Inside

Settings Recommendations

The measured data for Inside with the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Intel Arc B570 reveals a clear hierarchy across the four available presets. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 240 FPS average, while Medium drops to 192 FPS, High to 120 FPS, and Ultra to 114 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 48 FPS, which represents a 25% reduction, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 72 FPS (a 37.5% drop). Ultra only costs an additional 6 FPS over High, suggesting diminishing returns between the two highest presets.

For the best balance of visual fidelity and frame rate, the Medium preset stands out as the optimal choice across all resolutions. At 1080p, it produces 192 FPS with minimums of 163 FPS and maximums of 221 FPS, meaning the frame delivery stays well above typical display refresh rates while still offering substantially better visuals than Low. The Medium preset's minimum FPS of 163 at 1080p is higher than the High preset's average of 120 FPS, indicating that Medium provides a more consistent experience than stepping up to High.

At 1440p, Medium again proves superior, delivering 138 FPS average with minimums of 117 FPS and maximums of 159 FPS. This remains comfortably playable on high-refresh displays, whereas High at 86 FPS and Ultra at 82 FPS fall below the 100 FPS threshold that many gamers consider ideal. The 4K results reinforce this pattern: Medium achieves 87 FPS with minimums of 74 FPS and maximums of 100 FPS, which is the only preset at 4K that maintains playable frame rates without dipping below 60 FPS.

Ultra presets at every resolution deliver only marginally higher scores than High — 114 versus 120 FPS at 1080p, 82 versus 86 FPS at 1440p, and 52 versus 54 FPS at 4K — while presumably adding significant visual complexity. The data suggests that the Ultra preset's extra graphical effects are not worth the frame rate sacrifice, especially at 4K where both High and Ultra fall below the 60 FPS playability threshold. The Low preset, while offering the highest frame rates, likely strips too much visual detail for a game like Inside where atmosphere and lighting contribute heavily to the experience.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570 brings specific hardware capabilities to this pairing. Its 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus provides 380.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which proves more than sufficient for Inside's demands given the game's 2016 release date. The GPU's base and boost clocks both sit at 2500 MHz, with memory running at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The architecture, Xe2-HPG on TSMC's 5 nm process, contains 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 80 raster operation units, along with 18 ray tracing cores.

The benchmark data for this GPU shows a PassMark G3D score of 14,195, which places it at the 65th percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 20,556 puts it in close competition with several rivals: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20,534 (0.1% higher), while the Intel Arc A750 achieves 20,582 (0.1% lower). The GPU's DirectX 12 performance in PassMark shows a score of 72, which is notably lower than its DirectX 11 score of 118, suggesting potential driver overhead differences between API generations.

In the context of Inside's measured performance, the GPU's role becomes evident when examining the 4K results. At 4K Ultra, the combo produces 52 FPS average, while 4K High yields 54 FPS — only a 2 FPS difference. This tiny gap between presets suggests that at 4K, the GPU is nearing its limits regardless of settings, as the rendering resolution itself becomes the bottleneck. The 10 GB VRAM allocation appears adequate for this game even at 4K, as the measured data shows no signs of memory-related stuttering or performance collapse.

The GPU's pixel rate of 200.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 360.0 GTexel/s provide theoretical context for its 4K performance. The 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 compute capability, while not exceptional by modern standards, handles Inside's relatively modest graphical requirements well at lower resolutions. The 4K Ultra result of 52 FPS indicates that the GPU's raw throughput is the limiting factor at this resolution, rather than any architectural inefficiency specific to this title.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how this combo scales across resolutions for each preset. For the Medium preset, which has the most complete data, the progression is 192 FPS at 1080p, 138 FPS at 1440p, and 87 FPS at 4K. This represents a 28.1% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 37.0% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total reduction from 1080p to 4K is 54.7%, which is less severe than the pixel count increase (4K has 4 times the pixels of 1080p) would suggest, indicating that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound.

The High preset shows a steeper scaling curve: 120 FPS at 1080p, 86 FPS at 1440p (a 28.3% drop), and 54 FPS at 4K (a 37.2% drop from 1440p). The total 1080p to 4K reduction here is 55.0%, nearly identical to Medium's scaling. This consistency across presets suggests that resolution scaling is primarily a function of the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth, both of which scale linearly with pixel count.

Low preset results show 240 FPS at 1080p, 172 FPS at 1440p (a 28.3% drop), and 108 FPS at 4K (a 37.2% drop from 1440p). Again, the percentage drops align closely with the other presets, reinforcing that the resolution scaling pattern is consistent regardless of visual settings. The absolute differences, however, reveal an interesting trend: the gap between 1080p and 4K is 132 FPS for Low, 105 FPS for Medium, and 66 FPS for High. This narrowing gap at higher presets indicates that as visual complexity increases, the GPU becomes more saturated and the absolute frame rate differences shrink.

The 4K to 1440p ratio for Medium is 87/138 = 0.63, while the 1440p to 1080p ratio is 138/192 = 0.72. This non-linear scaling suggests that at 4K, the GPU is hitting a more pronounced bottleneck — likely memory bandwidth or fill rate limits — whereas at 1440p and below, the GPU has more headroom. The minimum FPS data for Medium shows 163 at 1080p, 117 at 1440p, and 74 at 4K, with the 4K minimum representing a 54.6% reduction from the 1080p minimum, closely matching the average FPS scaling.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full preset range delivers exceptional performance. The Low preset achieves 240 FPS average, which represents the theoretical ceiling for many displays and suggests the CPU-GPU combination is not limiting at this resolution. Medium produces 192 FPS with a minimum of 163 FPS and maximum of 221 FPS, showing tight frame pacing. High reaches 120 FPS, while Ultra delivers 114 FPS — a surprisingly small 5% reduction that hints the Ultra preset's additional effects are computationally cheap at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains strong but shows the expected scaling. Low drops to 172 FPS, Medium to 138 FPS (with minimums of 117 FPS and maximums of 159 FPS), High to 86 FPS, and Ultra to 82 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 4 FPS at 1440p, suggesting that at this resolution the Ultra preset's extra features begin to hit diminishing returns more noticeably than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the results tell a different story. Low still manages 108 FPS, demonstrating the combo's ability to handle 4K when visual fidelity is stripped back. Medium achieves 87 FPS (minimum 74, maximum 100), which remains playable on most displays. However, High falls to 54 FPS and Ultra to 52 FPS, both dipping below the 60 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for smooth gameplay. The 4K High and Ultra results are nearly identical, with only a 2 FPS difference, indicating that at this resolution the GPU is fully saturated and the preset choice has minimal impact on final frame rates.

The Medium preset's complete data across all resolutions provides the clearest picture of this combo's capabilities. From 1080p to 1440p, the average drops 54 FPS, and from 1440p to 4K, it drops another 51 FPS. The minimum FPS follows a similar pattern: 163 at 1080p, 117 at 1440p, and 74 at 4K. The maximum FPS shows 221 at 1080p, 159 at 1440p, and 100 at 4K. This data suggests a consistent frame delivery profile, with the gap between minimum and maximum FPS remaining relatively stable across resolutions — 58 FPS at 1080p, 42 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K, indicating tighter frame pacing as the GPU becomes more loaded.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset to use for 4K gaming with this combo?

A: The Medium preset is the only viable option at 4K, delivering 87 FPS average with a minimum of 74 FPS. High and Ultra both fall below 60 FPS at 54 and 52 FPS respectively, while Low achieves 108 FPS but sacrifices visual quality.

Q: How does the combo perform at 1080p for high-refresh-rate displays?

A: The Medium preset delivers 192 FPS average with a minimum of 163 FPS, which exceeds the refresh rate of most 144Hz and 165Hz displays. The Low preset reaches 240 FPS for competitive play, while High and Ultra still provide 120 and 114 FPS respectively.

Q: Is the Ultra preset worth the performance cost?

A: The data shows Ultra provides only marginal gains over High — 114 versus 120 FPS at 1080p, 82 versus 86 FPS at 1440p, and 52 versus 54 FPS at 4K. The 5-6% difference in average FPS suggests Ultra's visual enhancements are not justified for the frame rate loss.

Q: Does the 10 GB VRAM on the Intel Arc B570 cause any issues in this game?

A: The measured data shows no signs of memory-related performance degradation. The game's 2016 release date and modest graphical requirements mean the 10 GB GDDR6 memory with 380.0 GB/s bandwidth is more than sufficient even at 4K Ultra settings.

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

A: The combo ranks 2,301 out of 2,887 tested combinations, placing it in the lower 20% of all tested systems for Inside. This ranking reflects the game's age and relatively light hardware requirements, where many older or lower-end components can achieve high frame rates.

Q: How does the GPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc B570's average benchmark score of 20,556 puts it within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534), Intel Arc A750 (20,582), NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20,480), and AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20,662). This indicates the GPU performs consistently with its direct competitors.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X provides the processing foundation for this combo. Its 6 cores and 12 threads run at a base clock of 3.90 GHz and boost to 5.40 GHz, built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) using TSMC's 4 nm process. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3, with a 65 W TDP. The 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die represent a dense implementation of the Zen 5 design.

Benchmark results show this CPU performs strongly in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 scores are 2,183.5 single-core and 17,528.5 multi-core, while Geekbench results show 2,923 single-core and 14,438 multi-core. The 3DMark tests reveal scaling from 2,456 (2 threads) to 7,590 (max threads), demonstrating effective utilization of additional threads. PassMark scores show 4,570 single-thread and 30,027 multithread performance, with the CPU ranking in the 81st percentile among all CPUs.

For Inside specifically, the CPU's role appears secondary but not negligible. The game's Puzzle Platformer genre typically involves modest physics and logic calculations, and the measured FPS data suggests the CPU handles these easily. At 1080p Low, the 240 FPS result indicates the CPU is not a bottleneck, as this frame rate approaches what many GPUs can physically output. The CPU's high single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core of 2,183.5) is particularly relevant for games like Inside that may not scale well across many cores.

The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (0.2% higher), AMD Ryzen 7 7840H (0.5% lower), AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT (0.6% lower), and AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (0.8% lower). This grouping shows the 9600X performs in line with several 8-core mobile and desktop processors, despite having only 6 cores, highlighting the efficiency of the Zen 5 architecture at higher clock speeds.

The CPU's 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth (DDR5 dual-channel) provides ample data throughput for Inside's relatively small asset sizes. The 32 MB shared L3 cache helps maintain smooth frame delivery by reducing memory access latency. While the CPU's specifications are not the primary driver of this game's performance, its strong single-thread capabilities ensure that even at 1080p with 240 FPS, the processing overhead does not become a limiting factor.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X + Intel Arc B570 combination ranks 2,301 out of 2,887 tested combos for Inside, placing it in the 79.7th percentile from the bottom — meaning roughly 80% of tested configurations perform better in this game. This ranking might seem surprising given the combo's strong absolute performance, but it reflects the game's 2016 release date and the fact that many older, lower-cost components can run Inside at high frame rates.

The ranking position becomes more understandable when examining the measured FPS data against the hardware's benchmark scores. The CPU ranks in the 81st percentile among all CPUs and the GPU in the 65th percentile among all GPUs, yet the combo ranks in the lower 20th percentile for this specific game. This discrepancy suggests that Inside's performance is not heavily dependent on raw hardware capability — instead, the game likely runs well on a wide range of systems, compressing the performance distribution and pushing newer, more powerful components down in relative ranking.

The combo's 4K Medium result of 87 FPS is respectable in absolute terms, but many older GPUs with lower benchmark scores can achieve similar or better results in this game due to its modest requirements. The ranking data implies that for Inside specifically, the Ryzen 5 9600X and Arc B570's considerable computational resources are underutilized, as the game simply does not demand the level of processing power this combo provides.

Comparing within the GPU's rival group, the Intel Arc A750 (the B570's nearest competitor) would likely produce similar rankings given their nearly identical average benchmark scores (20,582 versus 20,556). The CPU's rival group, including the Ryzen 7 7840H and Ryzen 7 5800XT, would also be expected to perform similarly in this game, as the 9600X's benchmark scores are within 1% of these alternatives.

The 2,301st ranking serves as a reminder that game-specific performance does not always correlate with general-purpose benchmark scores. For Inside, the bottleneck is not hardware capability but rather the game's own limitations — it simply cannot leverage the full power of this modern CPU-GPU combination. Users upgrading to this combo for Inside specifically would see excellent absolute performance (240 FPS at 1080p Low), but the relative ranking indicates that their hardware investment is overkill for this particular title.