Inside

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6‑core, 12‑thread desktop processor from the AMD 8000 series, built on Zen 4 “Phoenix” silicon at TSMC’s 4 nm node, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and boost clock of 4.70 GHz, plus 16 MB shared L3 cache. It launches with an MSRP of $170. Paired with it is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER, a GeForce 20‑series Turing GPU on TSMC 12 nm, with 2560 shading units, 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256‑bit bus at 448.0 GB/s, and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, launched at 499 USD. Together they form a mid‑range gaming combo, and measured data for Inside shows that this pairing is consistently above most tested assemblies, especially at higher settings. The 2087‑of‑3716 combo ranking mostly hides the fact that FPS stays so smooth this CPU rarely becomes the limiter; instead, the GPU scaling rules the frame‑rate chart. Read on for detailed resolution scaling, settings guidance, and exact measured FPS numbers from the database.

Resolution Scaling

FPS falls steeply with increasing resolution, and that is the clearest indicator of which part drives performance. At High quality, the average goes from 155 FPS at 1920×1080 down to 111 FPS at 2560×1440, then to 70 FPS at 3840×2160. That is a 44‑frame loss going from 1080p to 1440p, and another 41‑frame loss going to 4K. The trend proves the RTX 2070 SUPER is carrying the load, since the CPU is capable of far more; the same GPU class reacts strongly to pixel count, with each additional resolution substantially cutting the frame rate.

Low quality shows an even more dramatic scaling. 310 FPS at 1080p becomes 223 FPS at 1440p, and 140 FPS at 4K. The 140 at 4K is still near a 144 Hz class absolute upper - yes, at a typical 4K monitor this combination can push over double the refresh rates of most displays even with low settings. The 1080p result of 310 FPS shows the Ryzen 5 8400F can feed the GPU extremely fast, but at 4K the GPU workload becomes the bottleneck, cutting the frame rate more than half of what 1080p could hit.

Medium settings produce 248 FPS at 1080p, 178 FPS at 1440p, and 112 FPS at 4K. The relative drop from 1440p to 4K is 66 FPS, which is the largest absolute gap in the medium preset. Ultra drops to 147 FPS at 1080p, 106 FPS at 1440p, and 67 FPS at 4K. Notice that medium and ultra differ only slightly: at 1080p the delta is 101 frames, but at 4K it shrinks to a 45‑frame difference between the two modes. That pattern is typical of a GPU that is increasingly satellite at 4K, so the extra quality settings do not impact performance as much at lower resolutions.

This resolution scaling reveals that the RTX 2070 SUPER is the limiting component in this game once the resolution exceeds 1080p. The CPU's 12 threads and high single‑thread performance (nearest rival Ryzen 5 7500F sits only 0.2% higher) are never the bottleneck; the GPU's 448.0 GB/s bandwidth and 9.062 TFLOPS are pressed hard by pixel load. With Medium settings, 4K still yields 112 FPS, but at the more demanding "High" and "Ultra" it drops below 70 FPS, so a pure resolution dependence is clear.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo earns a 2087 place out of 3716 tested combinations for Inside, placing it in the 56th percentile of the database. That is a strong mid‑field position, meaning the large majority of tested rigs are either faster or about equally fast, but not many are well suited to high refresh 4K. The rank derives mainly from the GPU, which sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 20282, while the CPU belongs to the 77th percentile of all processors with an average score of 25005.

The GPU’s direct rivals explain its placement. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480 and lists a delta of -1%; the GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534 (-1.2%), and the Intel Arc B570 with 20556 (-1.3%) and Intel Arc A750 with 20582 (-1.5%) are all within a couple of percent. So the RTX 2070 SUPER sits right behind that quartet; in gaming tests it is effectively a class‑rock neighbor. The approximately -1% to -1.5% gaps mean the RTX 2070 SUPER is borderline with newer mid‑range cards.

As for the CPU, the Ryzen 5 8400F trails the Ryzen 5 750F by only 0.2% and actually leads the Core i7‑11850H by 0.3% and i7‑13620H by 0.4% in the aggregate benchmark, while the EPYC 9474F is 0.4% quicker. That positions this CPU as a robust mid B player, with single‑core capability (3dmark single‑core 951, Cinebench R23 single‑core 2943) strong enough for a game like Inside.

The system’s final ranking is influenced by the fact that Inside favors high frame rate over multi‑core heavy threads. The 2087th place among 3716 combos shows more than half the tested systems are faster, but most torpedo that difference only at sub‑1080p. Not reaching the top tier is not due to any weak point—it is simply the Ryzen 5 8400F with the RTX 2070 Super being a upper‑mid combo working in an older game. With FPS numbers as high as 310 (1080p Low) and 70 (4K High), the ranking is harsh; the measured results show high consistency.

Settings Recommendations

Given that the measured rows show three distinct full presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) across three resolutions, the practical sweet spot for this combo is Medium. Here is why: at 4K, Medium is 112 FPS and hits a minimum of 95 and maximum of 129 FPS — all above the 60 Hz threshold, and still an acceptable headroom. High at 4K only yields 70 FPS, and Ultra drops to 67 FPS, both far less comfortable for a 60 Hz screen.

At 1440p, the Medium preset delivers 178 FPS (min 151, max 205), which is well beyond any high‑refresh display. High gives 111 FPS, and Ultra gives 106. All are playable, but Medium provides the best FPS: quality ratio and leaves margin for a 165 Hz monitor. At 1080p, Medium pushes 248 FPS (min 210, max 285), which matches Ultra at any level; High is 155 and Low is 310. If you want the highest refresh, Low at 1080p can tap the 310 FPS ceiling, but the visual loss from any medium is enormous.

For the “best experience” per the measured rows, consider the resolution:

• At 3840×2160: Use Medium (112 FPS avg, ~95 min). High and Ultra drop below 75 FPS, which will not keep a 120 Hz display fully fed, but Medium does.
• At 2560×1440: Medium or High works, but Medium (178 FPS) gives the highest frame rate headroom while keeping the visuals close to High. High at 111 FPS is also respectable, only 67 less than medium. Choose based on panel refresh: if you have a 144 Hz monitor, High can still be used; if you can use 165 or higher, Medium is optimal.
• At 1920×1080: Medium (248 FPS) is the best compromise; Low (310) will saturate the frame buffer and may be used for competitive play, while Ultra (147 FPS) trades heavy load for visuals with little benefit in a puzzle platformer.

Since this is a puzzle‑plormer, a high FPS is not essential, but the data shows the GPU and CPU are both capable of extremely high rates. The best experience is : at 4K run Medium, at 1440p run Medium or High, and at 1080p you can use Medium or even allow yourself to priotize to High (still 155) and Ultra only the top 4K does not hold.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920×1080

• Low: avg 310, min and max not recorded.
• Medium: avg 248, min 210, max 285.
• High: avg 155.
• Ultra: avg 147.

Frame pacing on Medium is strong: the 210‑to‑285 range shows only 75 FPS deviation, very smooth. Low hits 310, approach the CPU’s running limit. High at 155 is a usable number, but it is only 8 FPS more than Ultra, so there is no reason to settle for High when Ultra gives the same feel at 147.

2560×1440

• Low: 223.
• Medium: 178 (min 151, max 205).
• High: 111.
• Ultra: 106.

Medium still delivers the same min–max spread as at 1080p (54 FPS between min and max), so it is the most stable option. High and Ultra are close to each other at 111 and 106, which is why the medium preset is the only one that gets you above 178.

3840×2160

• Low: 140.
• Medium: 112 (min 95, max 129).
• High: 70.
• Ultra: 67.

At 4K, Medium still has a min above 90, guaranteeing smooth gameplay on a 90 Hz display. Low is the only preset that keeps above 140. High and Ultra both fall near 70, which is absolute threshold: 70 and 67 are nearly identical, so you can run Ultra at 4K with only a loss of 3 FPS relative to High, while visual quality is the best.

The data shows the CPU side has enough headroom to keep these numbers stable even at low settings. The minimum figures for medium presets show 95 (4K), 151 (1440p), and 210 (1080p), meaning there is no noticeable stutter. The GPGP GF clocks are fixed at 1605 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost, nice for this generation.

GPU Role

The RTX 2070 SUPER has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256‑bit memory bus with 448 GB/s bandwidth, plus 160 texture mapping and 64 ROPs, and a boost clock of 1770 MHz with 9.062 TFLOPS FP32. Those are moderate numbers compared to the current upper tier, but Inside is a light puzzle title, so the GPU’s peak throughput is more than sufficient. The memory capacity (8 GB) is irrelevant for this game’s scenes—even at 4K, 8 GB is not stressed with this graphical fidelity.

The measured FPS set clearly shows the GPU is the primary raw performance driver in this pairing: 310 FPS (1080p Low) drops to 140 (4K Low), but what matters is it behaves exactly in what geometry and pixel fill-rate demand. The 448 GB/s bandwidth delivers stable the 1450p high rate 111 without any stutter, and the 8 GB GDDR6 bandwidth is used heavily when accessing textures, which is evidenced by 4K High being 70 FPS.

The GPU’s ranking is middle‑ground: its 65th percentile among all GPUs, with the nearest rival—the Quadro M4000M—at 1% lower score and the Arc A750 at 1.5% lower. That puts the RTX 2070 SUPER within a close group of currently available midrange cards, but its performance in Inside is defined by gain scaling because the game is not GPU‑complex but pixel‑demanding. The 178 FPS at 1440p Medium shows the GPU can still push high refresh even though it is several generations older, and 4K Ultra is 67 FPS—just above 60 Hz of basic playability.

The boost clock of 1770 MHz, with the 283.2 GTexel/s texturing rate, is the reason the 4K High (70) and 4K Ultra (67) remain so close. The GPU is not memory limited at 4K, because both settings output about the same bandwidth, which implies the difference between High and Ultra is basically shader load, not memory capacity. In this respect, the GPU is the component that times out; nothing about the VRAM or bus width will be pressed. Users with a 1440p or 1080p monitor will feel the GPU is more than enough, while 4KHigh is tolerable.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 8400F has 6 cores and 12 threads with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and boost to 4.70 GHz, on a 65 W TDP. It has 16 MB L3 cache, a 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, and its 4 nm process keeps power draw low. In Inside, a puzzle platform with a low-like thread load, the CPU rarely becomes the bottleneck; the evidence is that the frames are higher at 1080p Low (310) and drop as resolution grows, which indicates the CPU has already prepared the frame.

The CPU’s benchmark scores confirm this: single‑thread Cinebench FN R23 is 2943, and the R20 multi‑core is 8757. The nearest rivals show the 8400F sits within 0.4% of the Core i7‑13620H and 0.3% of the i7‑11850H, while it is only 0.2% behind the Ryzen 5 7500F. So the processor is in a class of high IPC desktop parts, well suited to older games that are modest on core counts. The multi‑core 20851 in R23 and the 951 single‑core in 3DMark show it can feed 310 FPS at 1080p without your maximum sustained, and there is no sign of a CPU limitation at any setting.

The CPU’s 12 threads are ample; this game will not load more than a few cores. The 4.70 GHz boost is stable throughout the runs. At 4K the processor’s output does not change with the GPU’s slower frame rate, so the GPU stays busy but the CPU waits—this is a classic GPU‑bound scenario. For 1440p and 1080, the 8404F is more than comfortable, and memory bandwidth matches quick texture loads. Its 83.2 GB/s system memory capability is also enough even at low resolution; it is a good match to the RTX 2070 SUPER which works fine with the bandwidth.

In summary, the CPU is a middle‑high tier processor that has a 77th percentile placement, but the 2087‑of‑3716 final ranking on this game is due to the GPU, not the CPU. The processor sets the ceiling for 1080p drastic frame rates, and its single‑core edge is enough to keep the smoothness. Users who overclocked or use a stronger GPU can get even higher fps, but within this combo, the Ryzen field provides enough reserved cores.