Inside

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X paired with the Intel Arc B370 produces a highly constrained gaming experience in Inside, with the combination ranking 2654 out of 2887 tested combos. This places the setup in the bottom 8% of all recorded configurations, a position driven almost entirely by the graphics subsystem rather than the processor. The data indicates that while the CPU is a top-tier performer in synthetic benchmarks, the GPU’s limited throughput creates a significant bottleneck that defines the frame rates across all resolutions and settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 2654 out of 2887 tested combinations places it in the 8th percentile, meaning roughly 92% of all tested hardware pairings deliver higher average frame rates in Inside. This is a low position, but it is not unexpected given the components involved. The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution with a 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 1184 is the lowest data point on the page. In contrast, the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X sits in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 51947.

The disparity between the two components is stark. The CPU’s nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX (deltaPct -0.2%), AMD EPYC 8124P (-0.3%), Intel Core i9-13900F (+0.4%), and Intel Core i7-14700 (-0.7%). These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the 5950X is performing exactly at the expected level for a processor of its class. The GPU’s nearest rivals, however, are legacy parts like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (-0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (-0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (-0.7%), and AMD FirePro M2000 (+1.4%). This comparison shows the Arc B370 is not just underperforming modern discrete GPUs; it is operating in a performance tier that was common over a decade ago.

In practical terms for Inside, this rank translates to a system that can run the game, but only at lower settings and resolutions. The measured FPS data confirms that the combo is viable for 1080p and 1440p gaming at medium settings, but it struggles to maintain playable frame rates at 4K on higher presets. The 30 FPS average at 4K Ultra is technically playable for a puzzle platformer, but it sits right at the edge of what most users would consider smooth. The ranking reflects this reality: the system is not a high-performance gaming rig, but rather a configuration where the CPU’s potential is largely wasted due to the GPU’s limitations.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the most practical resolution. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 141 FPS, and at Medium it reaches 113 FPS. At 2560x1440, the Low preset drops to 101 FPS, while 3840x2160 Low falls to 64 FPS. For consistent frame rates above 60 FPS, 1080p is the safest choice.

*Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Inside?*

A: Yes, but with significant compromises. The measured data shows 4K High at 32 FPS and 4K Ultra at 30 FPS. The 4K Medium preset averages 51 FPS with a minimum of 43 FPS, which is the only 4K setting that approaches playable smoothness. 4K Low achieves 64 FPS, but this requires dropping all visual quality settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its direct rivals in synthetic tests?

A: The Ryzen 9 5950X has an average benchmark score of 51947. Its closest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX, scores 52073, a delta of -0.2%. The Intel Core i9-13900F scores 51730, putting the 5950X 0.4% ahead. The AMD EPYC 8124P and Intel Core i7-14700 are 0.3% and 0.7% behind, respectively. All differences are under one percent, meaning the CPU is well within the expected performance band.

Q: What is the GPU’s performance relative to other graphics cards?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, which is 0.2% faster. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% faster). Only the AMD FirePro M2000 is slower, at 1168, which is 1.4% behind.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is overwhelmingly the limiting factor. The CPU has 16 cores and 32 threads with a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the GPU is an integrated part with a 25 W TDP. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a performance drop that is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck, not a CPU limitation. The CPU’s synthetic scores are in the 91st percentile, while the GPU is in the 5th.

Q: What settings preset provides the most balanced experience at 1440p?

A: The Medium preset at 2560x1440 offers the best balance, with an average of 81 FPS and a minimum of 69 FPS. This is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The High preset drops to 51 FPS, and Ultra falls to 48 FPS, both of which are below the ideal target. Low runs at 101 FPS but sacrifices visual fidelity for a marginal gain.

Settings Recommendations

For the best overall experience, the Medium preset is the clear recommendation across all resolutions. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers 113 FPS average with a minimum of 96 FPS, providing a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS standard for responsive gameplay. At 2560x1440, Medium still holds an average of 81 FPS and a minimum of 69 FPS, making it the only preset at that resolution that maintains a playable floor. Even at 3840x2160, Medium is the most viable option, with an average of 51 FPS and a minimum of 43 FPS, which is acceptable for a slower-paced puzzle platformer.

The Low preset is the fallback for users prioritizing frame rate over visuals. It produces 141 FPS at 1080p, 101 FPS at 1440p, and 64 FPS at 4K. While these numbers are impressive for the hardware, the Low preset likely disables many of the atmospheric effects that define Inside’s visual style. The High and Ultra presets should be avoided at 4K, as they produce 32 FPS and 30 FPS respectively, which are below the threshold for smooth motion. At 1080p, High and Ultra are playable (70 FPS and 67 FPS), but the 43 FPS difference between Medium and High suggests a steep performance cost for marginal visual gains.

The data does not include min or max FPS values for Low, High, or Ultra presets, so the Medium preset’s min FPS numbers (96 at 1080p, 69 at 1440p, 43 at 4K) provide the only insight into frame pacing. The 4K Medium minimum of 43 FPS indicates that there are moments of noticeable slowdown, but for a game like Inside with its deliberate pacing, this is likely tolerable. Users with a 144Hz monitor should stick to 1080p Medium or Low to take advantage of the higher refresh rates, while those with a 60Hz display can safely use 1440p Medium.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the combo’s performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 141 FPS average, the highest score in the entire dataset. Medium drops to 113 FPS with a minimum of 96 FPS and a maximum of 130 FPS, showing a tight frame range. High falls to 70 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 67 FPS. The transition from Low to Medium costs 28 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs 43 FPS, indicating a significant performance cliff between Medium and High.

At 2560x1440, the scores scale down proportionally. Low produces 101 FPS, Medium delivers 81 FPS with a minimum of 69 FPS and a maximum of 93 FPS, High reaches 51 FPS, and Ultra drops to 48 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 30 FPS, which is slightly less severe than at 1080p but still substantial. The 1440p Medium minimum of 69 FPS is the second-highest minimum recorded, suggesting that this configuration handles frame pacing well under load.

At 3840x2160, the performance collapses under the GPU’s limited pixel throughput. Low averages 64 FPS, Medium averages 51 FPS with a minimum of 43 FPS and a maximum of 59 FPS, High averages 32 FPS, and Ultra averages 30 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at 4K is 34 FPS, which is larger than the 30 FPS spread at 1440p and the 74 FPS spread at 1080p. This compression of frame rates at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is hitting a hard architectural limit rather than scaling gracefully with settings.

The Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data across all resolutions, allowing for a detailed analysis of frame consistency. At 1080p, the 96 FPS minimum and 130 FPS maximum represent a 34 FPS range. At 1440p, the range narrows to 24 FPS (69 to 93). At 4K, the range shrinks further to 16 FPS (43 to 59). This narrowing range at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes more uniformly saturated, reducing the frequency of both high and low frame spikes.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern. At the Low preset, 1080p produces 141 FPS, 1440p produces 101 FPS, and 4K produces 64 FPS. This represents a 28.4% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 36.6% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 54.6%. At the Medium preset, the numbers are 113 FPS, 81 FPS, and 51 FPS respectively, representing a 28.3% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 37.0% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total drop is 54.9%.

These percentages are remarkably consistent across the Low and Medium presets, which indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rate would remain relatively flat as resolution increased, because the CPU workload would stay constant. Instead, the consistent ~55% drop from 1080p to 4K shows that the GPU’s pixel fill rate is the determining factor. The High preset shows a similar pattern: 70 FPS at 1080p, 51 FPS at 1440p (a 27.1% drop), and 32 FPS at 4K (a 37.3% drop from 1440p). The Ultra preset follows suit with 67, 48, and 30 FPS, representing 28.4% and 37.5% drops.

The fact that the percentage drops are so uniform across all settings strengthens the conclusion that the Intel Arc B370 is fully saturated at every resolution. The GPU’s 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs are simply insufficient to maintain higher frame rates as pixel count increases. The 4K results, which hover around 30-64 FPS depending on settings, suggest that the GPU is operating at its architectural limits regardless of the workload.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Vermeer. It has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, with 64 MB of L3 cache. The CPU’s synthetic benchmarks are exceptional: it scores 26017 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 1614 in single-core, and 15233 in Geekbench multicore with 2083 in single-core. Its 3DMark scores scale from 944 in single-thread to 11597 in max-threads, showing strong multithreading capabilities.

However, these numbers have little bearing on Inside’s performance. The game is a 2.5D puzzle platformer that does not demand significant CPU resources, particularly at the frame rates this GPU can produce. The CPU’s 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth and dual-channel DDR4 support are more than adequate for the GPU’s needs, which are modest given the Arc B370’s system-shared memory architecture. The CPU sits in the 91st percentile of all processors, but the measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU limitation.

The nearest rival data confirms that the 5950X is performing exactly as expected. Its average benchmark score of 51947 is essentially identical to the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX (52073, -0.2%) and AMD EPYC 8124P (52121, -0.3%). The Intel Core i9-13900F is 0.4% slower, and the Intel Core i7-14700 is 0.7% slower. These deltas are within measurement noise, indicating that the CPU is not a variable in this combo’s performance. The CPU’s 105 W TDP and 7 nm process node are irrelevant to the gaming results; the data shows the processor is waiting on the GPU at every turn.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the definitive bottleneck in this configuration. It is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, with 10 ray tracing cores. Its base clock is 300 MHz and boost clock is 2400 MHz, producing a peak FP32 throughput of 6.144 TFLOPS. The GPU’s 25 W TDP and lack of dedicated memory (system-shared, system-dependent bandwidth) are clear indicators of its limited capabilities.

The GPU’s benchmark data is stark: it scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy ATI/AMD parts from over a decade ago, with the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scoring 1186 (-0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 scoring 1190 (-0.5%), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M scoring 1192 (-0.7%). Only the AMD FirePro M2000 is slower, at 1168 (+1.4%). This positioning makes it clear that the Arc B370 is not a gaming-oriented part.

In Inside, the GPU’s limitations manifest directly in the FPS numbers. At 1080p Low, the GPU manages 141 FPS, which is respectable but not exceptional. The 4K Ultra result of 30 FPS represents the GPU’s absolute ceiling under maximum load. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are the architectural limits that dictate these results. The GPU’s system-shared memory means there is no dedicated VRAM to buffer frames, which explains the narrowing min/max ranges at higher resolutions. The data shows a GPU that is consistently saturated, producing frame rates that are purely a function of its processing capacity rather than any other system component.