Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that, on paper, should not stress modern hardware. Yet, the measured frame rates for the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti combination reveal a title that scales dramatically with both resolution and settings, exposing the GTX 1080 Ti's age while highlighting the Ryzen 5 7400F's immense headroom. This pairing, ranking 1527th out of 2887 tested combos, offers a fascinating case study in how a powerful modern CPU can prop up an older, but once-flagship, GPU in a lighter workload.

Resolution Scaling

The data shows a clear and expected trend: as resolution increases, average frame rates fall, but the rate of that fall tells the real story. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves a staggering 317 FPS. Moving to 1440p drops that to 228 FPS, a 28% reduction. At 4K, the Low preset yields 143 FPS, which is another 37% drop from 1440p. This steep decline from 1440p to 4K strongly suggests that the GPU is beginning to hit its pixel throughput limits, even on Low settings.

The scaling behavior under the High preset is more linear. At 1080p, the average is 159 FPS. At 1440p, it falls to 114 FPS (a 28% drop), and at 4K, it reaches 72 FPS (a 37% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and High presets indicates that resolution is the primary bottleneck, not the complexity of the scene or the shading load. This is a classic sign of a GPU-limited scenario, where the fill rate and memory bandwidth of the GTX 1080 Ti are the limiting factors.

The Medium preset provides the only complete FPS data with min and max values. At 4K Medium, the average is 115 FPS with a minimum of 97 and a maximum of 132. This 35 FPS spread is notable. At 1440p Medium, the average jumps to 183 FPS, with a min of 155 and a max of 210, widening the spread to 55 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the average is 254 FPS, with a min of 216 and a max of 292, a 76 FPS gap. This increasing variance at lower resolutions is typical when the CPU becomes more capable of feeding frames faster than the GPU can render them, causing occasional hitches or frame time spikes that the min FPS captures.

The Ultra preset mirrors High but at lower absolute values. The transition from 1080p Ultra (151 FPS) to 1440p Ultra (109 FPS) is a 28% drop, and the move to 4K Ultra (68 FPS) is another 38% drop. The consistent ~28%/38% scaling pattern across all presets confirms that the GTX 1080 Ti's rendering pipeline is the constraining factor at higher resolutions. The CPU is not the bottleneck here; it is the GPU's ability to push pixels. The fact that 4K High (72 FPS) and 4K Ultra (68 FPS) are so close suggests that the GPU is saturated, and additional graphical features have diminishing returns on frame rate.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 part with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21765 and single-core score of 3072 place it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, indicating a very strong processor for gaming and general productivity. In this benchmark, its role is to feed the GPU as fast as possible, and the data suggests it does so effortlessly.

At 1080p Low, the CPU is able to push the GTX 1080 Ti to 317 FPS. This is an exceptional frame rate that shows the CPU's strong single-thread performance is not a limiting factor. The Ryzen 5 7400F's high boost clock of 4.70 GHz on a 5nm process allows it to process game logic and draw calls quickly enough to avoid bottlenecking the GPU, even at such high frame rates. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache also helps keep frequently accessed data close to the cores.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 7400F's average benchmark score of 32750 is nearly identical to the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707, deltaPct 0.1), the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (32697, deltaPct 0.2), and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32662, deltaPct 0.3). It is slightly behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32812, deltaPct -0.2). This indicates that, in raw CPU compute, the 7400F is competitive with mainstream laptop and low-power desktop chips. However, its desktop platform with DDR5 memory support and high boost clocks gives it an edge in latency-sensitive tasks like gaming.

The data implies that the CPU is not the bottleneck at any resolution or settings tested. The frame rate drops are entirely attributable to the GPU struggling with resolution scaling. Even at 4K Ultra, where the CPU has to manage the lowest FPS (68), it is unlikely to be the limiting factor; the GPU is simply taking too long to render each frame. If the CPU were the issue, we would expect to see a smaller difference between 1440p and 4K, as the CPU load would cap the frame rate regardless of resolution.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is a Pascal-era flagship with an 11 GB GDDR5X memory buffer on a 352-bit bus, providing a substantial 484.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Its 3584 shading units and boost clock of 1582 MHz give it an FP32 performance of 11.34 TFLOPS. While this was top-tier in 2017, the data shows it is now the primary factor limiting frame rates in Inside at higher resolutions.

The GPU's memory bandwidth is the first suspect for the scaling issues. With 11 GB of VRAM, capacity is not a problem for a game from 2016. However, the 484.4 GB/s bandwidth is what matters for high-resolution rendering. At 4K, the GPU must read and write a massive amount of texture and framebuffer data. The steep drop from 143 FPS at 4K Low to 72 FPS at 4K High (a 50% reduction) indicates that the increased shading and texture work at High settings saturates the GPU's compute units and memory subsystem.

The GTX 1080 Ti's percentile ranking (58th) and average benchmark score of 15548 are modest by modern standards. It sits near the AMD Radeon R9 M380 (15521, deltaPct 0.2) and is slightly behind the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15679, deltaPct -0.8). Interestingly, it is ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (15290, deltaPct 1.7) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15283, deltaPct 1.7) in these aggregate benchmarks. This suggests that while it lacks modern features like ray tracing, its raw rasterization power is still respectable.

In Inside, the GPU's age shows in the resolution scaling. The jump from 1440p High (114 FPS) to 4K High (72 FPS) is a 37% drop. This is a significant penalty for just a 2.25x increase in pixel count. A more modern GPU with higher bandwidth and newer architecture would likely show a smaller percentage drop. The GTX 1080 Ti's 16nm process and Pascal architecture are simply less efficient at handling the increased workload compared to newer designs. The 4K Ultra result of 68 FPS is barely playable for a smooth 60Hz experience, but the fact that it can achieve it at all reflects the card's legacy.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal experience depends heavily on the target resolution. The goal is to select a preset that maximizes visual quality while maintaining a solid frame rate.

For 4K displays, the data strongly points to the Medium preset. At 4K Medium, the average is 115 FPS, with a minimum of 97 FPS. This guarantees a consistently smooth experience on a 60Hz display with zero drops below the refresh rate. 4K High (72 FPS) and 4K Ultra (68 FPS) are playable but leave little headroom for demanding scenes, as the minimum FPS is not recorded for these presets, but the averages are close to the 60 FPS threshold. The jump from Medium to High costs 43 FPS (from 115 to 72), which is a massive performance hit for likely a modest visual improvement in a game with a muted art style. Low (143 FPS) is unnecessary, as the visual downgrade is not worth the extra frames when Medium is already so fluid.

For 1440p, the High preset (114 FPS average) is the sweet spot. It offers a significant visual upgrade over Medium (183 FPS) and Low (228 FPS) while still providing a high refresh rate experience. The 1440p High result of 114 FPS is perfect for a 120Hz display. While Ultra (109 FPS) is nearly identical in performance, the 5 FPS difference between High and Ultra suggests that High is the better choice, as it likely uses less GPU resources while delivering nearly the same frame rate. If you have a 144Hz monitor, Medium (183 FPS) is the only preset that can fully saturate it without hitting the cap, as High (114 FPS) will leave 30 FPS on the table.

At 1080p, this combo is overkill. Ultra (151 FPS) is fully playable on high refresh rate monitors, but Medium (254 FPS) and Low (317 FPS) are only useful for competitive play or if you have a 240Hz+ display. For the best balance of visual fidelity and performance at 1080p, Ultra (151 FPS) is the recommended choice, as it provides the highest image quality while still exceeding the refresh rate of most standard gaming monitors. The data shows that the GPU has enough headroom at 1080p to run the game at maximum settings without issue.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F + GTX 1080 Ti combination ranks 1527th out of 2887 tested combos in Inside. This places it in the 47th percentile of all combos, meaning it performs better than roughly half of the systems tested. This is a surprisingly low ranking for a combination with such a strong CPU.

This ranking reflects the GPU's significant bottleneck. The Ryzen 5 7400F is a top-tier CPU (83rd percentile), but the GTX 1080 Ti is only in the 58th percentile. When paired together, the system's overall performance is dragged down by the GPU. The ranking suggests that while the CPU is capable of much higher frame rates, the GPU cannot keep up, especially at higher resolutions. In a game like Inside, which is not particularly demanding, this pairing shows that a modern CPU cannot fully compensate for an older GPU's lack of raw rasterization power.

The combo's rank also suggests that many other pairings, likely with newer mid-range GPUs, achieve higher average FPS in this specific title. The data implies that the GTX 1080 Ti's performance is closer to modern entry-level or mid-range cards in this workload, despite its high VRAM count. The rank of 1527 is a quantitative measure of the mismatch between CPU potential and GPU delivery. The system is not weak, but it is not optimized for this game's specific demands, which lean heavily on pixel throughput and memory bandwidth. For a game released in 2016, the expectation is that this combo should rank higher, but the resolution scaling data shows why it doesn't.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Inside at a smooth 60 FPS at 4K?

A: Yes, the data shows an average of 72 FPS at 4K High and 68 FPS at 4K Ultra. However, the Medium preset is recommended for a safer experience, as it averages 115 FPS with a minimum of 97 FPS, ensuring no drops below 60 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this setup?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. Frame rates scale down significantly as resolution increases, while the CPU's strong single-core performance (Cinebench R23 score of 3072) suggests it can feed frames far faster than the GTX 1080 Ti can render them.

Q: What is the best preset for a 144Hz 1080p monitor?

A: The Ultra preset, which averages 151 FPS, is the best choice for visual quality. If you need to cap out at 144 FPS consistently, Medium (254 FPS) or Low (317 FPS) provide massive headroom, but Ultra is the only preset that offers both high visual fidelity and a frame rate above 144 Hz.

Q: How does the GTX 1080 Ti compare to the RTX 2060 in this context?

A: The GTX 1080 Ti has a higher average benchmark score (15548) compared to the RTX 2060 (15290), a deltaPct of 1.7. This suggests the GTX 1080 Ti edges out the RTX 2060 in raw rasterization performance, which is the primary factor in Inside.

Q: Is 11 GB of VRAM enough for this game?

A: Yes. Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer, and the 11 GB GDDR5X buffer is far more than sufficient for capacity. The issue is not the amount of VRAM, but the 484.4 GB/s bandwidth and the GPU's computational throughput, which limits performance at 4K.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 7400F's performance competitive with other CPUs in its class?

A: Yes. Its average benchmark score of 32750 is nearly identical to the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707, deltaPct 0.1) and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32662, deltaPct 0.3). It is technically 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32812), but for gaming, its high boost clock of 4.70 GHz makes it an excellent performer.