Inside

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700G paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER places 336th out of 1,671 tested combos for Inside. This position, within the top 20% of all tested configurations, reflects a pairing where the GPU's substantial rendering power meets a CPU that, while not the newest, is more than adequate for this title. The data shows this combo is positioned for high-refresh-rate gameplay, as the average frame rates across nearly all tested settings exceed the threshold for smooth motion on standard displays.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 336 out of 1,671 tested configurations indicates a top-tier result for this specific game. Benchmark results show this pairing outperforms the vast majority of systems tested, placing it firmly in the upper echelon for Inside. The percentile data for the individual components reinforces this: the CPU sits in the 83rd percentile of all processors, while the GPU is in the 86th percentile of all graphics cards. This high combined standing suggests that neither component is a significant bottleneck in this game's workload, allowing the system to deliver frame rates that are consistently high. The data indicates this is a configuration built for maximum visual fidelity without sacrificing fluidity, rather than a balanced mid-range setup. The rank is particularly strong given that the CPU is from an older generation, showing that for a game like Inside, raw single-thread performance and a capable GPU matter more than having the absolute latest processor.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the primary driver of the high frame rates observed. It comes with 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 672.3 GB/s. This large memory pool and high bandwidth are more than sufficient for a puzzle-platformer like Inside, ensuring that texture streaming and memory allocation never become a limiting factor at any resolution. The GPU's architecture, Ada Lovelace, is built on a 5 nm process and features 8,448 shading units. Its boost clock of 2,610 MHz allows it to sustain high performance, and the data shows this translates directly into high average FPS. In the context of this game, the GPU's immense power is somewhat underutilized at lower resolutions, where the frame rates are likely capped by the CPU or the game engine itself, but at 4K, its capabilities are more fully exercised. The GPU's passmark G3D score of 31,811 places it in the 86th percentile, and its nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA CMP 50HX and Intel Arc A550M, are within a 2% delta, showing consistent performance in synthetic benchmarks. However, the game's measured FPS shows this GPU is far ahead of what those scores might suggest for this specific title.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700G is a Zen 3 architecture processor with 8 cores and 16 threads, operating from a base clock of 3.80 GHz up to a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. For a game like Inside, which is not heavily multithreaded, the CPU's single-thread performance is the most critical factor. Its 3DMark single-thread score of 899 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,930 are strong, but the data shows that even this is not the primary constraint. The CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic data without becoming a bottleneck. With a 3DMark 16-thread score of 6,629, there is ample headroom in multi-threaded workloads, but the game's engine likely relies mostly on a few cores. The CPU's performance relative to its nearest rivals is incredibly tight; it is only 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon D-2752TER in average benchmark score. This indicates that while the CPU is not the absolute fastest, its performance is well within the expected range and does not detract from the overall gaming experience. The data suggests the CPU is sufficient to push high frame rates, but as we will see, the GPU becomes the primary driver as resolution increases.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance scaling across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo produces extremely high frame rates. With Low settings, the average FPS is 303.6, which is the maximum measured. Moving to Medium settings drops this to 277.4 FPS, while High and Ultra settings yield 230.8 and 227.4 FPS, respectively. The difference between High and Ultra is minimal, just a few frames, suggesting that the Ultra preset's extra effects are not heavily taxing this configuration. At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain very high. Low settings produce an average of 270.8 FPS, Medium settings hit 248.4 FPS, and High settings reach 196.5 FPS. The Ultra preset at this resolution yields 188.1 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a consistent drop, but even the lowest result at 1440p Ultra is well above 144 Hz. At 3840x2160, the resolution where the GPU is most stressed, the average FPS still remains very playable. Low settings produce 232.7 FPS, Medium settings drop to 198 FPS, and High settings yield 124.9 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K gives an average of 115.1 FPS. This shows that even at the highest resolution, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER maintains a frame rate that is smooth for most displays, though it finally begins to show a more significant workload.

Resolution Scaling

The data shows how the limiting component changes as resolution increases. At 1080p, the frame rates are incredibly high, with the gap between Low (303.6 FPS) and Ultra (227.4 FPS) being 76.2 FPS. This suggests a CPU or engine limit, as the GPU is not being fully utilized; otherwise, the gap would be larger. Moving to 1440p, the frame rates drop, but the pattern remains, with a 82.7 FPS difference between Low and Ultra. At 4K, the difference between Low (232.7 FPS) and Ultra (115.1 FPS) expands to 117.6 FPS. This widening gap indicates the GPU is becoming the primary bottleneck, as the rendering load increases with pixel count. The data clearly shows a shift: at 1080p and 1440p, the CPU is likely the limiting factor, preventing the system from exceeding certain frame rate thresholds. However, at 4K, the GPU's workload becomes so substantial that its performance dictates the final result. The drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 70.9 FPS, a 23% reduction, while the drop from 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra is 112.3 FPS, a 49% reduction. This disproportionate scaling confirms that the Ultra settings and higher resolutions place an increasing burden on the GPU.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience depends on the target resolution and display refresh rate. For 1080p and 1440p displays, the High preset offers the best balance. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 230.8, which is only 3.4 FPS lower than Ultra but offers a significant reduction in rendering complexity, potentially improving frame time consistency. At 1440p High, the average is 196.5 FPS, still far exceeding the refresh rate of most high-end monitors. The Ultra preset at these resolutions provides minimal visual benefit for the performance cost, making High the more efficient choice. For 4K displays, the High preset remains the recommended option, delivering an average of 124.9 FPS. While this is below the 144 Hz target, it is well above 60 Hz and provides a smooth experience. The Ultra preset at 4K yields 115.1 FPS, which is a 7.8% performance decrease for what is likely an imperceptible visual improvement in this game's art style. The Medium preset is a viable alternative for 4K if users prefer higher frame rates, as it produces 198 FPS, but the visual downgrade from High is more noticeable. The data suggests that the High preset is the "sweet spot" for this GPU and CPU combination across all resolutions, ensuring the game remains visually impressive while maintaining frame rates that are either maximally smooth or fully playable.

Given the game's nature as a puzzle-platformer, the extra headroom provided by the High preset at 1080p and 1440p could also be used to enable other graphics features, though the measured data does not include those specifics. The performance gap between High and Ultra is consistently small, indicating that the Ultra preset is not well-optimized or that the game's engine does not scale its effects heavily. Therefore, from a pure data standpoint, High is the most sensible choice, as it provides the majority of the visual fidelity without the unnecessary frame rate cost of the Ultra preset. For users with 4K 120 Hz or 144 Hz displays, the difference between 115 and 124 FPS might be worth the visual upgrade to Ultra, but for the average user, the High preset is recommended.