Inside

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 delivers exceptional performance in Inside, a 2016 puzzle platformer, with the data showing this combination ranks 130th out of 1671 tested combos. This places the setup in the top percentile for this title, where the RTX 5070's 12 GB of GDDR7 memory and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth prove vastly overqualified for the game's demands, resulting in frame rates that far exceed display refresh rates across all resolutions and settings.

FAQ

*Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this CPU and GPU combo in Inside?*

A: The combo ranks 130th out of 1671 tested combinations, placing it in the top 8% of all systems tested for this game.

Q: How does the RTX 5070 compare to its closest rival in average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 5070's average benchmark score is 41687, which is 0.2% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (41610) and 0.6% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (41441).

Q: What is the best FPS recorded in the measured data?

A: The highest average FPS is 417.8, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: What is the lowest FPS recorded in the measured data?

A: The lowest average FPS is 106.6, recorded at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings.

Q: How much VRAM does the GPU have, and is it sufficient for this game?

A: The GPU has 12 GB of GDDR7 memory. Given that the game's highest demand scenario (4K Ultra) still produces over 100 FPS, this memory capacity is more than sufficient.

Q: What is the processor's single-thread performance relative to its multi-thread performance?

A: The CPU scores 3603 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 25525 in multi-core, indicating strong single-thread capability that is beneficial for game logic, though Inside is not demanding in this regard.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 is the dominant component in this configuration, though its full capabilities are barely tested by Inside. The GPU's specifications—6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 80 ROPs—operating at a boost clock of 2512 MHz, provide a theoretical FP32 performance of 30.87 TFLOPS. This raw power translates to an average benchmark score of 41687, which places it in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs.

The memory subsystem is equally formidable: 12 GB of GDDR7 on a 192-bit bus delivers 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For Inside, a game from 2016, this bandwidth is effectively untapped. Even at 4K Ultra settings, the game only manages to stress the GPU enough to produce 106.6 FPS, which is still far above typical display refresh rates. The data suggests that the RTX 5070 is running at a fraction of its capacity, as evidenced by the massive jump to 226 FPS at 4K Low settings—a 112% performance increase that shows the game's engine is not limited by the GPU's memory bandwidth or compute throughput.

The GPU's 83rd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with a 0.6% advantage over the RTX 3090, confirms that this is a high-tier card. However, in Inside, the bottleneck is the game engine itself, not the hardware. The GPU's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and 250 W TDP are irrelevant to the actual performance observed, which is consistently GPU-bound only at the highest resolution and settings.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X, with its 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture, plays a minimal role in Inside's performance. The CPU's base clock of 3.90 GHz and boost clock of 5.40 GHz provide excellent single-thread performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3603 and a Geekbench single-core score of 3363. This places the CPU in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 28246.

The CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-13490F, scores 28173, putting the Ryzen 5 9600X just 0.3% ahead. This margin is negligible in gaming scenarios. For Inside, the CPU's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (89.6 GB/s bandwidth) are more than adequate. The game's puzzle-platformer nature means it rarely pushes multi-threaded workloads; the CPU's multi-core score of 25525 in Cinebench R23 is largely irrelevant here.

The measured FPS data confirms the CPU is not a limiting factor. At 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 417.8 FPS, which is likely near the game engine's internal frame rate cap. The CPU's 3DMark single-thread score of 1253 and 2-thread score of 2456 indicate strong performance for the game's logic thread, but the game simply does not demand much from the processor.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination's rank of 130 out of 1671 tested combos places it in the 92nd percentile of all systems tested for Inside. This is an impressive result, though it reflects the raw power of both components rather than any specific optimization for this title. The GPU's 83rd percentile and CPU's 85th percentile rankings individually suggest that the combo should perform near the top, and the data confirms this.

Compared to other tested combos, this system outperforms the vast majority, with only 129 combinations achieving higher average FPS in Inside. The fact that this 2016 game can run at over 100 FPS at 4K Ultra on this hardware indicates that the combo is vastly overqualified, as most modern AAA titles would present a more significant challenge. The rank confirms the hardware's capabilities, but it also highlights that Inside is not a demanding title for this class of components.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals how the workload shifts between components. At 1080p High settings, the combo produces 248.7 FPS. Moving to 1440p High drops this to 180.8 FPS (a 27.3% decrease), and at 4K High it falls to 113.7 FPS (a further 37.1% decrease). This steep scaling curve indicates that the GPU becomes increasingly important as resolution rises, but even at 4K, the frame rates remain exceptionally high.

The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system achieves 417.8 FPS, which is likely CPU or engine-limited. At 4K Low, the same settings yield 226 FPS, a 45.9% drop that is entirely attributable to the GPU's increased workload at higher pixel counts. The pattern persists across all settings: Ultra settings at 1080p produce 238.2 FPS, dropping to 173.2 FPS at 1440p (27.3% decrease) and 106.6 FPS at 4K (38.5% decrease). This consistent scaling suggests that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the CPU becomes more relevant at lower resolutions where the GPU is less taxed.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a comprehensive view of performance across resolutions and settings:

• 1920x1080: Low settings produce 417.8 FPS average, Medium yields 386.7 FPS, High achieves 248.7 FPS, and Ultra drops to 238.2 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 31.1 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 10.5 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the highest preset.

• 2560x1440: Low settings deliver 355.1 FPS, Medium produces 288 FPS, High reaches 180.8 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 173.2 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra here is just 7.6 FPS, indicating that Ultra offers minimal visual improvement over High for this game.

• 3840x2160: Low settings sustain 226 FPS, Medium achieves 180.7 FPS, High falls to 113.7 FPS, and Ultra is the most demanding at 106.6 FPS. At 4K, the gap between High and Ultra narrows to 7.1 FPS, while the jump from Low to Medium costs 45.3 FPS.

Across all resolutions, the transition from Low to Medium typically costs 30-80 FPS, while High to Ultra costs only 7-10 FPS. This suggests that Ultra settings are not meaningfully more demanding than High, but the jump from Medium to High is significant, likely due to specific rendering features being enabled.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and display refresh rate. At 1080p, even Ultra settings achieve 238.2 FPS, which exceeds the refresh rate of virtually all gaming monitors. Therefore, players can comfortably select Ultra settings at 1080p without any performance concerns.

At 1440p, Ultra settings produce 173.2 FPS, still well above 144 Hz displays. The data shows that High settings at 1440p (180.8 FPS) are only 4.2% faster than Ultra, making Ultra the clear choice for maximum visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness.

At 4K, the situation becomes more nuanced. Ultra delivers 106.6 FPS, which is sufficient for 100 Hz displays but may not fully utilize 120 Hz or 144 Hz monitors. High settings at 4K provide 113.7 FPS, a 6.7% improvement, which could be the better option for high-refresh 4K displays. For players prioritizing maximum frame rates, Medium at 4K yields 180.7 FPS, representing a 69.5% improvement over Ultra while still offering mid-tier visual quality.

Given that the game is a puzzle platformer where visual fidelity is not critical to gameplay, the recommendation is to use Ultra settings at 1080p or 1440p, and High settings at 4K. The 7-10 FPS difference between High and Ultra is negligible, and High provides a small performance buffer that could help maintain consistent frame times on less powerful display configurations. The data strongly indicates that this combo never dips below 106 FPS in any tested scenario, ensuring a flawless experience regardless of settings.