Inside

Inside is a puzzle platformer from 2016, and this particular configuration pairs AMD’s Zen 5-based Ryzen 7 9700F with NVIDIA’s Turing-based RTX 2060 SUPER. The measured data for this combo places it at rank 1973 out of 2887 tested combinations, which is a meaningful position to investigate given the game’s age and the hardware’s generational mix. The CPU is a modern 8-core, 16-thread part with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, while the GPU is an 8 GB GDDR6 card from 2019. The benchmark results show a wide spread of frame rates across resolutions and settings, and the analysis below digs into what those numbers imply about the balance between processor and graphics load.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is a desktop processor from the 9000 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Granite Ridge codename. It uses 8 cores and 16 threads, which is a high thread count for a 2016 puzzle platformer that was designed long before such CPUs existed. The base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz are both strong figures, and the 65 W TDP suggests efficient power usage, though that thermal envelope does not directly translate into game performance. The CPU’s L3 cache is 32 MB shared, and it supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. In PassMark benchmarks, the CPU scores 4691 in single-thread tests and 36470 in multithread tests, with a percentile rank of 94 versus all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (deltaPct 0.2%), Intel Core i7-14700KF (deltaPct -0.2%), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (deltaPct 0.7%), and Intel Core i7-14700K (deltaPct 0.9%) — all within 1% of the 9700F’s average score.

For a game like Inside, which relies heavily on physics-based puzzles and sequential rendering rather than massive open worlds, the CPU’s role is often less about raw core count and more about single-thread responsiveness. The measured FPS at 1080p Low reaches 281 avg, which is far beyond any display refresh rate, indicating that the CPU is not a bottleneck at that setting. At 1080p Ultra, the average drops to 134 FPS, which is still high but shows that the GPU is starting to take on more work. The CPU’s 8 cores and 16 threads are overkill for this title, but the high boost clock of 5.50 GHz ensures that any single-threaded tasks — such as game logic or physics updates — are handled quickly. The data suggests that the 9700F’s performance headroom is never fully stressed in Inside, as even the lowest measured FPS at 1080p (134 avg at Ultra) is above typical 60 FPS targets. The CPU’s PassMark physics score of 2122 is modest compared to its other scores, but that test does not directly translate to this game’s workload.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo rank for this AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER pairing in Inside is 1973 out of 2887 tested combinations. This puts it in the 68th percentile of all tested combos (calculated as 1 - 1973/2887), meaning roughly a third of configurations perform better. Given the CPU’s high percentile rank of 94, the limiting factor is clearly the GPU, which sits at percentile 62 versus all GPUs. The RTX 2060 SUPER’s average benchmark score is 18093, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (deltaPct -0.4%), AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (deltaPct -0.5%), AMD Radeon RX 460 (deltaPct -1.5%), and Intel Arc A770M (deltaPct -1.6%). The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 16462 and DirectX 12 score of 61 are modest, but the card still manages to produce playable frame rates in most scenarios.

The rank of 1973 suggests that while this combo is not top-tier, it is far from the bottom. The 9700F is a very strong CPU, but the RTX 2060 SUPER is a mid-range GPU from 2019, and Inside’s visual style — which features dark, atmospheric scenes with limited geometry — means the GPU is not heavily taxed at lower settings. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 281 FPS, which is excellent. However, at 4K Ultra, the average drops to 60 FPS, which is exactly the threshold for smooth gameplay but not higher. The combo’s rank reflects this balance: it can handle high refresh rates at 1080p but struggles to push beyond 60 FPS at 4K Ultra. Since the game is from 2016, the data likely includes many older, weaker combos, which explains why this pairing still ranks in the upper third despite the GPU’s age.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Inside with this hardware?

A: Based on the measured FPS, 2560x1440 offers a strong balance. At High settings, the average is 101 FPS, and at Medium it reaches 162 FPS. 1920x1080 is even faster, with 141 FPS at High and 225 FPS at Medium, but 1440p provides a sharper image while staying well above 60 FPS.

Q: Can this combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K?

A: Yes, but only at certain settings. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average is 63 FPS, and at Medium it is 102 FPS. However, at Ultra, the average drops to 60 FPS, which is exactly at the threshold. This suggests that 4K Ultra is borderline, while 4K High is comfortable.

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

A: The Ryzen 7 9700F has an average benchmark score of 69996. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX, scores 69875 (0.2% lower), while the Intel Core i7-14700KF scores 70163 (0.2% higher). The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X scores 69515 (0.7% lower), and the Intel Core i7-14700K scores 69355 (0.9% lower). These differences are negligible in practice.

Q: Is the RTX 2060 SUPER a bottleneck at 1080p?

A: At 1080p Low, the combo hits 281 FPS, which is likely CPU-limited or engine-limited. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 134 FPS, indicating that the GPU is still capable of high frame rates. The bottleneck becomes more apparent at 4K, where the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are more stressed.

Q: What settings provide the largest FPS jump?

A: Moving from Ultra to High at any resolution yields a significant increase. At 1080p, Ultra gives 134 FPS while High gives 141 FPS (a 5% gain). At 1440p, Ultra gives 96 FPS while High gives 101 FPS (a 5% gain). At 4K, Ultra gives 60 FPS while High gives 63 FPS (a 5% gain). The bigger jump is from High to Medium, especially at 4K where the difference is 63 to 102 FPS.

Q: Does the game use multi-threading effectively?

A: The CPU has 16 threads, but the measured FPS at low settings (281 at 1080p) suggests the game does not heavily tax all cores. The single-thread score of 4691 is high, and the physics score of 2122 is lower, indicating that the game’s workload is likely single-thread bound. The high boost clock helps here.

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

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings levels, providing a clear picture of performance scaling. Starting with 1920x1080, the lowest setting (Low) yields an average of 281 FPS, which is the highest across all configurations. Medium drops to 225 FPS (with min 191 and max 259), High gives 141 FPS, and Ultra falls to 134 FPS. This shows a steep drop from Low to Medium (56 FPS) but a gentler decline from Medium to High (84 FPS) and from High to Ultra (7 FPS). The pattern suggests that Low is heavily CPU-limited or engine-limited, while Ultra begins to engage the GPU more.

At 2560x1440, the averages are lower but still strong. Low delivers 202 FPS, Medium 162 FPS (min 137, max 186), High 101 FPS, and Ultra 96 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 40 FPS, from Medium to High is 61 FPS, and from High to Ultra is only 5 FPS. This mirrors the 1080p pattern, where Ultra is only slightly worse than High. At 3840x2160, Low hits 127 FPS, Medium 102 FPS (min 86, max 117), High 63 FPS, and Ultra 60 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 25 FPS, but the gap between Medium and High is 39 FPS, and High to Ultra is just 3 FPS. This indicates that High to Ultra is nearly identical in cost, while Medium to High is the most significant performance hit.

Across all resolutions, the Medium setting shows a min FPS that is noticeably lower than the average — for example, at 1080p Medium, the min is 191 FPS versus an average of 225, and at 4K Medium, the min is 86 FPS versus 102. This suggests occasional frame dips, likely due to scene complexity. The High and Ultra settings do not have min or max values listed, so only averages are available. Overall, the data shows that the combo can easily handle 1080p and 1440p at any setting, while 4K requires High or Medium to stay above 60 FPS comfortably.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is a Turing architecture GPU with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1470 MHz with a boost clock of 1650 MHz, and it has 2176 shading units, 136 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which are all modern APIs. In PassMark, it scores 16462 in G3D and 6721 in GPU compute, with a percentile rank of 62 versus all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the RTX 3060 Mobile (deltaPct -0.4%), Radeon Pro 5700 (deltaPct -0.5%), Radeon RX 460 (deltaPct -1.5%), and Arc A770M (deltaPct -1.6%).

For Inside, the GPU’s role becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low, the CPU or engine is the limit, as the GPU is barely taxed. At 4K Ultra, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck, with the average dropping to 60 FPS. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for this game, as Inside does not require large texture pools. The 448.0 GB/s bandwidth is also adequate, but the card’s FP32 performance of 7.181 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 105.6 GPixel/s are moderate by modern standards. The measured data shows that the GPU scales well with resolution: from 1080p High (141 FPS) to 1440p High (101 FPS) is a 28% drop, and 1440p High to 4K High (63 FPS) is a 38% drop. This is consistent with a GPU that is memory-bandwidth limited at high resolutions, as the pixel workload increases quadratically. The GPU’s low DirectX 12 score of 61 does not seem to hinder performance in this older title, which likely uses DirectX 11 or earlier APIs.

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

Based on the measured FPS, the best settings depend on the target resolution and refresh rate. For 1080p users with a 144 Hz monitor, Medium at 225 FPS is ideal, as it provides a wide margin above 144 FPS with a min of 191 FPS. High at 141 FPS is just below 144 Hz, so it may cause slight tearing if V-Sync is enabled. Ultra at 134 FPS is also viable, but the visual difference between High and Ultra is minimal, and the 7 FPS gain from dropping to High is worth it for stability. Low at 281 FPS offers no practical benefit unless the user has a 240 Hz display, which is rare.

For 1440p, Medium at 162 FPS is excellent for high-refresh displays, while High at 101 FPS is ideal for 100 Hz monitors. Ultra at 96 FPS is only slightly worse than High, so users can choose based on preference. Low at 202 FPS is overkill. For 4K, the choice is between High at 63 FPS and Medium at 102 FPS. High is just above 60 FPS, which is playable, but Medium provides a much smoother experience with a 39 FPS advantage. Ultra at 60 FPS is exactly at the threshold and offers no benefit over High, so it should be avoided. The data indicates that Medium is the sweet spot for 4K, as it delivers double the frame rate of Ultra while likely retaining most visual quality — the fact that Medium has a min FPS of 86 means even dips stay above 60 FPS.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions reveals the balance between CPU and GPU load. Starting with Low settings, the average FPS goes from 281 at 1080p, to 202 at 1440p, to 127 at 4K. This is a 28% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 37% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the progression is 225 FPS, 162 FPS, and 102 FPS — a 28% drop and then a 37% drop, matching the Low pattern closely. At High settings, the numbers are 141 FPS, 101 FPS, and 63 FPS, which is a 28% drop and then a 38% drop. At Ultra, it is 134 FPS, 96 FPS, and 60 FPS — a 28% drop and then a 38% drop.

The consistency of these drops — roughly 28% from 1080p to 1440p and 37-38% from 1440p to 4K — suggests that the GPU is the primary scaling factor. If the CPU were the limit, the FPS would remain flat regardless of resolution, but that is not the case. The fact that Low settings still show a large drop (281 to 127 FPS) indicates that even at low graphical loads, the GPU is not fully idle but is still the bottleneck at 4K. The CPU’s high single-thread performance (4691 PassMark) and 5.50 GHz boost clock ensure that it can feed the GPU at all resolutions, but the RTX 2060 SUPER’s 448.0 GB/s bandwidth and 7.181 TFLOPS are insufficient to maintain high frame rates at 4K. The scaling pattern also shows that the GPU is more efficient at lower resolutions, where the pixel fill rate is less demanding. This is typical for a mid-range GPU from 2019 paired with a modern high-end CPU — the CPU is never the limiting factor, but the GPU’s age shows at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p drop is consistent across settings, meaning the GPU’s workload increases linearly with pixel count, and the 1440p to 4K drop is slightly steeper, likely due to memory bandwidth saturation.