Inside

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and AMD Radeon RX 7700 combination ranks 1161st out of 2887 tested combos in Inside, placing it in the 60th percentile of all systems tested. This is a solidly mid-pack result for a game that is not particularly demanding by modern standards, though the pairing shows a clear performance ceiling that is defined more by the GPU than the CPU. The combo sits in a crowded field where small shifts in component selection can move a system up or down by hundreds of places, and the data suggests this pairing delivers consistent, high-refresh-rate performance at 1080p, with playable results extending into 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The rank of 1161 out of 2887 combos places this system in the upper-middle tier of the tested database. That position is driven by the GPU's percentile ranking of 58 against all GPUs, which is notably lower than the CPU's 87th percentile standing against all CPUs. The data indicates a lopsided pairing: the processor is a top-tier part while the graphics card is only slightly above average. In a game like Inside, which is a 2D puzzle platformer with a modest rendering load, the GPU still acts as the primary bottleneck, and the combo's overall rank reflects that limitation rather than any deficiency in the CPU.

Benchmark results for the individual components reinforce this split. The CPU's average benchmark score of 40081 puts it within 0.6% of rivals like the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, Intel Core 5 221E, AMD Ryzen 9 270, and Intel Core i9-13905H, all of which cluster within a narrow 200-point band. The GPU's average score of 15852 is similarly close to its nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15862), AMD Radeon RX 9060 (16014), AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15679), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16129). The deltas are small — under 2% in every case — which means this combo's rank is not being pulled down by a weak component but rather by the inherent limits of the GPU in a title that does not stress the CPU.

The combo rank of 1161 out of 2887 suggests that roughly 40% of tested systems outperform this pairing. Given the GPU's modest standing, that is expected. The CPU could easily drive a more powerful graphics card, but as configured, the system lands in a zone where it competes with older or lower-tier GPUs rather than the modern high-end parts the CPU could support. The measured FPS data shows the system is never truly starved for performance, but the rank reflects a pairing that prioritizes balance over raw throughput.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 is an 8-core, 16-thread processor from the 7000 series, built on the Zen 4 architecture with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. It uses the AMD Socket AM5 platform, supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, and has a 32 MB shared L3 cache. With a TDP of 65 watts, it is a power-efficient part, but in Inside the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU. The game is a 2D side-scroller with simple geometry and lighting, meaning the CPU is rarely the limiting factor at any resolution.

The CPU's benchmark scores show strong multi-threaded performance: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18760 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 15371. Single-thread performance is also robust, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1930 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2525. These numbers indicate the 7700 can easily handle the game's logic, physics, and AI calculations without breaking a sweat. The 3DMark scores — 8484 for 16 threads and 1049 for single-thread — further confirm that the CPU has ample headroom for a game that does not demand heavy parallel processing.

In practical terms, the CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads are far more than Inside requires. The game was released in 2016 and its puzzle-platformer gameplay does not scale with core count. The data shows that the CPU's percentile rank of 87 against all CPUs means it is faster than the vast majority of processors in the database, yet the measured FPS does not vary significantly between low and high settings at the same resolution, which points to the GPU as the performance limiter. The CPU is effectively idle in this workload, and its clock speeds of 3.80 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost are more than sufficient to feed the GPU at all tested settings.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is a RDNA 3.0 GPU with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s. The GPU has a base clock of 1900 MHz, a boost clock of 2459 MHz, and a game clock of 2041 MHz. It contains 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation units, with 40 ray tracing cores. The GPU's FP32 performance is 25.18 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 236.1 GPixel/s. These specifications are modest by current standards, and the GPU's percentile rank of 58 against all GPUs reflects that.

In Inside, the GPU's role is to render simple 2D scenes with limited effects. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU can handle the game at high frame rates, but the gap between low and ultra settings reveals where its limits lie. At 1080p, the GPU delivers 353 FPS on low settings but drops to 168 FPS on ultra, a 52% reduction. At 1440p, the same pattern holds: 254 FPS on low versus 121 FPS on ultra. At 4K, the GPU still manages 160 FPS on low but falls to 76 FPS on ultra. This scaling indicates that the GPU's 16 GB of VRAM is never a constraint — the game's textures are small — but the raw compute power of the GPU is the limiting factor at higher settings.

The GPU's benchmark scores are consistent with its mid-range positioning. A 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2865 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 106028 show moderate performance, while the Passmark G3D score of 20974 places it near the R9 370X and RX 9060. The GPU's 58th percentile rank means it is slower than 42% of all GPUs in the database, which explains why the combo's overall rank is not higher. The GPU is adequate for Inside at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K with ultra settings, the frame rate drops below 60 FPS, indicating the GPU is the bottleneck.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of performance across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 353 FPS on low settings, 282 FPS on medium, 177 FPS on high, and 168 FPS on ultra. The medium settings row includes a minimum FPS of 240 and a maximum of 325, showing that even the lowest frame rates are well above the refresh rate of most monitors. The gap between high and ultra is small — only 9 FPS — suggesting that the ultra preset adds little visual benefit in this game.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high: 254 FPS on low, 203 FPS on medium (with a minimum of 173 and maximum of 234), 127 FPS on high, and 121 FPS on ultra. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 28% across all settings, which is consistent with the increased pixel count. The system comfortably exceeds 120 FPS at 1440p on any setting, making it suitable for high-refresh-rate monitors.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops more noticeably. The system delivers 160 FPS on low, 128 FPS on medium (with a minimum of 108 and maximum of 147), 80 FPS on high, and 76 FPS on ultra. The 4K results show a significant scaling penalty, particularly at high and ultra settings where the frame rate falls below 80 FPS. The low setting at 4K is still playable at 160 FPS, but the ultra setting at 76 FPS is borderline for competitive play. The data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K, as the CPU's performance is unchanged regardless of resolution.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU's bottleneck clearly. At low settings, the frame rate drops from 353 FPS at 1080p to 254 FPS at 1440p (a 28% decrease) and then to 160 FPS at 4K (a 37% decrease from 1440p). At ultra settings, the drop is from 168 FPS at 1080p to 121 FPS at 1440p (28% decrease) and then to 76 FPS at 4K (37% decrease). The consistent percentage drops across settings indicate that the GPU is rendering more pixels, and the scaling is linear with the pixel count.

This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU's performance is constant regardless of resolution, so the frame rate changes are entirely attributable to the GPU's rendering workload. The fact that the drop from 1080p to 4K is approximately 55% on low settings and 55% on ultra settings confirms that the GPU is the limiting component at every resolution. The CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads are never saturated, and the system's frame rate is entirely determined by the GPU's ability to fill pixels.

The data also shows that the gap between low and ultra settings widens at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference is 185 FPS (353 vs 168), while at 4K, the difference is 84 FPS (160 vs 76). This is because the GPU's workload increases disproportionately with resolution, so the settings have a larger relative impact at 4K. The scaling behavior suggests that the GPU is the primary limiter, and any upgrade to a more powerful GPU would yield proportional frame rate increases across all resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the medium preset offers the best balance of performance and visual quality for this combo. At 1080p, medium delivers 282 FPS with a minimum of 240 FPS, which is well above the 144 Hz refresh rate of most gaming monitors. At 1440p, medium delivers 203 FPS with a minimum of 173 FPS, still comfortably above 144 Hz. Even at 4K, medium delivers 128 FPS with a minimum of 108 FPS, which is smooth for most players.

The high preset is a viable alternative for players who want slightly better visuals, but the frame rate penalty is significant. At 4K, high drops to 80 FPS, which is below the 90 FPS threshold that many players consider smooth. The ultra preset offers no meaningful advantage over high, as the frame rate difference is only 4 FPS at 4K (76 vs 80 FPS) and 9 FPS at 1080p (168 vs 177 FPS). The data shows that the visual improvements from high to ultra are negligible in this game, while the performance cost is measurable.

For players with a 60 Hz monitor, the high preset at 4K is playable at 80 FPS, but the medium preset at 128 FPS provides a better experience with only a minor visual downgrade. For players with a 144 Hz monitor, the medium preset at 1440p is the optimal choice, as it delivers 203 FPS with a minimum above 170 FPS. The low preset is only recommended for competitive players who prioritize frame rate over visuals, as it delivers 353 FPS at 1080p and 254 FPS at 1440p, but the visual quality is noticeably reduced. The ultra preset is not recommended, as it provides no measurable benefit over high while costing 5-9% of the frame rate.