Inside

Inside paired with an AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER produces a playable frame-rate spread across every tested resolution and preset. Measured averages run from 47 FPS at 4K Ultra to 216 FPS at 1080p Low, with the strongest practical quality point around Medium, where even 4K stays above 60 FPS and 1080p shows a 173 FPS average. Across all tests this combination sits at rank 3166 out of 3716 recorded combos, meaning a large portion of the field lands ahead of this pairing. The CPU nevertheless sits in the 77th percentile of all measured CPUs, while the GPU occupies the 53rd percentile, so the data is best understood as a strong processor bound by a mid-range graphics card.

FAQ

Q: What average frame rate does the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F + GTX 1660 SUPER achieve at 1080p on High settings?

A: The measured average is 108 FPS, which exceeds the standard 60 FPS point by a large margin.

Q: Can this combination keep 4K at playable frame rates?

A: Yes, but only on Low or Medium presets. At 4K Low the average is 98 FPS, and at 4K Medium the average is 78 FPS with a 66 FPS minimum. High and Ultra dip to 49 and 47 FPS, respectively.

Q: Which measured preset gives the best balance of frame rate and visual settings?

A: Medium is the strongest one in the dataset. It produces 173 FPS at 1080p, 125 FPS at 1440p, and 78 FPS at 4K, with 4K minimums of 66 FPS. Those numbers keep all resolutions above 60 FPS.

Q: How does this combo place alongside other tested systems for Inside?

A: The pair ranks 3166th of 3719 total tested combinations. That places it in the lower portion of the benchmark set, a typical result for a CPU strong enough to support high average frame rates paired with a graphics card that can also be meaningful at higher resolution.

Q: What are the nearest GPU alternatives according to the database?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER's benchmark average of 12986 is 0.4% above the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile's 12940 and 0.4% above the RX 580's 12928. The Tesla M2090 is 0.7% ahead, and the Radeon 740M is 0.9% behind.

Q: What does the CPU's average score mean for this game?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F has an average CPU benchmark score of 25005, and the nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 7500F at 24954, the Core i7-11850H at 24935, and the Core i7-13620H at 24911, are all within 0.2–0.4% of that. In a game largely dependent on single-thread performance like Inside, such a margin would be difficult to tell apart.

GPU Role

The GTX 1660 SUPER is the limiting component in this plotting. UCPU keeps score; the GPU is given by what the benchmark records. The card itself uses a TU116 chip built on TSMC's 12 nm process, with 1408 shader units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. Its base clock is 1530 MHz with a boost of 1785 MHz, offering 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 compute and a 157.1 GTexel/s texture rate. Pixel rate sits at 85.68 GPixel/s, due in whole oriented to the 48 ROPs.

Memory is carried on a 192-bit bus with 6 GB GDDR6, a 1750 MHz memory clock providing 14 Gbps effective, and a total bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. That size and bandwidth are evidently controllable enough for Inside's art direction, as even the highest 4K result at Ultra reaches 47 FPS and 4K Medium maintains 66 minimum FPS. The capacitive reduction in the scaling traces directly: at 1080p High the card produces 108 FPS, at 1440p High drops to 78, and at 4K High lands at 49. All three settings share the same GPU pipeline. Given the card also holds its own in the database (average score 12986, 53rd GPU percentile), these numbers make it the better bottleneck of the two components.

The CGU throttling appears at the four highest quality levels. At 4K Medium, the measured minimum is 66 FPS and the average is 78, while at 4K High the average drops to 49; that is a 29 FPS loss. Increasing the texture demand or filling rate tends to squeeze this mid-range card, which is why Medium proves to be the practical ceiling for 4K. At 1080p the card still has no trouble filling sparse frames, and the Low preset shows 216 FPS, stretch far beyond the game's natural 60 FPS target.

Part of the scaling comes from the card's effective fill-rate capacity. To reproduce the game at 3840×2160 the GTX 1660 SUPER must cover roughly four times the pixel area of 1080p. The current data cannot separate geometry from pixel load, but the range of 47–98 FPS from Ultra to Low at 4K suggests the quality level is the main steering wheel.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses Zen 4 (Phoenix) silicon, fabricated at TSMC's 4nm node, and is a 6-core/12-thread desktop part. It runs at a 4.20 base clock and a 4.70 boost clock, draws TDP of 65 W, and works in AM5 boards. Cache memory includes 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The memory path is DDR5 dual-channel with 83.2 GB/s. The CPU indeed does not include 3rd party over.

For a puzzle platformer like Inside, the CPU typically doesn't need huge multi-core pressure. Individual results confirm it. In Cinebench R23, it scores 20851 multi-core and 2943 single-core; in single thread 3D Mark results it reaches 951 and in max the 3DMark same suite a 6165 16-thread score. Those single-thread numbers, while not the highest in existence, are sufficient to allow the GPU to be the point where FPS starts to sky in the lower settings.

Looking at the benchmark distribution, the 8400F has an average CPU score of 25005, which places it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs and at parity with the Ryzen 5 7500F (24964), the Intel Core i7-11850H (50 MHz?), 24935, and Intel i7-13620H (24911). The deltas are only 0.2–0.4 percent, meaning in this game these system would show almost identical performance. In the multi-core 3DMark test the 8400F scores 6165 max threads, but 1080p Low sees 216 FPS; that frame rate is clearly high enough that a 6-core/12-thread part with 4.7 address is model entirely not the binding state.

Inside is mostly movement and geometric puzzles; it does not generate the massive draw calls of an open world. That is visible in the scaling: going from Low 1080p (216 FPS) to Low 1440p (156 FPS) to Low 4K (98 FPS) does not hint at CPU bottlenecking, because the system only gains more pixels and less processing. If the laptop CPU were the limit, the low resolution frame rate would be unchanged across the resolution, but it isn't. Thus the processor side is seen as comfortable headroom, with the graphics card doing the heavy scaling.

Settings Recommendations

From the twelve data rows, Medium is the only preset with recorded average AND minimum/maximum values in all three resolutions. At 1080p Medium averages 173 FPS with min 147 and max 199; at 1440p it goes to 125 with min 106 max 143; and at 4K it keeps 78 with min 66 max 90. Every Medium minimum value stays above 60, even when running 30 pixels.

High preset yields higher quality but costs more fps: 1080p 108, 1440p 68, 4K 49. Ultra is only 5% below High at 1080p (103 vs 108) and 4 FPS slower at 4K (47 vs 49). That Ultra preset does not offer a quality lead worth the loss. Low preset is highest performance (216/156/98), but it removes many visual systems and is more than necessary for smooth play, since Medium already holds 60+ at 4K.

Therefore, the recommendation is Medium. It can also be summarized:

• Low: 216 at 1080p, 156 at 1440p, 98 at 4K; FPS average but loses effects.
• Medium: 173/125/78; all minimal 60+.
• High: 108/78/49; 4K drops below 60.
• Ultra: 103/74/47; 4K drops below 50.

For a typical benchmark conclusion, Medium on 1440p gets 125 with min 106, an excellent midpoint for visual fidelity. If the user avoids 4K, High at 1440p at 78 FPS is still above 60, but the margin from min to max is not given. The card's strongest scaling factor comes from quality preset rather than resolution, and Medium is the only row that shows a safe floor.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination ranks 3166th of 3716 systems that have been tested in Inside. Because the CPU sits in the 77th percentile while the GPU remains in the 53rd, the final placement is decided by the GPU. The CPU scores are nearly identical to the top three AMD and Intel rivals—the Ryzen 5 7500F, Core i7-11850H, and Core i7-13620H—all within 0.2–0.4 percent, so the rank reflects the same the system usually had with those CPUs around them if the graphics card were different.

Within the GPU sphere, the GTX 1660 SUPER's average benchmark score of 12986 puts it at 0.4% above the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940) and 0.7% below the Tesla M2090 (13075). Those small percentages translate to minor rank differences. The GPU's 53rd percentile confirms it sits just above half of the database. With that GPU, the 8400F never needed to move a huge amount; instead the system ends up limited by 4K shorts caused by the card.

This ranking is not surprising. Inside is a 2016 puzzle, and its GPU load is low for modern parts, so the relative rank will be drawn by the 6 GB VRAM and the core clock. The fact that comp rank 3166 exists of 3716 comps means just under 550 systems are worse; the combination offers reliable 60 FPS in the low-medium range but cannot take full advantage of 4K high as intensive AAA games.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS

3840x2160 | High | 49 | — | —

3840x2160 | Low | 98 | — | —

3840x2160 | Medium | 78 | 66 | 90

3840x2160 | Ultra | 47 | — | —

2560x1440 | High | 78 | — | —

2560x1440 | Low | 156 | — | —

2560x1440 | Medium | 125 | 106 | 143

2560x1440 | Ultra | 74 | — | —

1920x1080 | High | 108 | — | —

1920x1080 | Low | 216 | — | —

1920x1080 | Medium | 173 | 147 | 199

1920x1080 | Ultra | 103 | — | —

This table is the whole measured dataset from the review: all resolutions (1080p, 1440p, 4K), every quality level (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), and the average. Only the Medite runs have recorded min/max, showing narrower for high-refresh not gaps.

Resolution Scaling

Resolution scaling follows a consistent pattern: 1080p results are the highest, 1440p is in the middle, and 4K is lowest. Est. average FPS at Low is 216 at 1080p, 156 at 1440p, and 98 at 4K. Medium: 173/125/78. High: 108/78/49. Ultra: 103/74/47. At every quality setting, the 4K average lands below half of the 1080p average: 216→98, 173→78, 108→49, 103→47. That is a significant degradation but the result (below 100 FPS) is understandable for a 192-bit, 6G memory card with fill rates just above medium parts.

The step from 1080p to 1440p takes about 25% off average, and from 1440p to 4K takes another ~50%. In Low, 1440p is 156 (about 72% of 216), while 4K is only 103? Actually 98 is ~62% of 156. The exact ratio was not given in the fact sheet and cannot be reported that clearly; the reading direction holds. If a user can pick any resolution, 1440p seems the most balanced: at 74–78 FPS in High/Ultra, and 125–156 in Medium/Low, it beats 60 FPS on every preset. 4K only