Inside

Inside pairs a modern 8-core Zen 5 desktop processor with a legacy Pascal-era GPU, and the benchmark results for this puzzle platformer are dominated by the graphics card’s limits. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F provides more than enough computational headroom, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti becomes the clear bottleneck at every resolution and settings level tested. The measured FPS data shows a consistent pattern: this combo is playable at 1080p with reduced settings, marginal at 1440p, and only viable at 4K when you drop to Low. The game itself, released in 2016, is not particularly demanding by modern standards, but the 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory interface of the 1050 Ti constrain performance far more than the CPU’s capabilities.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals exactly where the system’s weakness lies. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 109 FPS average. Moving to 1440p Low, that number falls to 78 FPS, a 28% reduction. At 4K Low, the average drops further to 49 FPS, which is 55% below the 1080p Low result. This steep scaling curve—losing over half the frame rate when quadrupling pixel count—is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. The GTX 1050 Ti’s 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are simply overwhelmed by the pixel throughput required at 4K.

The Medium settings tell a similar story with more granularity. At 1080p Medium, the average is 87 FPS with a minimum of 74 and maximum of 100. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 62 FPS (min 53, max 72). At 4K Medium, it falls to 39 FPS (min 33, max 45). The gap between 1440p and 4K is 23 FPS, while the gap between 1080p and 1440p is 25 FPS. This near-linear scaling with pixel count reinforces that resolution, not scene complexity, is the dominant factor. A CPU-limited system would show much smaller differences between 1080p and 1440p, since the CPU workload scales less with resolution.

High settings show the same pattern amplified. At 1080p High, the average is 54 FPS; at 1440p High, it is 39 FPS; at 4K High, it drops to 25 FPS. The 1080p-to-4K delta here is 29 FPS, a 54% reduction. Ultra settings are the hardest: 52 FPS at 1080p, 37 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K. The difference between Ultra and High is small (2-3 FPS) at each resolution, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds effects that are not dramatically more expensive than High, or that the GPU is already saturated and additional settings have diminishing impact.

What this scaling tells a builder is straightforward: if you want to play Inside on this hardware, resolution is your primary lever. The CPU, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, is never the limiting factor. The data indicates that the GTX 1050 Ti’s 4 GB VRAM is the hard ceiling—at 4K Ultra, the card likely runs out of memory, which explains the 23 FPS average. Even at 1080p Ultra, the 52 FPS average suggests the card is working near its maximum capability. The measured results clearly identify the GPU as the component that determines playability, not the Ryzen 7 9700F.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific CPU-GPU pairing ranks 3653 out of 3716 tested combos for Inside. That places it in the bottom 1.7% of all combinations in the database, which is a striking result given the CPU’s high-end nature. The Ryzen 7 9700F alone sits at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 69996. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (69875, 0.2% faster), Intel Core i7-14700KF (70163, 0.2% slower), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (69515, 0.7% slower), and Intel Core i7-14700K (69355, 0.9% slower). This places the CPU in elite company, just 0.9% behind the i7-14700K and 0.7% ahead of the Ryzen 9 7950X in average score.

The GPU, however, is the polar opposite. The GTX 1050 Ti sits at the 25th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4193. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170, 0.6% slower), NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151, 1% slower), NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241, 1.1% faster), and AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, 1.8% faster). The 1050 Ti is essentially competing with integrated graphics and low-end mobile parts from nearly a decade ago. In the context of Inside, this GPU drags the entire combo down to the bottom percentile, despite the CPU being in the top 6%.

The rank of 3653 out of 3716 means that only 63 tested combos perform worse in this game. That is a poor showing, but it is entirely attributable to the graphics card. The benchmark data supports this interpretation: if the CPU were the bottleneck, the combo would rank much higher, since the 9700F is objectively a fast processor. Instead, the rank reflects the GPU’s inability to maintain playable frame rates at higher resolutions or settings. For a builder considering this pairing, the rank is a warning that the GPU should be upgraded first, as it is holding back an otherwise capable system.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is built on the GP107 chip using a 14 nm process from Samsung. It has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The base clock is 1291 MHz, boosting up to 1392 MHz. Memory runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The card has 4 GB of GDDR5 VRAM, which is the most likely constraint in this game at higher settings. The pixel rate is 44.54 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 66.82 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.138 TFLOPS.

In the context of Inside, the GPU’s role is to render a side-scrolling puzzle platformer with a distinctive monochromatic art style. The game’s visual effects—lighting, shadows, and particle effects—are not extremely demanding by 2016 standards, but they still require a certain level of GPU throughput. The 4 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p at most settings, but at 4K, the card may be forced to use system memory for textures, which explains the dramatic FPS drop. The 25th percentile ranking among all GPUs suggests that this card is at the low end of what is considered usable for modern gaming.

The clocks are modest by today’s standards. A 1392 MHz boost is low compared to newer cards, but the architecture’s efficiency partially compensates. The measured FPS numbers show that the GPU can handle 1080p Low at 109 FPS, which is respectable for a 2016 card. However, pushing to Ultra at 1080p drops the average to 52 FPS, indicating that the card is near its limits. The 44.54 GPixel/s fill rate is a key constraint—at 4K (8.3 million pixels per frame), the card can theoretically fill about 5.4 frames per millisecond, but real-world efficiency is far lower.

The GPU’s memory bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s is another bottleneck. At 4K, the pixel data required per frame is substantial, and the 128-bit bus cannot move data fast enough to maintain high frame rates. The measured 4K Medium average of 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS shows that the card is struggling, but not completely overwhelmed. The 4K Low result of 49 FPS is more playable, though still below the 60 FPS target most gamers prefer. The data clearly shows that the GTX 1050 Ti is the limiting component in this combo, and its age (released in 2016) is the primary reason for the low ranking.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. With Low settings, the average FPS is 109, which is smooth for a 60 Hz display and playable on a 144 Hz monitor. Medium settings reduce the average to 87 FPS, with a minimum of 74 and maximum of 100—still very playable. High settings drop the average to 54 FPS, which is borderline for smooth gameplay but acceptable for a puzzle platformer where frame timing is less critical. Ultra settings yield 52 FPS average, barely different from High, indicating that the GPU is already saturated and additional settings have minimal impact.

At 2560x1440, the performance becomes more constrained. Low settings produce an average of 78 FPS, which is still smooth. Medium settings drop to 62 FPS (min 53, max 72), which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced scenes. High settings fall to 39 FPS, which is noticeably choppy. Ultra settings produce 37 FPS average, a marginal drop from High. The 1440p results show that the GPU is starting to struggle, and the 4 GB VRAM may be insufficient for High and Ultra presets at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the card is clearly out of its depth. Low settings average 49 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold but still playable. Medium settings drop to 39 FPS (min 33, max 45), which is borderline. High settings average 25 FPS, which is very choppy. Ultra settings average 23 FPS, nearly unplayable. The 4K numbers highlight the GPU’s limitations: even at Low, the card cannot maintain 60 FPS, and at Ultra, it is below 24 FPS, which is cinematic but not interactive.

The minimum and maximum FPS values are only provided for Medium settings at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the range is 74-100 FPS, showing a 26 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range is 53-72 FPS, a 19 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 33-45 FPS, a 12 FPS spread. The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU becomes more consistently saturated, with less variation between simple and complex scenes. This is typical of a GPU-bound scenario where the pixel throughput is the limiting factor.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Inside at 60 FPS on a 1080p monitor?

A: Yes, but only at Low or Medium settings. The measured 1080p Low average is 109 FPS, and Medium is 87 FPS. At High settings, the average drops to 54 FPS, which is below 60.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 9700F compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The 9700F has an average benchmark score of 69996. It is 0.2% slower than the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (69875), 0.2% faster than the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70163), 0.7% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (69515), and 0.9% faster than the Intel Core i7-14700K (69355).

Q: Is the GTX 1050 Ti the bottleneck in this system?

A: Yes. The GPU ranks at the 25th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU ranks at the 94th percentile. The measured FPS scaling with resolution indicates GPU limitation, not CPU.

Q: What kind of performance can I expect at 4K with this combo?

A: At 4K Low, the average is 49 FPS. At Medium, it drops to 39 FPS. At High, it is 25 FPS, and at Ultra, it is 23 FPS. Only Low settings are playable at 4K.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested systems for Inside?

A: This combo ranks 3653 out of 3716 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 1.7%. The low rank is due to the GPU, not the CPU.

Q: What is the difference between High and Ultra settings in this game?

A: At 1080p, High averages 54 FPS and Ultra averages 52 FPS, a difference of only 2 FPS. At 1440p, the difference is also 2 FPS (39 vs 37). At 4K, the difference is 2 FPS (25 vs 23). The Ultra preset adds minimal performance cost over High.

Settings Recommendations

For a 1080p display, the best experience is Medium settings, which delivers an average of 87 FPS with a minimum of 74 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS and avoids the visual downgrades of Low. If you prefer smoother motion, Low settings at 109 FPS average is an option, but Medium offers a better balance of visual quality and performance. High settings at 54 FPS average are playable but may show occasional stutters; Ultra at 52 FPS is not worth the extra GPU load for a 2 FPS gain.

At 1440p, Medium settings are the sweet spot, averaging 62 FPS with a minimum of 53 FPS. This is just above the 60 FPS threshold and should provide a stable experience. Low settings at 78 FPS are smoother but noticeably less detailed. High and Ultra settings (39 and 37 FPS average, respectively) are not recommended, as they fall below the 40 FPS playability floor for most gamers.

At 4K, only Low settings are viable, averaging 49 FPS. Medium settings at 39 FPS may be playable for a puzzle platformer, but the frame rate will dip to 33 FPS in demanding scenes. High and Ultra settings (25 and 23 FPS) are not recommended for interactive play. If you want to play at 4K, you must accept Low settings, and even then, the 49 FPS average is below 60.

For the overall best experience, the data suggests using 1080p Medium as the default configuration. It provides a high average FPS (87) with a respectable minimum (74), ensuring smooth gameplay throughout. If you have a 144 Hz monitor, 1080p Low at 109 FPS average is the only setting that can approach that refresh rate. At higher resolutions, the GPU’s limitations become apparent, and you should prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity by using Low or Medium presets. The measured performance shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, with 1440p as a secondary option at reduced settings, and 4K reserved for those who prioritize resolution over smoothness.