Inside

Inside pairs the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D with the Intel Arc B390, a combination that produces a wide spread of frame rates depending on resolution and quality preset. The data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings levels (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), yielding twelve measured average FPS points. Across these, the pattern is consistent: the game runs smoothly at lower resolutions and settings, but the integrated graphics solution becomes the primary constraint as pixel count and graphical load rise. This analysis walks through the role of each component, how resolution scaling exposes the bottleneck, and which measured settings offer the most practical experience for this specific pairing.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D is a 6-core, 12-thread desktop processor from the 7000 series, built on the 5 nm process with the Raphael codename. Its base clock is 4.00 GHz, boosting to 4.50 GHz, and it carries a sizable 96 MB shared L3 cache alongside 1 MB of L2 per core and 64 KB of L1 per core. The processor’s 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44573, places it well above typical desktop parts. Its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmarks include the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H (avg score 44466, delta 0.2%), the Intel Core i9-13950HX (avg score 44342, delta 0.5%), and the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (avg score 44309, delta 0.6%), with the Intel Core i5-14600 (avg score 44889, delta -0.7%) slightly ahead. These margins are tiny—within roughly 1%—indicating that the 7500X3D sits in a very competitive performance band for general processing.

For a puzzle platformer like Inside, the CPU’s role is less about raw multi-core throughput and more about maintaining consistent frame pacing and handling physics calculations. The PassMark single-thread score of 3494 and multithread score of 25047 show a balanced profile; the single-thread figure is particularly relevant for game logic that relies on a primary thread. The 3D V-Cache design (indicated by the X3D suffix) typically benefits gaming workloads by increasing cache hit rates, and the 96 MB shared L3 is generous for a 6-core part. In the measured data, even at 1080p Low, where the GPU load is minimal, the average FPS reaches 156, suggesting the CPU is not presenting a hard ceiling—there is ample headroom above that for a less demanding scene. At higher settings, the FPS drops far below that level (e.g., 74 at 1080p Ultra), which points to GPU limitation rather than CPU. The processor’s 65 W TDP and active production status indicate a modern, efficient part, but the benchmark results show that for this specific game, the CPU is rarely the limiting factor; the Arc B390 is.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, with the chip codename Panther Lake. It uses system shared memory for both VRAM and bandwidth, meaning its performance is tied to the host system’s DDR5 memory rather than dedicated video memory. The GPU has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output pipelines, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its boost clock is 2500 MHz, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The measured 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1482, which places the GPU in the 9th percentile among all GPUs—a low standing. Its nearest rivals in that benchmark are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (score 1463, delta 1.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (score 1460, delta 1.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (score 1446, delta 2.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (score 1443, delta 2.7%). These deltas are narrow, meaning the Arc B390 is performing at a level comparable to entry-level discrete graphics from several generations ago, but it is still an integrated solution.

For Inside, a game originally released in 2016, this GPU’s capabilities are sufficient at lower settings but quickly become strained as quality increases. The pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are modest figures; at 4K resolution, the GPU must fill over 8 million pixels per frame, and the data reflects that struggle. At 4K Low, the average FPS is 70, but at 4K High it drops to 35, and at 4K Ultra it falls to 34. The system shared memory design means there is no dedicated VRAM pool, so the effective memory bandwidth is system dependent—a factor that likely contributes to the steep drop from Low to Medium settings at each resolution. The GPU’s 80 W TDP and IGP slot width confirm it is not a high-power discrete card; instead, it shares power and thermal limits with the CPU. In this pairing, the Arc B390 is the clear performance limiter across all measured scenarios, as the CPU’s headroom far exceeds what the GPU can deliver at higher presets.

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

The measured FPS data shows a consistent pattern of performance erosion as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound system. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 156 at 1080p, to 112 at 1440p, to 70 at 4K—a drop of 44 FPS from 1080p to 1440p (a 28% decline) and another 42 FPS from 1440p to 4K (a 38% decline from the 1440p figure). This scaling is steep: moving from 1080p to 4K at Low reduces performance by 55% (from 156 to 70). At Medium settings, the progression is 125 (1080p), 90 (1440p), and 56 (4K), representing a 55% drop from 1080p to 4K as well. High settings show 78 (1080p), 56 (1440p), and 35 (4K)—a 55% reduction from 1080p to 4K. Ultra settings follow the same trend: 74 (1080p), 53 (1440p), and 34 (4K), a 54% drop.

The uniformity of this percentage decrease across all settings is telling. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to stay flat or decline only slightly as resolution rises, because the CPU’s workload (draw calls, physics) remains similar regardless of pixel count. Instead, the average FPS nearly halves from 1080p to 4K at every preset, which indicates the GPU is doing the heavy lifting and is saturated. The fact that even at Low settings (which reduce pixel shading load) the 4K result is only 70 FPS, while 1080p Low hits 156, suggests the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors. The 1440p results sit roughly midway between the two extremes, which aligns with the pixel count ratio (1080p has about 2.1 million pixels, 1440p about 3.7 million, 4K about 8.3 million). The FPS drops do not perfectly match pixel ratios (e.g., 4K has 2.25x the pixels of 1440p, but FPS drops by about 1.6x at Low), meaning there is some efficiency gain at higher resolutions, but the overall trend is unambiguously GPU-limited. For this combo, the data shows that 1080p is the only resolution where all settings remain playable, while 4K is only viable at Low.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings produces a wide spread. Low settings yield an average of 156 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire dataset and indicates a comfortable margin for smooth gameplay. Medium settings average 125 FPS, with a minimum of 106 and a maximum of 144, showing consistent frame delivery within a 38 FPS range. High settings drop to 78 FPS on average, which is still above the 60 FPS threshold but with no min/max data provided. Ultra settings average 74 FPS, only 4 FPS lower than High, suggesting diminishing returns from High to Ultra at this resolution. The gap between Low and Ultra is 82 FPS (from 156 to 74), which is substantial but leaves all presets at playable levels.

At 2560x1440, the same settings show a clear step down. Low averages 112 FPS, which remains high but is 44 FPS below the 1080p Low figure. Medium averages 90 FPS, with a min of 76 and a max of 103—a tighter range than at 1080p Medium, indicating more consistent frame pacing despite lower averages. High averages 56 FPS, which dips below the 60 FPS mark, and Ultra averages 53 FPS. From Low to Ultra at 1440p, the drop is 59 FPS (from 112 to 53). The Medium preset at 1440p (90 FPS) is notably higher than High at the same resolution (56 FPS), showing that the setting jump from Medium to High costs 34 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra costs only 3 FPS. This nonlinear scaling suggests that High and Ultra impose similar GPU loads, likely due to specific effects that are already active at High.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes marginal. Low averages 70 FPS, which is the only 4K preset above 60. Medium averages 56 FPS, with a min of 48 and a max of 65—the min dipping below 50 FPS, which could cause noticeable stutter in a platformer. High averages 35 FPS, and Ultra averages 34 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is just 1 FPS, meaning those two presets are essentially identical in cost. From Low to Ultra at 4K, the drop is 36 FPS (from 70 to 34), which is a 51% reduction. The min/max data for Medium at 4K (48-65) shows a 17 FPS range, which is the widest among the Medium presets, indicating that 4K Medium can be inconsistent. Across all resolutions, the data shows that Low and Medium settings are the only ones that consistently exceed 60 FPS, and only at 1080p and 1440p.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Inside, and at what settings?

A: The highest average FPS is 156, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only measured result above 150 FPS, and it represents the least demanding configuration in the dataset.

Q: Is this combo capable of 60 FPS at 4K in Inside?

A: At 4K, only the Low preset reaches an average of 70 FPS, which is above 60. Medium averages 56 FPS, which is below 60, and High/Ultra average 35/34 FPS respectively. So 4K 60 FPS is only possible at Low settings.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals in GPU benchmarks?

A: The Arc B390 has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, which is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% higher than the GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% higher than the GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% higher than the GT 710 (1443). These deltas are all under 3%, placing the Arc B390 at the top of a very low-performance tier.

Q: At 1440p, which settings provide an average FPS above 60?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 112 FPS and the Medium preset averages 90 FPS, both above 60. The High preset averages 56 FPS and Ultra averages 53 FPS, both below 60.

Q: What is the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 125 at 1080p to 90 at 1440p and then to 56 at 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 69 FPS, which is a 55% reduction.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting component. The average FPS scales down significantly with resolution (e.g., from 156 at 1080p Low to 70 at 4K Low), while the CPU’s benchmark performance (89th percentile, single-thread score 3494) suggests it has ample headroom. The GPU’s 9th percentile ranking and system shared memory further support this conclusion.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, all four presets average above 70 FPS, so the choice comes down to visual quality versus extra smoothness. Medium settings at 1080p average 125 FPS with a min of 106 and max of 144, which offers a solid balance—the 106 FPS minimum ensures no drops below 100 FPS, and the average is high enough for a 144 Hz display. High settings average 78 FPS, which is still smooth but sacrifices 47 FPS compared to Medium for a modest visual upgrade. Ultra at 1080p averages 74 FPS, only 4 FPS below High, suggesting that if visual fidelity is the priority, Ultra is nearly free relative to High. However, Medium is the recommended preset at 1080p because it provides the best compromise between the highest average (125) and the presence of min/max data showing stable frame delivery.

At 2560x1440, the situation narrows. Low averages 112 FPS and Medium averages 90 FPS, both above 60. High (56 FPS) and Ultra (53 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS threshold, which for a puzzle platformer can lead to less responsive input. Medium at 1440p has a min of 76 FPS, which is comfortably above 60, and a max of 103, making it the recommended preset for this resolution. Low is also viable if higher frame rates are preferred, but Medium’s min/max data (76-103) shows less variance than the 4K Medium (48-65), indicating more consistent performance. High and Ultra at 1440p are not recommended because their averages fall below 60 FPS, and there is no min/max data to confirm they stay playable.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings average above 60 FPS (70 FPS). Medium averages 56 FPS with a min of 48, which means it can drop below 50 FPS—potentially noticeable in a game that relies on precise timing. High and Ultra average 35 and 34 FPS respectively, which are likely too low for a smooth experience. Therefore, 4K Low is the only recommended preset, and even then, the 70 FPS average leaves no headroom for complex scenes. For this combo, the data clearly favors 1080p Medium or 1440p Medium as the best overall experiences, with 4K reserved for Low settings only.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D + Intel Arc B390 combination has a combo rank of 2547 out of 2887 tested combos for Inside, placing it in the bottom 12% of all systems evaluated. This low ranking is directly attributable to the GPU’s performance, as the CPU alone ranks in the 89th percentile among all processors. The Arc B390’s 9th percentile standing among GPUs drags the overall combo down, and the measured FPS data reflects this imbalance: the system excels at 1080p Low (156 FPS) but struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 4K beyond the Low preset. Compared to the GPU’s nearest rivals (e.g., GeForce GT 710, GT 625 OEM), the Arc B390 is only 1-3% faster in 3DMark, which means the combo’s ranking is unlikely to improve with minor driver optimizations. The CPU’s headroom—evidenced by its 25047 multithread score and 3494 single-thread score—suggests that pairing this processor with a more capable discrete GPU would yield far better results, but as measured, this specific combination is firmly in the lower tier of the database. For Inside, the combo’s rank of 2547 out of 2887 means it outperforms roughly 340 other tested configurations, but it sits below the median and is not competitive with systems that pair the 7500X3D with a discrete graphics card. The data shows that this is a CPU-overkill, GPU-limited pairing, and its overall ranking reflects that constraint.