Inside

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti combination delivers a remarkably consistent experience in Inside, a 2016 Puzzle Platformer. The data shows this pairing is capable of high frame rates across all tested resolutions, though the scaling patterns reveal a clear shift in which component governs performance as the workload changes.

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

The measured FPS data shows a steep and predictable decline as resolution increases, but the magnitude of that drop tells a compelling story about the balance between CPU and GPU. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 222.2 FPS, which falls to 155.6 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 96.3 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 30% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and then a 38% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The pattern is nearly identical for Medium settings: 177.3 FPS at 1080p, 125.7 FPS at 1440p, and 80.5 FPS at 4K — drops of 29% and 36% respectively.

High settings follow the same trajectory, moving from 110.7 FPS at 1080p to 78.9 FPS at 1440p (a 29% decrease) and then to 48.8 FPS at 4K (a 38% decrease). Ultra settings show the most dramatic scaling, with 104.6 FPS at 1080p falling to 74.5 FPS at 1440p (29% lower) and then to 46.8 FPS at 4K (37% lower). The uniformity of these percentage drops across all four quality presets is striking — it suggests that resolution scaling is consistent regardless of graphical load.

What does this imply about the limiting component? At 1080p Low, the 222.2 FPS figure is exceptionally high for a GTX 1660 Ti, which sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs. This indicates the CPU is likely the primary constraint at this low-resolution, low-settings configuration. However, the fact that the percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is nearly identical across all settings suggests that the GPU begins to take over as the bottleneck once pixel count increases. The 4K results, particularly the sub-50 FPS figures at High and Ultra, point strongly toward the GPU being the limiting factor at that resolution. The data reveals a system that is CPU-bound at 1080p but becomes progressively GPU-bound as resolution climbs.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It features a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU achieves a single-thread score of 951 in 3dmark and 2943 in Cinebench R23 single-core, alongside a multicore score of 20851 in Cinebench R23. The processor ranks at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25064.

The nearest rival data places this chip in close competition with the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, which scores 25057 (a 0% delta), and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 at 25099 (a -0.1% delta). The Ryzen 5 7500F trails at 24993, putting the 8400F 0.3% ahead. These tight margins indicate that the 8400F's performance is very much in line with its direct peers, and its 12 threads are more than sufficient for a game like Inside, which is not known for heavy multithreading demands.

The high single-thread performance is likely the key factor in the 1080p results. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system hits 222.2 FPS, which suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU far beyond what most titles would require. Even at 4K Low, the 96.3 FPS result indicates the CPU is not a limiting factor at that resolution — the GPU's pixel throughput is the constraint. The data shows a processor with ample headroom for this game at any resolution, with the 12 threads providing enough parallelism for background tasks without interfering with frame pacing.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing-architecture GPU built on TSMC's 12 nm process, featuring 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock runs at 1500 MHz with a boost clock of 1770 MHz, and memory operates at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The GPU delivers 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13925.

The nearest rivals for the GTX 1660 Ti are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon RX 570X scores 13871 (0.4% lower), the NVIDIA Tesla K10 scores 14029 (0.7% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile scores 13821 (0.8% lower). This places the 1660 Ti in a narrow performance band where small percentage differences separate it from its competitors. In Inside, the GPU's role becomes increasingly apparent at higher resolutions and settings. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combo manages only 46.8 FPS, which is below the 48.8 FPS seen at High settings — a tight grouping that suggests the GPU is saturated.

The 6 GB VRAM capacity is never a limiting factor in this game, as Inside is a modest title from 2016. Instead, the GPU's raw shading power and memory bandwidth determine the results. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth provides sufficient throughput for 4K textures, but the 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is what holds back frame rates at higher resolutions. The data shows a GPU that can comfortably handle 1080p and 1440p at any setting, but struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 4K with High or Ultra presets. The 96.3 FPS at 4K Low demonstrates that reducing graphical load can unlock much higher performance, but the GPU remains the primary bottleneck at that resolution.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves at 1080p?

A: The highest 1080p result is 222.2 FPS at Low settings, followed by 177.3 FPS at Medium, 110.7 FPS at High, and 104.6 FPS at Ultra.

Q: Can this combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K?

A: At 4K Low settings, the system achieves 96.3 FPS. However, at High settings it drops to 48.8 FPS and at Ultra to 46.8 FPS, both below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F scores 25064 on average, which is a 0% delta compared to the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X at 25057, and a 0.3% advantage over the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F at 24993.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the bottleneck at 1440p?

A: At 1440p, the scaling from Low (155.6 FPS) to Medium (125.7 FPS) to High (78.9 FPS) suggests the GPU becomes the limiting factor as settings increase, with the CPU providing sufficient headroom.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 1436 out of 1671 total tested combinations in Inside, placing it in the lower portion of the database.

Q: Does the GPU's 6 GB VRAM cause any issues in this game?

A: The measured data shows no VRAM-related performance anomalies. The game's modest requirements mean the 6 GB capacity is not a limiting factor at any tested resolution or setting.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1436 out of 1671 tested combinations, placing it in the 14th percentile of all combos in the database for Inside. This rank is notable given the high frame rates achieved — the system produces over 100 FPS at 1080p across all settings and exceeds 46 FPS at 4K even at Ultra. The low rank likely reflects the fact that many other tested combos feature more powerful GPUs and newer CPUs, pushing this pairing down the list despite its solid performance.

The rank of 1436 out of 1671 indicates that roughly 86% of tested combos outperform this pairing in this game. However, the measured FPS data shows this is not a weak result in absolute terms — the system delivers playable frame rates at every resolution and setting combination tested. The ranking appears to be a consequence of the GTX 1660 Ti's position at the 55th GPU percentile and the Ryzen 5 8400F's 82nd CPU percentile, which together place this combo below many higher-end configurations but well above entry-level systems. The data suggests that for a game like Inside, this combo offers adequate performance even if it does not top the charts.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, Ultra settings provide 104.6 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold and only 6.1 FPS lower than High settings. This makes Ultra the recommended preset for 1080p, as the performance cost is minimal and the visual quality improvement is worthwhile. For users prioritizing maximum smoothness, Low settings at 222.2 FPS are available, but the jump from Low to Medium (177.3 FPS) is substantial, and even Ultra maintains a high frame rate.

At 2560x1440, Ultra settings deliver 74.5 FPS, which remains above 60 FPS and is the best choice for visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness. High settings at 78.9 FPS offer a slight performance boost but reduce quality, while Medium at 125.7 FPS is overkill for most displays. The data shows that 1440p Ultra is the sweet spot for this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes significantly. High settings produce 48.8 FPS and Ultra drops to 46.8 FPS, both below 60 FPS. Medium settings achieve 80.5 FPS, which is the best balance for 4K, offering a 65% improvement over High while maintaining a smooth experience. Low settings at 96.3 FPS are available for those who prioritize frame rate above all else, but Medium provides a strong compromise between visual quality and performance. The recommendation is to use Medium at 4K, as it is the only preset that exceeds 60 FPS while retaining moderate graphical detail.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system achieves 222.2 FPS at Low, 177.3 FPS at Medium, 110.7 FPS at High, and 104.6 FPS at Ultra. The progression from Low to Medium is a 20% decrease, from Medium to High a 38% decrease, and from High to Ultra a 6% decrease. This shows that the largest performance hit occurs when moving from Medium to High, while the Ultra preset has a relatively small additional cost.

At 2560x1440, the results are 155.6 FPS at Low, 125.7 FPS at Medium, 78.9 FPS at High, and 74.5 FPS at Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 19%, from Medium to High is 37%, and from High to Ultra is 6%. The pattern mirrors 1080p, with the Medium-to-High transition being the most costly.

At 3840x2160, the system produces 96.3 FPS at Low, 80.5 FPS at Medium, 48.8 FPS at High, and 46.8 FPS at Ultra. The decreases are 16% from Low to Medium, 39% from Medium to High, and 4% from High to Ultra. The 4K data reveals a much smaller gap between Low and Medium (15.8 FPS) compared to the larger gap between Medium and High (31.7 FPS), suggesting that the GPU's compute capacity is the limiting factor once settings exceed Medium. Across all resolutions, the High-to-Ultra transition costs less than 5 FPS, indicating that Ultra is a nearly free visual upgrade over High in this game.