Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that remains a demanding showcase for low-end hardware, and the pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 produces a surprisingly playable, though heavily tiered, experience. The benchmark data reveals a system where the GPU is the definitive bottleneck, with the CPU’s substantial headroom meaning that performance scales almost entirely with resolution and graphics settings. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS data to explain exactly where this combination excels and where it struggles, offering clear guidance for optimizing the game.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F 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 5.00 GHz. In the context of Inside, a title that is not heavily threaded, this CPU provides a massive amount of computational headroom. The processor's benchmark scores paint a picture of robust multi-threaded and single-threaded capability; its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22799 and single-core score of 3218 are strong indicators of its ability to handle game logic and physics without breaking a sweat.

However, the data shows that this CPU power is largely untapped in this specific game. The measured FPS at 1080p Low is 134, which is the highest average FPS recorded in the entire dataset. This suggests that the CPU is capable of pushing far beyond the frame rates that the GPU can render. The processor's percentile ranking of 77 among all CPUs, alongside its average benchmark score of 24964, places it in a strong position, but its nearest rivals—such as the Intel Core i7-11850H (deltaPct 0.1) and AMD Ryzen 5 8400F (deltaPct -0.2)—show that it is not a class leader, but rather a solid mid-to-high tier performer.

The real story is the bottleneck. When comparing the 1080p Low result (134 FPS) to the 1080p Ultra result (64 FPS), the FPS halves, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation. The CPU is not the constraint here; if it were, the frame rate would remain relatively stable across different graphics settings. The Ryzen 5 7500F's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 83.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth are more than sufficient for a game like Inside, which does not require massive data streaming. Therefore, the CPU's role is to ensure that the GTX 1650 is never waiting for instructions, allowing the GPU to be the sole determinant of performance. The data shows that even at 4K Ultra, where the average FPS drops to 29, the CPU is not the culprit; the GPU simply runs out of processing power.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear limiting factor in this configuration. This Turing-architecture GPU features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its clock speeds are modest, with a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz. The GTX 1650's benchmark scores are low, with a Passmark G3D score of 7880 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of just 305, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Arc A310 (deltaPct -1) and AMD Radeon R7 350 (deltaPct 0.6), are similarly weak, confirming its position as an entry-level part.

The impact of the GPU is immediately visible in the FPS data. At 1080p Low, the card manages 134 FPS, but this drops to 107 FPS at Medium and 67 FPS at High. This steep decline is a direct result of the GPU's limited shading units (896) and texture mapping units (56). The 4 GB VRAM is also a concern, though Inside is not a VRAM-heavy title; the data does not show a catastrophic failure at higher settings, but the performance degradation suggests the card is struggling with the increased shader complexity. The GPU's FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is simply not enough to maintain high frame rates at higher settings.

The data shows that the GTX 1650 is most comfortable at Low settings, where it can leverage its raw pixel fill rate of 53.28 GPixel/s to deliver playable frame rates. At 1080p Low, the 134 FPS average is excellent. However, the moment settings are raised, the GPU’s architectural weaknesses are exposed. The transition from Low to Medium at 1080p results in a 27 FPS drop, and from Medium to High, another 40 FPS drop. This is not a linear scaling; it is a cliff. The GPU is the bottleneck in every single measured scenario, and the CPU’s performance is largely irrelevant to the final outcome.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The FPS scaling across resolutions is the most telling indicator of the system's balance. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 134 at 1080p to 97 at 1440p, and then to 61 at 4K. This is a predictable decline, but the percentage drops are significant: a 27.6% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 37.1% drop from 1440p to 4K. This scaling is entirely consistent with a GPU that is running out of pixel processing power. The GTX 1650's 32 ROPs are being saturated as the resolution increases, and the 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is insufficient to feed the GPU at higher pixel counts.

The pattern is similar but more pronounced at Medium settings. The average FPS drops from 107 at 1080p to 77 at 1440p, and then to 49 at 4K. The minimum FPS data also highlights the strain: at 1080p Medium, the minimum is 91 FPS, but at 1440p Medium, it drops to 66, and at 4K Medium, it falls to 41. These minimums indicate that the GPU is struggling to maintain consistent frame times, leading to potential stutter. At High settings, the trend continues, with 67 FPS at 1080p, 48 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1440p to 4K is a 37.5% reduction, showing that the GPU is hitting a hard wall.

This scaling behavior confirms that the limiting component is the GPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would be more consistent across resolutions, as the CPU's workload does not change significantly with resolution. The fact that FPS drops by roughly half when moving from 1080p to 4K at any given setting is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance. The CPU is simply waiting for the GPU to finish rendering each frame. The data shows that the GTX 1650 is a 1080p-oriented card, and pushing it to 1440p or 4K requires a significant reduction in settings to maintain a playable frame rate.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Inside with this hardware for a smooth experience?

A: The data indicates that 1080p is the only resolution where the GTX 1650 can consistently deliver high frame rates. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 134, and even at 1080p Medium, it stays above 100 FPS (107). At 1440p, the frame rates are playable but lower, with a 97 FPS average at Low and 77 FPS at Medium, while 4K is only viable at Low settings (61 FPS).

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7500F affect the game's performance?

A: The benchmark results show that the CPU is not a bottleneck. The 1080p Low setting achieves 134 FPS, which is the highest score in the dataset, proving the CPU can handle the game's logic. The performance drops when increasing settings or resolution are entirely attributable to the GPU, as the CPU has significant headroom, as evidenced by its high Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22799.

Q: Is the GTX 1650 capable of running Inside at 4K?

A: Yes, but only at the lowest settings. The measured data shows a 4K Low average of 61 FPS, which is playable. However, at 4K Medium, the average drops to 49 FPS, and at 4K High, it falls to 30 FPS, which is below the generally accepted threshold for smooth gameplay. 4K Ultra is not recommended, as it averages only 29 FPS.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: The difference is substantial. At 1080p, the average FPS drops from 134 at Low settings to 64 at Ultra settings. This represents a 70 FPS loss, or a 52% reduction in performance, showing that the GTX 1650's limited shader and texture resources are heavily taxed by the higher quality presets.

Q: How does this system compare to its closest rivals in terms of GPU and CPU performance?

A: The GTX 1650 is closely matched with the Intel Arc A310, which is 1% faster (deltaPct -1), and the AMD Radeon R7 350, which is 0.6% slower. The CPU is similarly competitive, with the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F being 0.2% faster and the Intel Core i7-13620H being 0.2% slower. This means the system sits right in the middle of its performance tier.

Q: Should I use the Medium or High preset for a balanced experience at 1440p?

A: Based on the data, Medium is the better choice. At 1440p Medium, the average FPS is 77, with a minimum of 66, which provides a smooth experience. At 1440p High, the average drops to 48 FPS, which is less consistent and closer to the edge of playability. The minimum FPS data for Medium (66) is much safer than the unlisted minimum for High.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following data is derived directly from the measured FPS results for the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: Average FPS is 134. This is the highest performance point in the entire dataset, indicating the GPU is fully utilized but not overloaded.
• Medium: Average FPS is 107, with a minimum of 91 and a maximum of 124. This shows a significant drop of 27 FPS from Low, but it remains a very playable zone.
• High: Average FPS is 67. This is a steep 40 FPS drop from Medium, highlighting the GPU's struggle with higher-quality textures and effects.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 64. The drop from High to Ultra is minimal (only 3 FPS), suggesting the GPU has hit a hard architectural limit.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: Average FPS is 97. This is a 37 FPS drop from 1080p Low, showing the impact of increased pixel count.
• Medium: Average FPS is 77, with a minimum of 66 and a maximum of 89. The minimum FPS is still solid, but the average is getting closer to the 60 FPS threshold.
• High: Average FPS is 48. This is a 29 FPS drop from 1080p High, making this setting borderline playable for most users.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 46. The difference between High and Ultra is again small (2 FPS), confirming the GPU is the limiting factor.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: Average FPS is 61. This is surprisingly playable, but it is the only 4K setting that breaks the 60 FPS barrier.
• Medium: Average FPS is 49, with a minimum of 41 and a maximum of 56. The minimum FPS is getting low, which could lead to noticeable stutters.
• High: Average FPS is 30. This is below the standard for smooth gameplay, indicating a poor experience.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 29. This is effectively unplayable, with an average frame rate that is barely above a slideshow.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience with this hardware, the priority should be maintaining a frame rate at or above 60 FPS. The data shows that the GTX 1650 has a very narrow sweet spot.

For 1080p gaming: The High preset is the recommended choice. It delivers an average of 67 FPS, which is smooth, while providing a significant visual upgrade over the Medium preset's 107 FPS. The Ultra preset offers no meaningful benefit, as it only produces 64 FPS, a negligible 3 FPS gain over High. The Low preset is only for those seeking the absolute maximum frame rate, as the visual fidelity is heavily compromised.

For 1440p gaming: The Medium preset is the only viable option. It provides an average of 77 FPS and a minimum of 66 FPS, ensuring a consistent and playable experience. The High preset's 48 FPS average is too low for a smooth experience, and the Low preset, while hitting 97 FPS, sacrifices too much visual quality. This resolution is best used with Medium settings to balance performance and image quality.

For 4K gaming: The Low preset is the only way to play. It achieves an average of 61 FPS, which is just at the playable threshold. Any other setting will result in an average below 50 FPS, which is not recommended for this genre. The visual trade-offs are significant, but the ability to run at native 4K is impressive for this GPU.

General Verdict: The data strongly suggests that this system is best suited for 1080p gaming. The GPU’s performance cliff begins at 1440p and becomes a chasm at 4K. For a game like Inside, which relies on atmosphere and precise platforming, a stable frame rate is more important than visual extras. Therefore, prioritizing the High preset at 1080p or the Medium preset at 1440p provides the most balanced and enjoyable experience. The CPU is never a concern, so all tuning efforts should be directed toward the GPU.