Inside

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT combination delivers a wide spread of frame rates in Inside, a Puzzle Platformer from 2016, with measured results ranging from 60 FPS at 4K Ultra to 281 FPS at 1080p Low. The data set includes twelve distinct resolution and settings permutations, all marked as measured, providing a clear picture of how this pairing scales under varying graphical loads.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo holds position 1998 out of 2887 tested combinations in Inside, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. This rank reflects the pairing of a high-end 2026 CPU with a mid-range 2021 GPU, where the graphics card becomes the decisive factor for this particular title. The percentile standing is not directly stated for the combo itself, but the GPU’s individual percentile of 70 against all GPUs and the CPU’s percentile of 92 against all CPUs indicate that the system’s overall rank is dragged down by the GPU side of the equation.

Benchmark results show that the RX 6600 XT’s average score of 24442 places it near several older or lower-tier competitors. The nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, with a score of 24277 and a delta of 0.7 percent in favor of the AMD card. The Intel Arc A350M scores 24647, which is 0.8 percent higher than the RX 6600 XT, making it the closest competitor above. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti sits at 24236, just 0.8 percent behind, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER scores 24170, a 1.1 percent deficit. These tight margins, all within roughly one percent, show that the RX 6600 XT is clustered with a group of cards that deliver nearly identical average benchmark performance despite their different generations and architectures.

The CPU, by contrast, sits in a much more favorable position. Its average benchmark score of 58386 is almost exactly matched by the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M at 58323, a delta of just 0.1 percent. The Intel Core i9-14900 scores 58115, which is 0.5 percent lower, and the Intel Xeon w5-2545 is 0.2 percent higher at 58504. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 leads the pack at 58826, 0.7 percent above. These sub-one-percent differences indicate that the 9850X3D is performing right at the expected level for its class, with no anomalous behavior in synthetic tests.

The rank of 1998 out of 2887 suggests that while the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU far more frames than it can render, the overall experience in Inside is bounded by the RX 6600 XT’s output. This is not a criticism of the CPU, which has a 92nd percentile standing, but rather a reflection that the GPU’s 70th percentile is the limiting factor in this specific combination.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, with a transistor density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1968 MHz, a game clock of 2359 MHz, and a boost clock of 2589 MHz. Memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, delivering a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s across an 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer on a 128-bit bus.

The shading array consists of 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operations pipelines. There are 32 ray tracing cores, though Inside does not use ray tracing, so their presence has no measurable impact on the game’s results. The pixel rate is 165.7 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 331.4 GTexel/s, while FP32 compute reaches 10.60 TFLOPS and FP16 reaches 21.21 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The card draws up to 160 W, requires a 450 W suggested power supply, and connects via PCIe 4.0 x8.

In the measured FPS data, the GPU’s performance scales predictably with settings. At 1080p, the Low preset produces 281 FPS, Medium drops to 225 FPS, High falls to 140 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 134 FPS. The step from Medium to High is the largest single drop at 85 FPS, suggesting that High enables effects that significantly increase the GPU’s workload. The difference between High and Ultra is just 6 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at the top end. At 1440p, the same pattern holds: Low yields 202 FPS, Medium 161 FPS, High 101 FPS, and Ultra 96 FPS. The Medium-to-High gap is 60 FPS, again the largest. At 4K, Low produces 127 FPS, Medium 101 FPS, High 63 FPS, and Ultra 60 FPS. The High-to-Ultra delta at 4K is only 3 FPS, the smallest of any resolution.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is not stressed by Inside, which is a side-scrolling puzzle platformer with modest texture requirements. The measured frame rates show no signs of memory capacity throttling, as even the highest settings at 4K maintain playable averages. The GPU’s memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s appears sufficient for this title, given that the performance degradation from 1080p to 4K is consistent with a rendering-bound workload rather than a bandwidth-limited one. The card’s end-of-life production status and launch MSRP of 379 USD are noted in the data but do not factor into the measured performance.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals how the workload shifts across resolutions. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 281 FPS at 1080p to 202 FPS at 1440p, a 28 percent reduction, and then to 127 FPS at 4K, a further 37 percent drop from 1440p. The total decrease from 1080p to 4K at Low is 154 FPS, or roughly 55 percent. At Medium settings, the averages are 225 FPS at 1080p, 161 FPS at 1440p, and 101 FPS at 4K. The step from 1080p to 1440p removes 64 FPS, and the step to 4K removes another 60 FPS. High settings show 140 FPS at 1080p, 101 FPS at 1440p, and 63 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings produce 134 FPS at 1080p, 96 FPS at 1440p, and 60 FPS at 4K.

The scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component across all resolutions. The CPU, with its 8 cores and 16 threads running at a base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz, is more than capable of driving hundreds of frames per second in a game of Inside’s complexity. Even at 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the system reaches 281 FPS, and the fact that this number does not go higher suggests the CPU is not holding the GPU back in any meaningful way. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at a similar level regardless of resolution, but instead the FPS drops consistently as pixel count increases.

The most telling data point is at 4K Low, where the GPU produces 127 FPS. This is higher than the 1080p High result of 140 FPS but lower than 1080p Medium’s 225 FPS, showing that resolution scaling has a larger impact than settings changes at the lower end of the quality spectrum. When comparing 4K Medium (101 FPS) to 1440p High (101 FPS) and 4K Low (127 FPS) to 1440p Low (202 FPS), the pattern is that each resolution step roughly halves the available performance headroom at equivalent settings. The fact that 4K Ultra still maintains 60 FPS average indicates that the GPU has enough brute force to handle even the heaviest configuration in this title, though the margin is slim.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (281 FPS) and Ultra (134 FPS) is 147 FPS. At 1440p, the gap is 106 FPS (202 vs. 96). At 4K, the gap shrinks to 67 FPS (127 vs. 60). This compression suggests that at higher resolutions, the pixel fill rate becomes the dominant cost, while at lower resolutions, the difference between settings presets has more room to manifest. For a puzzle platformer, this means that players with high refresh rate monitors can target 1080p for maximum smoothness, while those on 4K displays will need to accept lower settings to exceed 60 FPS comfortably.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear hierarchy for settings selection based on target frame rates. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 281 FPS, which is far beyond any display refresh rate available in consumer hardware. Medium drops to 225 FPS, still excessive for most monitors but useful for those with 240 Hz panels. High produces 140 FPS, suitable for 144 Hz displays, while Ultra yields 134 FPS, a marginal improvement in visual fidelity for a 6 FPS cost. The sweet spot at 1080p is Medium, as it offers 225 FPS with a 61 FPS improvement over High and only a 56 FPS deficit compared to Low. This preset balances the visual enhancements of Medium settings against the diminishing returns of High and Ultra.

At 1440p, the situation shifts. Low produces 202 FPS, which is excellent for high refresh rate gaming. Medium delivers 161 FPS, still above 144 Hz and a reasonable choice. High falls to 101 FPS, which is just above 100 Hz and acceptable for many users, while Ultra drops to 96 FPS, skirting the edge of 90 Hz. The recommended preset at 1440p is Medium, as it maintains a 161 FPS average with minimums of 137 FPS and maximums of 186 FPS, ensuring smooth frame pacing. High is viable but costs 60 FPS over Medium, a significant penalty for what is likely a modest visual gain in a 2D puzzle platformer.

At 4K, the choices are more constrained. Low yields 127 FPS, which is comfortable for 120 Hz displays. Medium produces 101 FPS, just above 100 Hz, with minimums of 86 FPS and maximums of 117 FPS. High drops to 63 FPS, which is above 60 but leaves little headroom for dips, and Ultra sits at 60 FPS exactly, which risks dropping below the magic number during busy scenes. The best experience at 4K per the measured data is Low, since it provides 127 FPS and avoids the steep performance cliff seen when moving to Medium (101 FPS) and especially High (63 FPS). If a player insists on higher visual quality, Medium is the only other preset that keeps the average above 100 FPS, but the 26 FPS gap between Low and Medium is notable.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Medium offers the best balance of frame rate and visual quality, except at 4K where Low is preferable due to the extreme cost of higher presets. The measured minimum FPS values for Medium presets—191 at 1080p, 137 at 1440p, and 86 at 4K—indicate that Medium has stable frame delivery, with the 4K minimum of 86 FPS still being well above playable thresholds. No minimum FPS data is provided for Low, High, or Ultra presets, so those averages should be interpreted with less certainty regarding frame consistency.

FAQ

*Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU and GPU combination in Inside?*

A: The combo ranks 1998 out of 2887 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle range of the database for this game.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The RX 6600 XT scores 24442, which is 0.7 percent higher than the GTX 1630 (24277), 0.8 percent lower than the Arc A350M (24647), 0.8 percent higher than the GTX 780 Ti (24236), and 1.1 percent higher than the RTX 2080 SUPER (24170).

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo in the measured data?

A: The highest average FPS is 281, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded for this combo in the measured data?

A: The lowest average FPS is 60, achieved at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings.

*Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance in Inside?*

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. Frame rates scale consistently with resolution, and the CPU’s high benchmark scores relative to the GPU’s suggest the processor is not the constraint.

Q: Are there any measured minimum FPS values for the Low, High, or Ultra presets?

A: No, minimum FPS values are only provided for the Medium preset at each resolution: 191 at 1080p, 137 at 1440p, and 86 at 4K.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D belongs to the 9000 series, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads on the Zen 5 architecture with the Granite Ridge codename. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, containing 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die. The base clock is 4.70 GHz, and the boost clock reaches 5.60 GHz, with a TDP of 120 W. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 96 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, providing 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, and the CPU supports ECC memory. It uses the AMD Socket AM5 and offers PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are Radeon Graphics, though Inside will use the discrete RX 6600 XT. The CPU was released on 2026-01-28 with a launch MSRP of $499, and it has an unlocked multiplier.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 9850X3D shows strong results. Cinebench R15 multicore scores 3551 and singlecore scores 343. Cinebench R23 multicore reaches 22807 and singlecore 2228. Passmark tests show multithread performance of 41318 and single thread of 4704. The data compression test scores 474501, while data encryption scores 22856. Extended instructions reach 39272, find prime numbers scores 435, floating point math scores 81998, integer math scores 123140, physics scores 4171, and random string sorting scores 49764. The average benchmark score is 58386, placing the CPU in the 92nd percentile against all CPUs.

The nearest rivals in average score are all within one percent. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M is 0.1 percent higher at 58323, the Intel Xeon w5-2545 is 0.2 percent higher at 58504, the Intel Core i9-14900 is 0.5 percent lower at 58115, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 is 0.7 percent higher at 58826. These tight deltas confirm that the 9850X3D performs as expected for its position in the market, with no anomalous synthetic results.

For Inside, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic updates. Given that the game is a puzzle platformer with relatively simple geometry and limited physics simulation, the CPU’s 8 cores and 16 threads are more than sufficient. The measured frame rates show that even at 1080p Low, where the GPU workload is lightest, the system reaches 281 FPS. This is likely near the engine’s frame rate limit or the GPU’s maximum output, rather than a CPU ceiling. The CPU’s high single-thread performance, evidenced by the 343 Cinebench R15 singlecore score and 2228 Cinebench R23 singlecore score, ensures that the game’s main thread is not a bottleneck. The boost clock of 5.60 GHz is particularly relevant for games like Inside that rely heavily on single-threaded performance.

The L3 cache of 96 MB shared is larger than what most games require, but it provides ample headroom for any data that the CPU needs to keep close. The DDR5 memory support with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth is also more than adequate for a game of this scope. In contrast, the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient but not excessive, and the GPU’s benchmark percentile of 70 versus the CPU’s 92 highlights the disparity in their respective capabilities. The combo’s rank of 1998 out of 2887 reflects this imbalance, as the system’s performance in Inside is ultimately capped by the RX 6600 XT’s rendering throughput. Players looking to maximize frame rates in this title would benefit more from a GPU upgrade than a CPU one, as the 9850X3D has demonstrated it can support well over 280 FPS in synthetic single-thread tests and maintains high multithread scores that would not be taxed by this game’s workload.