Inside

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER combination delivers exceptional performance in Inside, a 2016 puzzle platformer that is far more demanding on the GPU at high settings than its art style suggests. The data shows this pairing is capable of obliterating standard refresh rate targets at every resolution, with the primary bottleneck shifting predictably from the CPU at 1080p to the GPU at 4K. This is a high-end pairing that leaves no performance on the table for this title.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is a desktop processor built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) for the AM5 socket. It features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The processor includes a large 96 MB shared L3 cache, which is a significant asset for gaming workloads that rely on data locality. Its 3DMark scores indicate strong scaling from 2 threads (score 2394) to 8 threads (score 8252) and up to max threads (score 10067), showing that the 8-core/16-thread configuration is well-utilized by multithreaded benchmarks. In Cinebench R23, it achieves a multicore score of 34004 and a single-core score of 4800, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs tested.

In the context of Inside, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics data. The game is a side-scrolling puzzle platformer, which typically does not have massive thread counts but does benefit from strong single-thread performance. The 9800X3D's single-thread capabilities (a Geekbench single-core score of 3341) ensure that there is no frame pacing stutter. The data confirms this: at 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 407.2 FPS, a frame rate that is almost certainly limited by the game engine's logic or the CPU's single-thread speed, not the GPU. The 3DMark 2-thread score of 2394 demonstrates that even with minimal thread utilization, the processor has ample headroom to keep up with the game's demands. For a game like Inside, the 9800X3D's architecture ensures that the GPU is never waiting on the CPU to deliver frames, a fact evidenced by the massive FPS numbers at lower resolutions.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

*Q: What is the maximum average frame rate achieved by this combo in Inside?*

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 407.2 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 7 9800X3D has an average benchmark score of 37780, which is essentially tied with the Intel Xeon 6353P (score 37811, deltaPct -0.1) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (score 37831, deltaPct -0.1). It is 0.6% behind the Intel Core i9-13900HK (score 38020) and 0.7% behind the Intel Core i5-13600KF (score 38028).

Q: Is the RTX 4070 SUPER significantly faster than the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE?

A: No, the average benchmark scores are very close. The RTX 4070 SUPER scores 42576, while the Radeon RX 7650 GRE scores 42723, which is a deltaPct of -0.3, meaning the RX 7650 GRE is actually slightly ahead in this aggregate score.

Q: What is the performance difference between High and Ultra settings at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the High preset yields an average of 114.2 FPS, while the Ultra preset yields 110.5 FPS. This is a difference of only 3.7 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset adds graphical fidelity with a negligible performance cost in this specific title.

Q: Does the combo maintain playable frame rates at 4K with all settings maxed out?

A: Yes, at 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset, the average FPS is 110.5, which is well above the 60 FPS standard for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the GPU's benchmark score compare to the NVIDIA RTX A6000?

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 42576, which is 0.2% lower than the RTX A6000's score of 42653.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The data indicates that this specific pairing of the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER ranks 120th out of 1671 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the top 7.2% of all system configurations tested for this game. This is a strong result, though it is not at the absolute top, which is likely reserved for systems with more powerful GPUs like the RTX 4090 or higher-tier cards. The high ranking confirms the balance of the components; the CPU's strong single-thread performance (3DMark single-thread score of 1212) and the GPU's robust compute capabilities (Passmark G3D score of 29995) work together efficiently. The rank of 120 suggests that while there are 119 other combos that perform better, this combination is far ahead of the vast majority of systems, making it a top-tier choice for this game. The data shows that the bottleneck is rarely the CPU, as the FPS scales consistently with resolution changes, which points to the GPU being the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of performance scaling. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers staggering frame rates: 407.2 FPS on Low, 372.4 FPS on Medium, 253.2 FPS on High, and 245 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is 162.2 FPS, showing that the GPU is doing more work as settings increase, but the CPU still has headroom to push past 240 FPS on the highest preset.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains exceptionally high. Low settings produce 366 FPS, Medium drops to 294 FPS, High hits 185.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 178 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 72 FPS drop, while the step from Medium to High is a 108.2 FPS drop, indicating that the High preset introduces significantly more GPU load. The Ultra preset at 1440p is only 7.8 FPS slower than High, showing diminishing returns in cost.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the clear limiting factor. Low settings still manage 233.9 FPS, but Medium drops to 184 FPS, High falls to 114.2 FPS, and Ultra is 110.5 FPS. The scaling is much steeper here, with a 123.4 FPS difference between Low and Ultra. Notably, the gap between High and Ultra at 4K is just 3.7 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional effects are not fully taxing the GPU, or that the game engine is hitting a different limit. The data shows that even at 4K Ultra, the combo is far beyond the 60 FPS threshold, offering a smooth experience on high-refresh-rate 4K displays.

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

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals the bottleneck. On the Low preset, performance falls from 407.2 FPS at 1080p to 233.9 FPS at 4K, a reduction of 42.6%. On the Ultra preset, the drop is from 245 FPS to 110.5 FPS, a reduction of 54.9%. This pattern is classic GPU-bound behavior: as the resolution increases, the pixel count quadruples, and the GPU must work proportionally harder to fill those pixels.

At 1080p, the frame rates are so high (over 400 FPS on Low) that the CPU's single-thread speed and the game engine's frame submission rate are likely the limiting factors, not the GPU. The fact that the 1080p Low score (407.2 FPS) is not much higher than the 1440p Low score (366 FPS) suggests that the CPU is nearing its limit, as the GPU should be able to handle 1080p Low with ease. However, at 4K, the GPU's raw compute power (35.48 TFLOPS FP32) and memory bandwidth (504.2 GB/s) become the primary constraints. The RTX 4070 SUPER's 12 GB of GDDR6X memory is sufficient for this game, but the rendering load at 4K Ultra is what drives the FPS down to 110.5. The data indicates that for this title, the CPU is more than adequate for any resolution, while the GPU is the component that determines the final frame rate at 1440p and above.

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

Based on the measured FPS, the settings recommendations depend on the target refresh rate and resolution. For 1080p, the Ultra preset at 245 FPS is the best choice for high-refresh-rate monitors (240Hz), as it provides the highest visual quality while still exceeding the refresh rate. If a user has a 360Hz monitor, the Medium preset at 372.4 FPS would be more appropriate to take full advantage of the display's capabilities.

For 1440p, the Ultra preset at 178 FPS is ideal for 165Hz or 180Hz monitors, offering maximum visual fidelity without dropping below the refresh rate. The High preset at 185.8 FPS is nearly identical in performance and can be used if a slightly higher frame rate is desired for a 185Hz display. The Medium preset at 294 FPS is the best option for 240Hz or 300Hz monitors, but the visual quality difference between Medium and High is likely noticeable.

For 4K, the Ultra preset at 110.5 FPS is the best experience for a 120Hz display, as it delivers the highest quality and still stays above 100 FPS. The High preset at 114.2 FPS is essentially identical in performance, so choosing between them is a matter of preference for specific graphical effects. For a 144Hz 4K monitor, the Medium preset at 184 FPS would be the only way to hit that refresh rate, but it sacrifices significant visual quality. The data suggests that for most users with a 4K 120Hz or 144Hz display, the Ultra or High presets provide the best balance, as the game is not demanding enough to require compromises.