Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that, on the surface, does not appear to be a demanding title. However, the measured frame rates for the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and AMD Radeon RX 9060 combination reveal a complex performance profile that is heavily influenced by both resolution and graphics settings. The data indicates that this pairing is capable of delivering a highly responsive experience, but the relationship between the CPU's substantial processing power and the GPU's mid-range class creates a distinct bottleneck pattern that shifts depending on the workload.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate data across the three tested resolutions provides a clear picture of how the system scales with pixel count. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combination achieves an average of 309 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 drops this to 222 FPS, a reduction of 87 FPS or roughly 28%. At 3840x2160, the average falls further to 140 FPS, another significant drop of 82 FPS or about 37%. This scaling pattern suggests that at lower resolutions, the system is heavily CPU-bound, as the GPU has ample headroom to render frames quickly, and the frame rate is instead limited by how fast the processor can feed it draw calls.

This theory is reinforced by the High settings results. At 1080p High, the average is 155 FPS. At 1440p High, it drops to 111 FPS, and at 4K High, it plummets to 70 FPS. The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is about 28%, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is a steeper 37%. As the resolution increases, the GPU's fill-rate and shading capabilities become the limiting factor. The RX 9060, with its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus, starts to struggle with the increased pixel throughput required at 4K, even in a game as visually simple as Inside.

The most telling data point for identifying the bottleneck is the scaling between Low and High settings at each resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low (309 FPS) and High (155 FPS) is a massive 154 FPS, or exactly 50%. This indicates that the GPU is not the primary constraint at 1080p; otherwise, the frame rate would remain relatively constant regardless of settings. Instead, the GPU is able to render the frames, but the CPU's single-thread performance is likely the ceiling. At 4K, the difference between Low (140 FPS) and High (70 FPS) is also exactly 50%, but the absolute numbers are much lower. Here, the GPU is clearly the limit, as the pixel workload has increased fourfold compared to 1080p. The data implies that the system shifts from being CPU-limited at 1080p to GPU-limited at 4K, with 1440p representing a more balanced, though still demanding, middle ground.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows offer clear guidance for the optimal balance between visual fidelity and performance. For players targeting a smooth experience on a high-refresh-rate 1080p monitor, the High preset is the most compelling option. It delivers an average of 155 FPS, which is well above the 144 Hz threshold for many gaming displays. Pushing to Ultra at this resolution yields 147 FPS, a marginal gain of only 8 FPS over High. The performance cost of the Ultra preset is minimal, but the data suggests that the visual difference might not justify the slight frame rate reduction, making High the more efficient choice.

Stepping up to 1440p, the High preset again proves to be the sweet spot. It achieves an average of 111 FPS, which is a solid performance level for most monitors. The Ultra preset drops to 106 FPS, a difference of 5 FPS. While both are playable, High offers a small but measurable advantage. The Medium preset at 1440p produces 178 FPS, which is a significant jump, but it comes at the cost of reduced graphical quality. For a game like Inside, where atmosphere and lighting are crucial, the jump from Medium to High is likely worth the 67 FPS drop, as the experience remains fluid.

At 4K, the situation becomes more critical. The High preset manages an average of 70 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced scenes. The Ultra preset drops to 66 FPS, which is close to the edge of what many consider a smooth experience. The Medium preset, with an average of 112 FPS, is the only setting that provides a comfortable buffer above 60 FPS at 4K. However, the data shows that the Low preset at 4K (140 FPS) is also an option, but it would severely compromise the game's visual style. The recommendation for 4K is to use Medium settings to secure a stable and responsive frame rate, as the jump to High sacrifices too much performance for the visual fidelity gained.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the definitive performance limiter in this setup, particularly as resolution increases. Its 8 GB of VRAM is a notable point of analysis. While Inside is not a VRAM-heavy title, the card's memory capacity and bandwidth are indicative of its mid-range positioning. The 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest figures that will constrain performance in more demanding scenarios. The GPU's base clock of 1700 MHz and boost clock of 2990 MHz show a significant dynamic range, with a game clock of 2400 MHz suggesting the card is designed to operate at high frequencies under load.

The GPU's benchmark scores corroborate its role. Its Passmark G3D score is 17631, and it holds a percentile rank of 59 among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, which has an average score of 16129, placing the RX 9060 just 0.7% ahead. This is a tight race, indicating that the RX 9060 is a solid performer in its class. However, in the context of this CPU-GPU pairing, the GPU is clearly the weaker link. The Ryzen 9 7900X's immense power is evident in its benchmarks, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 29300, which is far more capable than what the RX 9060 can utilize in a game like Inside. The data suggests that the GPU is working near its limits at 4K, where its pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 334.9 GTexel/s are being thoroughly tested, even by a 2016 title.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 9 7900X and the RX 9060 achieves a rank of 1615 out of 2887 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the 56th percentile of all combinations in the database, which is a surprisingly low position for a system with a top-tier CPU. This ranking underscores the fact that the overall system performance is being dragged down by the GPU. The CPU, which is in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, is essentially waiting on the GPU to finish its work.

This ranking is a direct consequence of the performance gap between the two components. The CPU's average benchmark score is 53288, while the GPU's is 16014. This massive disparity means that in a game like Inside, which is not heavily threaded, the CPU's 12 cores and 24 threads are largely underutilized. The system is not able to punch above its weight because the GPU's mid-range class, indicated by its 59th percentile ranking, acts as a hard ceiling on frame rates, especially at higher resolutions. The 1615th rank suggests that many other combinations with more balanced pairings, or with a more powerful GPU, would outperform this specific setup in this game.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X is a powerhouse processor, and its specifications suggest it should be more than capable of handling Inside. With 12 cores and 24 threads, based on the Zen 4 architecture, it has immense multi-threaded capability. Its base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz are exceptional, and its single-thread performance, as evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2016.5, is top-tier. The CPU's benchmark scores, such as a Geekbench single-core score of 2617 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4238, show that it excels in the exact type of low-thread-count workload that Inside presents.

However, the measured FPS data reveals that this CPU power is often left on the table. At 1080p Low, the system hits 309 FPS, which is likely near the CPU's limit for this game engine. The fact that the frame rate drops so significantly when moving to High settings at the same resolution indicates that the GPU is becoming the bottleneck as soon as the graphical load increases. The CPU is not the limiting factor in most scenarios; it is more than capable of producing the frames. Its role is to feed the GPU, and it does so with ease. The data implies that the Ryzen 9 7900X is overkill for this pairing in this game, as a less powerful CPU would likely achieve similar frame rates, especially at 4K where the GPU is the clear constraint.

FAQ

Q: What is the maximum average frame rate achievable with this CPU and GPU combo in Inside?

A: The highest average frame rate measured is 309 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 the bottleneck at 4K resolution?

A: Yes, the data shows a significant frame rate drop at 3840x2160, with the High preset averaging 70 FPS and Ultra at 66 FPS, indicating the GPU is the limiting component at this resolution.

Q: How does the RX 9060 compare to its closest competitor in terms of overall benchmark score?

A: The RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014, which is 0.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti's score of 16129.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and High settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average frame rate drops from 309 FPS on Low to 155 FPS on High, a decrease of 154 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU's high core count contribute to higher frame rates in Inside?

A: The data suggests it does not. The CPU's 12-core/24-thread configuration is likely underutilized, as the frame rates are more strongly correlated with GPU load and resolution.

Q: What is the best setting to use for a 1440p monitor to maintain a high refresh rate?

A: The High preset at 2560x1440 achieves an average of 111 FPS, which is likely the best balance for a high-refresh-rate display, as the Ultra preset only offers a 5 FPS difference.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact average frame rates measured for the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and AMD Radeon RX 9060 combination across all tested resolutions and settings.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Minimum FPS | Maximum FPS |

| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |

| 3840x2160 | High | 70 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 140 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 112 | 95 | 128 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 66 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 111 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 222 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 178 | 151 | 204 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 106 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 155 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 309 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 247 | 210 | 284 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 147 | - | - |

The data reveals a clear performance hierarchy. At 4K, the Medium preset is the only one that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, with an average of 112 FPS. The High and Ultra presets are nearly identical in performance, with a 4 FPS difference. At 1440p, the system offers a wide range of options, from the high-refresh-rate potential of Low (222 FPS) to the more visually demanding Ultra (106 FPS). The 1080p results show the system's maximum potential, with Low settings reaching 309 FPS, but also highlight the diminishing returns of the Ultra preset, which only provides a 8 FPS advantage over High. The minimum and maximum FPS data for the Medium presets show a stable frame pacing, with the variance increasing with resolution, further confirming the GPU's growing role as the resolution increases.