Inside

The data presents a fascinating case study in hardware scaling: pairing a 2019 mid-range CPU with a 2024 flagship-tier GPU in a 2016 puzzle platformer. The results show a system that is overwhelmingly GPU-limited at lower resolutions, but begins to reveal its architectural age as the load shifts. The measured frame rates are exceptionally high across the board, indicating that this combination is far beyond what the game demands, yet the relative performance deltas between settings and resolutions tell a nuanced story about where the bottleneck truly lies.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X brings an 8-core, 16-thread configuration based on the Zen 2 architecture, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. In the context of a game like Inside, which is a 2.5D side-scrolling puzzle platformer, the computational demands are far from extreme. The game's release in July of 2016 predates the CPU by three years, meaning the title's threading model was designed for a generation of processors with far fewer cores. Consequently, the 3700X's 16 threads are largely underutilized in this specific workload.

The benchmark data confirms this observation. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 245.9 FPS. This high frame rate suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with enough data to maintain a very high output. However, the frame rate does not scale perfectly with resolution as one might expect if the GPU were the sole limiting factor. The difference between 1080p Low (245.9 FPS) and 1440p Low (218.5 FPS) is a 27.4 FPS drop, which is a significant proportional decrease. This indicates that while the CPU is not a hard bottleneck, its single-threaded performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2694, does set a ceiling on the absolute maximum frame rate the system can achieve, particularly in less demanding scenes.

The CPU's standing relative to its peers reinforces this. Its average benchmark score of 28631 places it at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, but its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-12600 with an average score of 28654, show a deltaPct of only -0.1. This indicates that the 3700X is essentially on par with a newer mid-range processor in general compute tasks. In a game that is not heavily multithreaded, this general compute parity translates to similar in-game performance. The data suggests that the CPU's role here is to provide a stable, high-frequency foundation. Its 32 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support are more than adequate for the game's data streaming needs, allowing the 8 cores to handle the game's logic and physics without creating stutter or frame-pacing issues. The CPU is not the star of the show, but it is a competent and reliable supporting actor that does not prevent the GPU from performing at a high level.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is an absolute powerhouse that utterly dominates the rendering workload in Inside. With 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, it has a memory bandwidth of 736.3 GB/s, which is far more than a game of this visual complexity can saturate. The GPU's boost clock of 2550 MHz and its 10240 shading units provide immense raw compute power. The game's simple, monochromatic art style with limited geometric complexity means that the RTX 4080 SUPER is barely breaking a sweat, even at 4K resolution.

This is clearly demonstrated by the 4K results. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the system still manages an average of 124.6 FPS. This is a very high frame rate for a 4K resolution, and it shows that the GPU has enough headroom to handle the increased pixel count without significant strain. The difference between 4K Low (186.2 FPS) and 4K Ultra (124.6 FPS) is 61.6 FPS, a much larger drop than the 27.4 FPS difference seen between 1080p and 1440p on Low settings. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is becoming the primary performance determinant, and the impact of graphical settings is far more pronounced.

The GPU's benchmark scores are equally impressive. Its average benchmark score of 53610 places it at the 88th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, has an average score of 53489, a deltaPct of 0.2, indicating they are statistically tied. This level of performance is massive overkill for Inside. The game's VRAM usage will likely never approach the 16 GB available, and the 52.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are dedicated to rendering a game that could likely run on an integrated GPU. The RTX 4080 SUPER's role here is not to be challenged, but to provide an incredibly high frame rate headroom. The data indicates that the GPU is the primary scaling factor when moving from 1080p to 4K, as the CPU becomes less of a limiting factor and the GPU's fillrate and pixel throughput are pushed harder.

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

Given the extraordinary performance on offer, the choice of settings comes down to a trade-off between raw frame rate and visual fidelity. The data provides clear points of comparison. At 1080p, the jump from Low to High yields a frame rate reduction from 245.9 FPS to 186.3 FPS. While this is a 59.6 FPS drop, the absolute numbers are still so high that any of these presets will provide a perfectly smooth experience on a high-refresh-rate monitor. The question is whether the visual improvements from Low to High are worth the performance cost.

For players with a 144Hz or 165Hz monitor, the High preset at 1440p (169 FPS) offers an ideal balance. It provides a frame rate that is above the refresh rate of most high-end monitors while delivering a significant boost to visual quality over the Low preset. The Ultra preset at 1440p (163.5 FPS) is only 5.5 FPS slower than High, making it a worthwhile upgrade if the graphical enhancements (likely shadow quality and post-processing) are desired. At 4K, the situation is different. The Ultra preset (124.6 FPS) is still playable, but the High preset (134.1 FPS) provides a 9.5 FPS advantage. Given that the visual difference between High and Ultra is often subtle, the High preset at 4K appears to be the most efficient choice, offering a frame rate that is close to the 120Hz threshold while maintaining high visual standards.

The data suggests avoiding the Low preset on this hardware. The frame rate gains from High to Low (e.g., from 186.3 to 245.9 FPS at 1080p) are not worth the significant visual downgrade in a game that relies heavily on its atmospheric art style. The Medium preset is a reasonable fallback, but the performance difference between Medium and High is relatively small, making High the clear recommendation for the best overall experience across all resolutions.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run the game at 4K with a high refresh rate?

A: Yes. The measured data shows an average of 134.1 FPS at 4K High settings, and 124.6 FPS at 4K Ultra settings. This comfortably exceeds the 120Hz refresh rate common on many modern 4K displays.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: The data suggests the CPU is the primary limiter at 1080p. The frame rate at 1080p Low (245.9 FPS) is disproportionately high, but the scaling to 1440p Low (218.5 FPS) shows a 27.4 FPS drop, indicating that the CPU's ability to prepare frames is the ceiling, not the GPU's ability to render them.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 SUPER compare to its nearest rival in terms of overall benchmark score?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 53610. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, has an average score of 53489, resulting in a deltaPct of 0.2. This indicates that the two GPUs are statistically equivalent in general performance.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset achieves an average of 218.5 FPS, while the Ultra preset achieves an average of 163.5 FPS. This is a difference of 55 FPS, which represents a 25% reduction in frame rate for the maximum visual quality settings.

Q: Is there a significant performance drop when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: Yes, the drop is substantial. On the High preset, the average frame rate falls from 186.3 FPS at 1080p to 134.1 FPS at 4K, a 52.2 FPS reduction. This scaling is expected and indicates that the GPU's pixel processing capability is being more heavily taxed.

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

The frame rate scaling across resolutions provides a clear diagnostic of the system's bottleneck. On the Low preset, the progression is 245.9 FPS at 1080p, 218.5 FPS at 1440p, and 186.2 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 27.4 FPS, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 32.3 FPS. This relatively even scaling pattern, where a doubling of pixel count (1080p to 4K is a 4x increase) results in a 59.7 FPS total drop, suggests that the system is not entirely bound by one component. If the GPU were the sole bottleneck, we would expect a more dramatic drop at 4K than at 1440p, which is confirmed by the slightly larger drop at the higher resolution.

On the High preset, the scaling is different. The frame rates are 186.3 FPS at 1080p, 169 FPS at 1440p, and 134.1 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is only 17.3 FPS, but the drop from 1440p to 4K is 34.9 FPS. This pattern, where the 4K drop is double that of the 1440p drop, is a classic sign of the GPU becoming the dominant limiting factor. The increased visual complexity of the High preset places more load on the GPU, making its rendering capabilities the primary constraint as the resolution increases.

The data implies that at lower resolutions and settings, the CPU's performance is a co-limiting factor, preventing the GPU from achieving its absolute maximum frame rate. However, as resolution and settings increase, the GPU's workload grows to the point where it becomes the definitive bottleneck. The system is well-balanced in the sense that the CPU is powerful enough to drive the GPU to high performance levels, but the GPU is so powerful that it can only be fully utilized at higher resolutions. The 4K results show the system hitting a sweet spot where the GPU is sufficiently loaded to show its full potential, while the CPU is still capable of keeping up.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system's performance envelope. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are exceptionally high. The Low preset leads with an average of 245.9 FPS. The Medium preset follows at 222.3 FPS, and the High preset comes in at 186.3 FPS. The most demanding Ultra preset still achieves an average of 181.6 FPS. The spread between the lowest and highest settings is 64.3 FPS, indicating that the visual settings have a noticeable impact even at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain very high. The Low preset is again the fastest at 218.5 FPS, followed by Medium at 199.1 FPS. The High preset drops to 169 FPS, and the Ultra preset trails at 163.5 FPS. The performance gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 5.5 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional features are not particularly taxing. The drop from the 1080p scores is consistent, showing a 27.4 FPS reduction on Low and a 17.3 FPS reduction on High.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is finally given a substantial workload. The Low preset still manages an average of 186.2 FPS, which is a remarkable achievement for 4K. The Medium preset achieves 169.7 FPS, and the High preset drops to 134.1 FPS. The Ultra preset brings up the rear with 124.6 FPS. The significant drop from High to Ultra at 4K (9.5 FPS) is more pronounced than at 1440p, confirming that the GPU is being pushed harder. The data shows a clear, consistent hierarchy across all resolutions: Low > Medium > High > Ultra. The absolute frame rates are so high that even the lowest performing configuration (4K Ultra) is well above the threshold for smooth gameplay, demonstrating the immense headroom this combination of hardware provides.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is ranked 673 out of 1671 tested combos in this game. This rank places it in the top 40% of all systems tested, which is a strong result given the CPU's relative age. The rank is likely held back by the CPU, as many systems equipped with newer, higher-clocked processors could achieve higher frame rates in the CPU-limited scenarios at 1080p.

However, the ranking is also a signal of the GPU's capability. The RTX 4080 SUPER's massive performance ensures that even with a mid-range CPU from a previous generation, the system performs better than the majority of other configurations. The rank of 673 suggests that while this is not the absolute fastest configuration possible, it is far from a weak one. It outperforms over a thousand other tested combos, which likely include systems with older or less powerful GPUs.

The data implies that this combo is an excellent example of a high-end GPU being paired with a still-capable mid-range CPU. The performance is not limited by the GPU, but the CPU does prevent the system from reaching the very top tier of rankings where newer, top-end CPUs are paired with this same GPU. The 85th percentile ranking of the CPU itself, alongside the 88th percentile ranking of the GPU, suggests that the overall system performance is slightly below the average of these two components' individual standings, primarily due to the CPU's single-threaded limitations in this specific game. This is a case where the GPU carries the system's ranking, while the CPU ensures it doesn't fall behind.