Inside

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 delivers a profoundly capable experience in Inside, a game whose minimalist aesthetic belies a demanding rendering load. The combination ranks 1615th out of 2887 tested combos, placing it in the upper-middle tier of all hardware pairings analyzed for this title. This percentile positioning—roughly the 56th percentile—indicates that while this system is not at the absolute high-end for 4K ultra settings, it offers a balanced profile that excels at high refresh rates in more modest configurations. The data shows a system that is consistently overkill for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with performance headroom that becomes increasingly constrained as resolution scales to 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame of 1615 out of 2887 establishes a clear hierarchy. This is not a top-tier enthusiast configuration, nor is it a budget compromise. It sits comfortably in the upper half, suggesting a well-matched pairing where neither component is a severe bottleneck for the other in this specific workload. The ranking implies that the majority of tested combos (about 44%) are faster, but this includes systems with significantly more powerful (and expensive) GPUs and CPUs. For a game like Inside, which is a 2.5D puzzle platformer with a fixed camera and stylized lighting, the demands are different from a sprawling open-world title. The rank suggests the combo handles the game's core rendering loops with ease, with the limiting factor being the GPU's 8 GB VRAM at extreme resolutions.

The CPU's individual percentileVsAllCpus of 87 places it in the top 13% of all processors, indicating it is a high-end part. Conversely, the GPU's percentileVsAllGpus of 59 places it just above the median, making it a mid-range performer. This asymmetry is key: the powerful eight-core CPU is likely underutilized, while the GPU is the primary determinant of the final frame rate. The nearest CPU rivals—the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (deltaPct 0.1), Intel Core 5 221E (deltaPct -0.2), AMD Ryzen 9 270 (deltaPct -0.4), and Intel Core i9-13905H (deltaPct -0.6)—are all within 0.6% of its average benchmark score, confirming that the 7700 is a solid, predictable performer in its class. On the GPU side, the RX 9060's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (deltaPct -0.7), AMD Radeon R9 370X (deltaPct 1), AMD Radeon RX 7700 (deltaPct 1), and AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (deltaPct 2.1). The tight clustering here means the RX 9060 is essentially performance-equivalent to an RTX 3060 Ti, making it a competent mid-range card.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a 4 nm process node from TSMC. Its memory configuration consists of 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. This VRAM capacity is the single most critical factor in this game's higher-resolution performance. The memory clocks run at 2250 MHz, or 18 Gbps effective. The GPU's boost clock is listed as 2990 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz and a base clock of 1700 MHz. These clocks are high, but the 8 GB frame buffer is a hard limit. In Inside, with its detailed textures and atmospheric effects, 8 GB is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p at all settings, but it becomes a potential constraint at 4K.

The GPU's compute capabilities include 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The raw throughput is 21.43 TFLOPS for FP32, with a texture rate of 334.9 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s. These numbers indicate a card that can push a significant number of pixels, which is why the 4K results are playable. However, the 8 GB VRAM is the limiting factor. The data shows that at 4K, the difference between Low (140 FPS) and Ultra (66 FPS) is substantial, a 74 FPS drop. This is not just about compute power; it is about the memory subsystem being able to feed the GPU with the high-resolution assets. The RX 9060's passmark G3D score of 17631, which is 59th percentile, corroborates its mid-range standing. Its nearest rival, the RTX 3060 Ti, has a similar average benchmark score (16129 vs 16014), reinforcing that this is a 1440p-class card that can handle 4K with settings adjustments.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 is a Zen 4 part based on the Raphael chiplet design, built on a 5 nm process. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This is a powerful processor for gaming, as evidenced by its 87th percentile ranking. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The memory support is DDR5, with a dual-channel bus providing 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. In Inside, which is not a heavily threaded title, the CPU's role is to maintain a consistent frame pacing and avoid being a bottleneck. The data strongly suggests it is not.

The CPU's multi-threaded performance is excellent, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18760 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 15371. Its single-thread performance is also robust, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1930 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2525. The 3DMark scores are telling: 8484 for 16 threads and 8479 for max threads, indicating that scaling plateaus after 8 cores, which is typical for gaming workloads. The PassMark multi-thread score of 34470 is strong. For a game like Inside, the CPU is effectively over-provisioned. The 1080p Low preset, which is the most CPU-bound scenario, achieves 309 FPS. This high frame rate indicates that the CPU can easily feed the GPU with draw calls and physics updates. The CPU's TDP is 65W, a modest figure that speaks to the efficiency of the Zen 4 architecture. The nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, is only 0.1% faster in average benchmark score, showing that the 7700 is a peerless performer in its immediate class.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the combo is exceptionally fast. The Low preset delivers an average of 309 FPS, which is likely beyond the refresh rate of most monitors. Medium comes in at 247 FPS (min 210, max 284), High at 155 FPS, and Ultra at 147 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is only 8 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional effects are not particularly demanding at this resolution. The performance is so high that the system is likely limited by the CPU's single-thread performance, but even so, all presets are playable on high-refresh-rate displays.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain very high. Low yields 222 FPS, Medium 178 FPS (min 151, max 204), High 111 FPS, and Ultra 106 FPS. The scaling here is more pronounced. The drop from Low to Medium is 44 FPS, and from Medium to High is 67 FPS. The High and Ultra presets are still well above 100 FPS, making 1440p a sweet spot for this combo, allowing for high refresh rates with maximum visual fidelity. The difference between High and Ultra narrows to just 5 FPS, again showing that the Ultra preset's cost is minimal.

At 3840x2160, the GPU begins to show its limits. The Low preset achieves 140 FPS, which is still very smooth. Medium drops to 112 FPS (min 95, max 128), which is a significant decrease from Low. High falls to 70 FPS, and Ultra to 66 FPS. The 4K High and Ultra results are playable, but they are not high-refresh-rate territory. The gap between Medium and High is a substantial 42 FPS, indicating that the High preset's texture and shading quality demands are hitting the VRAM or memory bandwidth wall. The fact that High and Ultra are only 4 FPS apart suggests that at 4K, the GPU is fully saturated, and the additional Ultra settings have diminishing returns.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the system's bottleneck characteristics. For the Ultra preset, the FPS drops from 147 at 1080p to 106 at 1440p (a 27.9% decrease) and then to 66 at 4K (a 55.1% decrease from 1440p). This steep decline indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor. The CPU is likely still not maxed out, but the GPU's compute units and memory bandwidth are struggling to fill the increasing pixel count. The High preset shows a similar trend: 155 to 111 (a 28.4% drop) to 70 (a 36.9% drop from 1440p). The 4K High result of 70 FPS is a significant fall from the 1080p result, highlighting the GPU-bound nature of the workload.

The Medium preset provides the most detailed data with min/max values. At 1080p, it runs at 247 FPS (210 min, 284 max). At 1440p, it drops to 178 FPS (151 min, 204 max), a 27.9% reduction. At 4K, it falls to 112 FPS (95 min, 128 max), a 37.1% reduction from 1440p. The min FPS at 4K is 95, which is still smooth, but the scaling pattern shows that the GPU is working harder. The Low preset is the most revealing. It drops from 309 FPS at 1080p to 222 FPS at 1440p (a 28.2% decrease) and then to 140 FPS at 4K (a 36.9% decrease from 1440p). The fact that even Low settings cause a significant 4K drop indicates that the bottleneck is not shader complexity but the raw fill rate and memory bandwidth of the RX 9060. The pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s is a fixed hardware limit, and 4K requires four times the pixels of 1080p. The data shows the system is clearly GPU-limited at 4K, while at 1080p, the high frame rates suggest a potential CPU limit on the very low presets, though still at an outstanding level.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to achieve a consistent 100+ FPS?

A: Based on the measured data, 2560x1440 is the sweet spot. At this resolution, the High preset averages 111 FPS and the Ultra preset averages 106 FPS, both comfortably above 100 FPS. At 4K, only the Medium preset (112 FPS) exceeds 100 FPS, while High (70 FPS) and Ultra (66 FPS) fall below.

*Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 9060's 8 GB VRAM sufficient for Inside at 4K?*

A: The data suggests it is sufficient to run the game, but it impacts performance. At 4K, the average FPS drops from 140 on Low to 66 on Ultra. The large performance gap between Medium (112 FPS) and High (70 FPS) indicates that the higher presets likely require more memory bandwidth or capacity than the 8 GB frame buffer can efficiently provide, making it a limiting factor at this resolution.

Q: How does the CPU performance compare to its closest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 has an average benchmark score of 40081. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, scores 40048, a deltaPct of 0.1%. The Intel Core 5 221E scores 40144 (deltaPct -0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 9 270 scores 40246 (deltaPct -0.4%), and the Intel Core i9-13905H scores 40313 (deltaPct -0.6%). All these are within 0.6% of the 7700's performance, indicating they are effectively tied in CPU-bound tasks.

*Q: What is the performance difference between the High and Ultra presets in Inside?*

A: The difference is minimal in most cases. At 1080p, High runs at 155 FPS and Ultra at 147 FPS, an 8 FPS difference. At 1440p, it is 111 FPS vs 106 FPS (5 FPS difference). At 4K, the gap narrows further to 70 FPS vs 66 FPS (4 FPS difference). The Ultra preset appears to add little extra cost, making it a reasonable choice if you want maximum quality.

*Q: Is this combo more CPU-limited or GPU-limited in Inside?*

A: The data indicates the system is GPU-limited at higher resolutions. The frame rate drops consistently as resolution increases across all settings, which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU, with its high 87th percentile ranking, is likely not the limiting factor. The evidence is that even at 1080p Low (309 FPS), the frame rate is extremely high, suggesting the CPU can handle the workload but the GPU is still the primary driver of the final score.

Q: What are the minimum FPS values for the Medium preset?

A: The Medium preset is the only one with min/max data. At 1920x1080, the minimum FPS is 210 and the maximum is 284. At 2560x1440, the minimum is 151 and the maximum is 204. At 3840x2160, the minimum is 95 and the maximum is 128. These minimums indicate smooth performance with no severe stutters in the measured test run.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on the target display. For a 1080p display with a 144Hz or 165Hz refresh rate, the Ultra preset is the best choice. It delivers 147 FPS, which is above the typical refresh rate, and the minimal difference between High and Ultra means there is no reason to drop settings for a modest gain. The visual quality is maximized without sacrificing smoothness.

For a 1440p display, the Ultra preset is also recommended, as it achieves 106 FPS. This is above the 100 FPS threshold for a smooth experience and is perfectly suitable for high-refresh-rate monitors. If you have a 144Hz or higher display and want to ensure maximum frame rates, the High preset at 111 FPS provides a slight edge, but the visual difference is negligible based on the performance data.

For a 4K display, the recommendation is the Medium preset. It achieves 112 FPS, which is the only preset at this resolution that breaks the 100 FPS barrier. The High and Ultra presets, at 70 and 66 FPS respectively, are playable but will not take full advantage of a high-refresh-rate 4K monitor. The Medium preset offers a strong balance, with a minimum FPS of 95, ensuring a stable experience. Dropping to the Low preset at 140 FPS provides a smoother experience but sacrifices visual quality. The data clearly shows that the Medium preset is the performance sweet spot for 4K on this hardware.