Inside

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is a formidable combination for Inside, a puzzle platformer that is not particularly demanding on modern hardware. The data shows this combo ranks 1034th out of 1671 tested combinations, placing it in the upper-middle tier of all systems tested. This ranking suggests that while the hardware is capable of excellent frame rates, it does not stand at the absolute top of the performance charts, likely because Inside is an older title from 2016 that does not fully stress the latest generation of components.

The combination's performance is strong across all resolutions, with the GPU proving to be the primary driver of frame rates. The Ryzen 5 8400F, a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 processor, provides ample headroom for the Radeon RX 6650 XT to operate efficiently. The CPU's benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851 and a single-core score of 2943, indicate robust processing power. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 17166 and its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory are more than sufficient for a game with the visual complexity of Inside. The benchmark results indicate that this pairing delivers a smooth, high-refresh-rate experience, particularly at 1080p and 1440p, and even maintains playable frame rates at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of tested hardware combinations, the Ryzen 5 8400F and RX 6650 XT duo sits at rank 1034 out of 1671 combos. This position places it within the top 62% of all systems, which is a respectable standing given the breadth of high-end configurations that exist in the database. The ranking reflects a balanced system that is well-suited for mainstream gaming.

The individual components also have interesting positions relative to their peers. The Ryzen 5 8400F holds an 82nd percentile ranking among all CPUs, which is a strong showing. Its average benchmark score of 25064 is nearly identical to that of the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, with a delta of 0%, indicating equivalent overall processing capability in synthetic tests despite the generational gap. It also performs within a hair of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, which has a delta of 0.3%, putting the 8400F slightly ahead. The GPU, the RX 6650 XT, holds a 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs. Its average score of 29024 is on par with the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, showing a delta of 0%, and slightly ahead of the older AMD Radeon RX 470, which has a delta of 0.1%. This suggests the GPU is a solid mid-range performer, and the CPU is more than capable of feeding it data.

FAQ

*Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F a good match for the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT in Inside?*

A: Yes. The data indicates a balanced pairing. The CPU's high single-thread performance and the GPU's strong rasterization capabilities combine to produce high frame rates at all tested resolutions, with no single component appearing to be a significant bottleneck.

Q: What is the average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings?

A: The measured average FPS is 138.4 frames per second. This is well above the refresh rate of most standard monitors, ensuring a very smooth and responsive experience in this fast-paced puzzle platformer.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 8400F compare to its nearest rival, the Ryzen 7 2700X?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The Ryzen 5 8400F scores 25064, while the Ryzen 7 2700X scores 25057, resulting in a delta of 0%. This indicates equivalent overall processing performance in synthetic benchmarks.

*Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Inside?*

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average FPS is 68.3. This is playable, but for a higher frame rate at 4K, dropping to Medium settings yields an average of 108.6 FPS.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all tested GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. This places it in the upper echelon of graphics cards, capable of handling most games at high settings.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the average FPS on Low settings is 209.9. Moving to Ultra settings reduces this to 97.7. This is a significant difference, highlighting the impact of graphical fidelity on performance.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of resolution scaling, with performance diminishing as pixel count increases. At 1920x1080, the system is heavily unconstrained, delivering an average of 294.6 FPS on Low settings and 138.4 FPS on Ultra. This indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is more than capable of feeding the GPU, and the frame rate is likely limited by the GPU's raw output even at lower settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain very high but show a more pronounced scaling. The average FPS on Low settings drops to 209.9, and on Ultra, it falls to 97.7. This performance level still provides an excellent experience for a high-refresh-rate 1440p monitor. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows an average performance drop of about 29% across all settings, which is a typical result for a mid-range GPU like the RX 6650 XT.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the clear limiting component. The average FPS on Low settings is 133.9, which is still very smooth. However, on High settings, the average drops to 68.3, and on Ultra, it falls to 62.7. This shows that while the combination can handle 4K, it requires a reduction in settings to maintain frame rates above the 60 FPS threshold. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is steep, with a performance drop of roughly 35-36% across all settings, underscoring the significant load increase on the GPU at 4K. The data suggests that the limiting component at higher resolutions is unequivocally the Radeon RX 6650 XT, as the CPU has ample headroom to handle the increased pixel count.

Settings Recommendations

For the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, the data points to High settings as the optimal choice. At 1920x1080, High settings deliver an average of 148.8 FPS, which is an exceptional experience. At 2560x1440, High settings still achieve a very high average of 103.3 FPS, making it ideal for smooth and detailed gameplay on a 1440p monitor.

While Ultra settings offer the maximum visual quality, the performance cost is significant. At 2560x1440, Ultra yields 97.7 FPS, which is still above 60, but the jump from High to Ultra only adds marginal visual improvements for a noticeable drop in frame rate. The benchmark results indicate that High settings provide a "sweet spot" for this hardware combination.

For 4K gaming, the recommendation changes. At 3840x2160, High settings produce 68.3 FPS, which is playable but close to the edge. To ensure a consistently smooth experience with more headroom, Medium settings are advisable, as they offer a substantial boost to 108.6 FPS. Therefore, the data suggests that users with a 4K display should either stick to High settings for a solid 60+ FPS experience or use Medium for a higher refresh rate. The performance difference between High and Ultra is not worth the 5.6 FPS average loss at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across all settings and resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers exceptional performance. With Low settings, the average FPS is 294.6. Medium settings achieve an average of 232.4 FPS. High settings produce an average of 148.8 FPS, and Ultra settings yield 138.4 FPS. This resolution is clearly where the combination performs best, with all settings producing frame rates well above the threshold for high-refresh-rate gaming.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains impressive. Low settings see an average of 209.9 FPS. Medium settings achieve an average of 169.8 FPS. High settings deliver an average of 103.3 FPS, and Ultra settings result in 97.7 FPS. The system is fully capable of driving a 1440p monitor at high refresh rates with most settings.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations become apparent. Low settings yield an average of 133.9 FPS. Medium settings achieve an average of 108.6 FPS. High settings produce an average of 68.3 FPS, and Ultra settings result in 62.7 FPS. While 4K is playable, the frame rates are lower, and users may need to adjust settings to find their preferred balance between fidelity and smoothness. The data shows a consistent hierarchy, with performance scaling down predictably as resolution and settings increase, confirming the GPU as the performance ceiling in this configuration.