440p to 4K, while the GPU's memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s and texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s cannot keep pace with the increased fill rate demand.

The scaling pattern reveals that the GPU is the limiting component across all tested resolutions. The CPU's performance remains constant, but the frame rate drops by a factor of roughly 2.1x from 1080p to 4K at Low settings (337 FPS to 160 FPS), which is close to the 4x pixel count increase, indicating that the GPU is fully saturated. This is further confirmed by the fact that at 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 76 FPS, which is only 55% of the 1440p Ultra result, showing that the GPU's shading units are the primary constraint.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured frame rates is as follows:

1920x1080:

• Low: 337 FPS average
• Medium: 283 FPS average, 240 FPS minimum, 325 FPS maximum
• High: 177 FPS average
• Ultra: 168 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 254 FPS average
• Medium: 203 FPS average, 173 FPS minimum, 234 FPS maximum
• High: 127 FPS average
• Ultra: 121 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 160 FPS average
• Medium: 128 FPS average, 109 FPS minimum, 147 FPS maximum
• High: 80 FPS average
• Ultra: 76 FPS average

The 1080p results show that the Low preset achieves 337 FPS, which is 19% higher than the Medium preset's 283 FPS. The High preset at 177 FPS is 37% lower than Medium, while Ultra at 168 FPS is only 5% lower than High. This indicates that the step from High to Ultra has a diminishing impact on performance in this game.

At 1440p, the Low preset produces 254 FPS, which is 25% higher than Medium's 203 FPS. The High preset at 127 FPS is 37% lower than Medium, and Ultra at 121 FPS is 5% lower than High. The pattern is identical to 1080p, confirming that the settings scale consistently regardless of resolution.

At 4K, the Low preset delivers 160 FPS, which is 25% higher than Medium's 128 FPS. The High preset at 80 FPS is 38% lower than Medium, and Ultra at 76 FPS is 5% lower than High. The consistency of these percentages across all resolutions suggests that the game's rendering pipeline has a fixed cost per setting tier, with the GPU's compute units being the sole determinant of performance.

The minimum and maximum frame rates for Medium settings show that the frame time variance is well-controlled. At 1080p, the range from 240 to 325 FPS represents a variance of 35%, while at 1440p, the range from 173 to 234 FPS represents a variance of 35%. At 4K, the range from 109 to 147 FPS also represents a variance of 35%. This consistent 35% variance across resolutions indicates that the game's frame pacing is stable and not affected by resolution-dependent effects like memory bandwidth saturation.