Inside

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 ranks 120th out of 3716 tested combos in Inside, placing it in the top 3.2% of all hardware pairings for this puzzle platformer. This position reflects a combination that delivers extreme frame rates across all resolutions, with the GPU’s 16 GB of GDDR6X memory and 716.8 GB/s bandwidth proving more than sufficient for a game that never drops below 126 FPS even at 4K Ultra. The results show a system that is heavily overqualified for the game’s demands, but the data provides clear guidance on how to prioritize settings for maximum smoothness or visual fidelity.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 120 out of 3716 tested combinations places it in the 96.8th percentile of all systems tested in Inside. This is an exceptional standing, driven by the RTX 4080’s raw throughput and the Ryzen 5 9600X’s strong single-thread performance. The GPU’s average benchmark score of 54247 puts it slightly above the GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER (54209, +0.1%), while the CPU’s average score of 29713 sits within 0.8% of the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (29955) and 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT (29879). These margins are tiny, meaning the combo’s rank is more a function of the GPU’s dominance than any CPU advantage.

Benchmark results indicate that the RTX 4080’s percentile versus all GPUs is 86, while the Ryzen 5 9600X achieves a percentile versus all CPUs of 81. In Inside, the GPU is the primary driver of the high ranking, as the game’s 2D side-scrolling perspective and modest visual complexity do not heavily tax multi-core processors. The combo’s rank is further supported by the fact that even at 4K Ultra, the average FPS of 126 remains well above the 60 FPS threshold, and at 1080p Low the system reaches 419 FPS, suggesting the CPU can feed frames fast enough to avoid bottlenecking the GPU. The data shows a balanced system with no single component dragging the rank down, although the CPU’s nearest rivals—all within 0.8%—indicate that swapping the 9600X for a similar Ryzen 7 part would not materially change the ranking.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience, the data suggests that Medium settings at 1440p offer the optimal balance of smoothness and visual quality, with an average FPS of 338 and a minimum of 287. This preset delivers nearly double the refresh rate of a standard 144 Hz monitor while maintaining a higher visual fidelity than Low. At 4K, Medium is also the strongest choice: 212 FPS average with a 181 FPS minimum, ensuring no noticeable stutter even during fast-moving scenes. High settings at 4K drop to 133 FPS average, which is still smooth, but the 38% reduction from Medium (212 FPS) makes Medium the better pick for 4K displays.

At 1080p, the differences between presets are less critical: Low delivers 419 FPS, Medium 386 FPS, High 294 FPS, and Ultra 280 FPS. For competitive play or use with a high-refresh monitor (240 Hz or above), Low at 1080p is the only preset that consistently exceeds 400 FPS, but Medium’s 386 FPS average with a 328 FPS minimum is close enough that the visual upgrade is worth it. Ultra at any resolution is the worst value: at 4K it drops to 126 FPS, at 1440p to 201 FPS, and at 1080p to 280 FPS—each of these is still playable, but the jump from High to Ultra yields the smallest FPS gains relative to the quality increase. The measured rows show no min FPS data for High, Low, or Ultra presets, but the Medium preset’s min FPS values (181 at 4K, 287 at 1440p, 328 at 1080p) are the only floor data available, and they suggest the system has ample headroom.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution to play Inside with this combo?*

A: The data shows that 1440p Medium offers the best combination of high average FPS (338) and a strong minimum FPS (287), making it ideal for high-refresh monitors. If you prefer 4K, Medium at 212 FPS average is the best option, as Ultra drops to 126 FPS and High to 133 FPS.

Q: How much faster is this combo at 1080p compared to 4K?

A: At Low settings, 1080p delivers 419 FPS average versus 265 FPS at 4K, a 58% increase. At Medium, 1080p is 386 FPS versus 212 FPS at 4K, a 45% increase. At High, 1080p is 294 FPS versus 133 FPS at 4K, a 55% increase. At Ultra, 1080p is 280 FPS versus 126 FPS at 4K, a 55% increase.

*Q: Is the RTX 4080 overkill for Inside?*

A: The benchmark data indicates yes. Even at 4K Ultra, the combo maintains an average of 126 FPS, which is above the 120 FPS threshold for many high-refresh displays. At 1440p Ultra, the average is 201 FPS, and at 1080p Ultra it is 280 FPS. The GPU’s 16 GB VRAM and 716.8 GB/s bandwidth far exceed the game’s requirements, as evidenced by the fact that no measured preset drops below 126 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU’s performance affect the results?

A: The Ryzen 5 9600X’s single-thread score of 1253 in 3DMark and 2183.5 in Cinebench R23 suggests it can handle the game’s physics and logic without bottlenecking the GPU. The high FPS at 1080p Low (419 FPS) further indicates that the CPU is not a limiting factor, as the frame rate scales well with resolution changes.

Q: What is the lowest FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The lowest minimum FPS in the data is 181 FPS, observed at 4K Medium settings. This is the only resolution/setting pair with a minimum FPS below 200, and it still provides a smooth experience. All other measured presets have average FPS above 200, with no min FPS data provided for High, Low, or Ultra.

Q: Should I use Low settings for the highest frame rate?

A: Yes, if maximum FPS is the goal. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 419 FPS average, and at 1440p Low it hits 375 FPS. At 4K Low, the average is 265 FPS. These are the highest numbers for each resolution, but Medium settings offer only slightly lower averages (386, 338, 212 FPS respectively) with better visuals.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers remarkable performance across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 419 FPS, Medium 386 FPS with a minimum of 328 FPS and maximum of 444 FPS, High 294 FPS, and Ultra 280 FPS. These numbers indicate that at 1080p, the GPU is rarely the bottleneck; the differences between presets are more about the visual workload than any hardware limit. The 28% drop from Low to High (419 to 294 FPS) is significant, but even Ultra’s 280 FPS is more than enough for any current display.

At 2560x1440, the pattern continues with a slight overall reduction. Low averages 375 FPS, Medium 338 FPS (minimum 287 FPS, maximum 389 FPS), High 211 FPS, and Ultra 201 FPS. The gap between Low and High widens to 44% (375 to 211 FPS), suggesting that the higher resolution amplifies the cost of additional visual effects. Medium remains the sweet spot, as its 338 FPS average is only 10% below Low while offering noticeably better image quality.

At 3840x2160, the system still performs exceptionally, but the differences between presets become more pronounced. Low averages 265 FPS, Medium 212 FPS (minimum 181 FPS, maximum 244 FPS), High 133 FPS, and Ultra 126 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 20% of the frame rate (265 to 212 FPS), while High and Ultra are nearly identical (133 vs 126 FPS). This suggests that High and Ultra are likely hitting a similar rendering bottleneck, as the 5% difference between them is within measurement noise. The 181 FPS minimum at 4K Medium is the only data point below 200 FPS in the entire dataset, but it still provides a fluid experience.

The measured data shows a clear pattern: Medium is the most efficient preset at every resolution, delivering between 82% (4K) and 90% (1440p) of the Low preset’s frame rate while offering better shadows, textures, and effects. High and Ultra are within 5% of each other at 4K (133 vs 126 FPS) and 1440p (211 vs 201 FPS), but at 1080p they are 5% apart as well (294 vs 280 FPS). This consistency implies that the Ultra preset adds minimal visual improvements over High, making High the better choice if you want the best quality without the performance hit.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is the dominant component in this combo, with an average benchmark score of 54247 and a percentile of 86 versus all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER, scores 54209 (0.1% higher), while the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698 (2.6% higher) — a surprising result that suggests the benchmark suite may favor AMD in certain synthetic tests. However, in Inside, the RTX 4080’s 16 GB of GDDR6X memory and 716.8 GB/s memory bandwidth are far beyond what the game requires, as evidenced by the fact that 4K Ultra still maintains 126 FPS average.

The GPU’s clock speeds are listed as 2205 MHz base and 2505 MHz boost, with a memory clock of 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective). These numbers are relevant only in the context of the GPU’s overall capability; the measured FPS data shows that the card is not thermal or power limited in this title, as the frame rates scale predictably with resolution. The 9728 shading units and 76 RT cores are overkill for a puzzle platformer, but they contribute to the high average FPS at 4K. The GPU’s 320 W TDP and triple-slot design indicate a high-power card, but the game’s modest graphics load means it likely never reaches full utilization.

The RTX 4080’s 86th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, combined with its 0.1% delta from the RTX 4080 SUPER, places it at the top tier of available graphics cards. In Inside, the GPU’s role is to provide headroom for future titles, as even the most demanding preset (4K Ultra) only uses a fraction of the card’s potential. The benchmark results indicate that the GPU is never the bottleneck—the CPU’s single-thread performance (3DMark single-thread score of 1253) is sufficient to feed frames at 419 FPS at 1080p Low, which is likely near the CPU’s limit. The GPU’s 16 GB VRAM remains unused in this game, as Inside is not memory-intensive; the data shows no memory-related performance drops at any resolution.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X plays a supporting but crucial role in this combo, with an average benchmark score of 29713 and a percentile of 81 versus all CPUs. Its 6 cores and 12 threads are more than enough for Inside, which is a 2D side-scrolling game that primarily relies on single-thread performance for physics and game logic. The CPU’s 3DMark single-thread score of 1253 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2183.5 are the key metrics here, as they determine how fast the CPU can process game state updates and feed the GPU.

The CPU’s boost clock of 5.40 GHz and base clock of 3.90 GHz are the highest in its class, and the benchmark results confirm that this translates to excellent single-thread performance. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 419 FPS average, which is likely approaching the CPU’s frame-generation limit, as the GPU is capable of even higher numbers in other titles. The CPU’s nearest rivals—the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (29656, +0.2%), Ryzen 7 7840H (29868, -0.5%), Ryzen 7 5800XT (29879, -0.6%), and Ryzen 7 8845HS (29955, -0.8%)—all have similar average scores, indicating that the 9600X is not uniquely fast but is competitive with higher-core-count parts.

In Inside, the CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads are underutilized, as the game is not multi-threaded. The CPU’s multi-thread scores (Cinebench R23 multi-core of 17528.5, Geekbench multi-core of 14438) are irrelevant to this title’s performance. The key takeaway is that the 9600X’s single-thread capability, combined with its 32 MB L3 cache, allows it to maintain high FPS even at low resolutions where the GPU is not the bottleneck. The CPU’s 65 W TDP and 4 nm process node (TSMC) contribute to efficient operation, but the measured FPS data shows no signs of thermal throttling, as the frame rates remain consistent across multiple runs. The CPU’s launch MSRP is $279, but this is a minor factor in its performance. The data shows that the 9600X is a capable partner for the RTX 4080 in this game, providing enough single-thread speed to avoid bottlenecking at 1080p while the GPU handles the visual load at higher resolutions.