Inside

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination delivers playable frame rates in Inside, but the data clearly shows that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, particularly at higher resolutions and settings. The combo ranks 1607th out of 1671 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 4% of all systems, a position driven almost entirely by the GTX 1650's modest performance ceiling.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is a Zen 2 (Matisse) architecture processor with 8 cores and 16 threads, running at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. This is a 7 nm desktop part with a 65 W TDP, designed for the AMD Socket AM4 platform. With 32 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support delivering 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, this CPU is far more capable than what Inside requires as a 2D puzzle platformer.

The CPU's benchmark profile reinforces this assessment. In Cinebench R23, the 3700X scores 19087 points in multicore and 2694 in single-core. Its PassMark single-thread score of 2656 and multithread score of 22458 place it at the 85th percentile versus all CPUs. Compared to its nearest rivals, the Intel Core i5-12600 scores 28654 (a -0.1% deltaPct) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT scores 28591 (a 0.1% deltaPct), meaning the 3700X is essentially performance-equivalent to these parts in aggregate benchmarks. The data indicates that none of these CPUs would limit frame rates in a game like Inside, which is not computationally demanding.

For the measured results, the CPU's headroom is apparent. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 133.3 FPS, and at 1440p Low it reaches 93.6 FPS. These are strong numbers that would be impossible if the CPU were struggling. The 3700X's 8-core, 16-thread configuration is entirely overkill for this title, and the benchmark results show no scenario where the CPU becomes the constraint. The game's physics and logic are trivial for a processor of this class, meaning the variance in FPS across settings and resolutions is almost exclusively a function of GPU workload. In short, the Ryzen 7 3700X is a non-factor in Inside's performance; it provides all the compute headroom needed and then some.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear limiting factor in this combination. This Turing-architecture GPU (TU117 chip) features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and is equipped with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS, and it draws a 75 W TDP.

The GTX 1650 sits at the 43rd percentile versus all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8713. Its nearest rivals show how close the competition is: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 8746 (a -0.4% deltaPct), the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8749 (a -0.4% deltaPct), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 8671 (a 0.5% deltaPct). This means the GTX 1650 is statistically indistinguishable from these parts in raw compute, yet it struggles to maintain high frame rates in Inside at higher settings because the game's rendering demands exceed what this GPU can deliver.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is not a direct constraint in Inside, as the game's art style is relatively simple, but the GPU's raw throughput is. At 1080p Ultra, the combo drops to 62.8 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it falls to 29.7 FPS. The data shows a clear pattern: as resolution and settings increase, the GTX 1650's limited pixel rate (53.28 GPixel/s) and texture rate (93.24 GTexel/s) become the bottleneck. The GPU's DirectX 12 score of 35 in PassMark and its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 305 confirm that this is a low-end part by modern standards, and Inside's higher presets simply ask for more than it can provide.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Inside at 1080p?*

A: Yes. The measured data shows 133.3 FPS at Low, 109.4 FPS at Medium, 68.1 FPS at High, and 62.8 FPS at Ultra settings for 1920x1080 resolution.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: 1080p is the optimal choice. It delivers a minimum of 62.8 FPS across all settings, while 1440p drops to 44.2 FPS at Ultra and 4K falls to 29.7 FPS at Ultra.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 8713. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 8746 (a -0.4% deltaPct), the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8749 (a -0.4% deltaPct), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 8671 (a 0.5% deltaPct). All are statistically equivalent.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The Ryzen 7 3700X has a PassMark multithread score of 22458 and sits at the 85th percentile versus all CPUs, while the GTX 1650 sits at the 43rd percentile versus all GPUs.

Q: What settings should I use at 1440p?

A: Medium settings at 1440p yield 79.9 FPS, which is the best balance. Low gives 93.6 FPS, but High drops to 48.9 FPS and Ultra to 44.2 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 1607th out of 1671 tested combinations in Inside, placing it in the bottom 4% of all systems tested.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of this combo's performance across three resolutions and four quality presets.

At 1920x1080, the system performs admirably. Low settings produce 133.3 FPS, Medium hits 109.4 FPS, High reaches 68.1 FPS, and Ultra manages 62.8 FPS. These numbers show that 1080p is entirely playable, with even the most demanding preset staying above 60 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably. Low settings yield 93.6 FPS, which is still smooth. Medium settings deliver 79.9 FPS, maintaining good playability. However, High drops to 48.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 44.2 FPS. This resolution is viable only on Low or Medium settings for a consistent 60+ FPS experience.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the GTX 1650 struggles significantly. Low settings produce 61.1 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings drop to 46.9 FPS, High falls to 31.4 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 29.7 FPS. The 4K resolution is only playable on Low settings, and even then, it barely clears the 60 FPS mark.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: the GTX 1650's performance scales poorly with increased resolution. The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 70.5 FPS (133.3 vs 62.8). At 1440p, the gap shrinks to 49.4 FPS (93.6 vs 44.2). At 4K, it narrows to 31.4 FPS (61.1 vs 29.7). This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so heavily taxed that even lowering settings provides diminishing returns.

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

The resolution scaling data provides clear evidence that the GTX 1650 is the bottleneck. From 1080p to 1440p, the FPS drops are significant but manageable. For example, at High settings, the system goes from 68.1 FPS at 1080p to 48.9 FPS at 1440p, a 28.2% decrease. At Ultra, it drops from 62.8 FPS to 44.2 FPS, a 29.6% decrease.

The scaling from 1440p to 4K is far more punishing. At High settings, the drop is from 48.9 FPS to 31.4 FPS, a 35.8% decrease. At Ultra, it falls from 44.2 FPS to 29.7 FPS, a 32.8% decrease. The most dramatic drop is at Medium settings, where 1440p delivers 79.9 FPS but 4K only manages 46.9 FPS, a 41.3% decrease.

These percentage drops are larger than what would be expected if the CPU were the limiting factor. The Ryzen 7 3700X has ample headroom, as evidenced by its 85th percentile ranking and its ability to maintain high frame rates at low resolutions. The GTX 1650, on the other hand, shows classic GPU-bound behavior: performance degrades rapidly as pixel count increases because the GPU's fixed pixel rate and texture rate cannot keep up with the additional workload.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows at higher resolutions. At 1080p, Low is more than double Ultra (133.3 vs 62.8 FPS). At 4K, Low is only slightly more than double Ultra (61.1 vs 29.7 FPS). This compression indicates that at 4K, the GPU is saturated even at Low settings, and there is less overhead to gain from reducing quality.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution.

For 1080p, Ultra settings are the clear recommendation. At 62.8 FPS, it exceeds the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, and the visual quality improvement over High (68.1 FPS) is marginal in terms of frame rate cost. The 5.3 FPS difference between High and Ultra is negligible, so choosing Ultra maximizes visual fidelity without sacrificing playability.

For 1440p, Medium settings provide the best experience. At 79.9 FPS, it is well above the 60 FPS target. Low settings (93.6 FPS) offer little visual benefit over Medium, while High (48.9 FPS) and Ultra (44.2 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS threshold, which can cause noticeable judder in a platformer. The 79.9 FPS at Medium is the sweet spot, balancing visual quality with a comfortable frame rate margin.

For 4K, Low settings are the only viable option. At 61.1 FPS, it barely clears the 60 FPS target. Medium settings drop to 46.9 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a game that benefits from smooth motion. High (31.4 FPS) and Ultra (29.7 FPS) are below 30 FPS, which is generally considered unacceptable for this genre. The 4K experience is limited by the GTX 1650's capabilities, and users should expect to compromise heavily on quality.

Overall, the combination of 1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium provides the best balance of visual quality and performance. The data shows that the GTX 1650 is not capable of delivering a consistent 60 FPS experience at 4K with any meaningful quality settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1607th out of 1671 tested combinations in Inside. This places it in the bottom 4% of all systems tested, a position that reflects the GPU's limitations rather than the CPU's capabilities.

The ranking is particularly telling when considering the CPU's strength. The Ryzen 7 3700X sits at the 85th percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 28631. Its nearest rivals, the Intel Core i5-12600 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT, have virtually identical aggregate scores (28654 and 28591, respectively), yet the GTX 1650 drags this combo down to the bottom tier.

The GPU's 43rd percentile ranking versus all GPUs, combined with its average benchmark score of 8713, is the primary driver of this poor placement. The GTX 1650 is statistically equivalent to the RTX 3050 A Mobile, Radeon 550X, Quadro P2200, and Radeon Pro WX 5100, all of which are low-to-mid-range parts. In a game like Inside, which is not graphically demanding by modern standards, this GPU still struggles at higher resolutions.

The rank of 1607 out of 1671 indicates that the vast majority of tested systems outperform this combo. This is not surprising given the GTX 1650's age and entry-level positioning. The benchmark results show that this combo is only suitable for 1080p gaming or 1440p at reduced settings. For users with this hardware, the data suggests that 1080p is the intended resolution, and the system should be configured accordingly to achieve the best possible experience.