Inside

Inside pairs a low-demand 2D puzzle-platformer aesthetic with a surprisingly scalable engine, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X + AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT combination exploits that scalability fully. The measured data shows a system that obliterates 1080p, remains exceptionally fluid at 1440p, and even manages playable 4K, making the choice of settings primarily a question of monitor refresh rate rather than raw playability. This analysis breaks down the measured performance to identify the optimal preset for each resolution, contextualize the frame rates against the hardware's known capabilities, and explain what the scaling curves reveal about the limiting component in this specific configuration.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows provide a clear hierarchy across all resolutions, and the optimal preset depends heavily on the target display. For 1920x1080, the data shows that even the most demanding setting is overkill. The Ultra preset delivers 142.2 FPS average, while High sits at 146.8 FPS, a negligible 4.6 FPS difference. Meanwhile, Medium pushes to 234.5 FPS, and Low reaches 294.2 FPS. For a 144Hz monitor, High is the sensible ceiling—it provides a 146.8 FPS average, which is above the refresh rate and visually indistinguishable from Ultra in a game with this art style, while freeing up headroom. For 240Hz displays, Medium at 234.5 FPS is the only preset that can keep the buffer consistently full, though Low at 294.2 FPS offers the maximum safety margin.

At 2560x1440, the calculus shifts. High produces 103.5 FPS, which is excellent for 100Hz+ panels, but Ultra drops to 99.2 FPS, barely missing the 100 FPS mark. Medium, however, delivers 165.6 FPS, which is a massive jump and comfortably saturates 144Hz panels. The recommendation for 1440p is Medium for high-refresh users, as it offers a 62.1 FPS improvement over High while the visual downgrade from High to Medium is typically minor in this title. High remains the choice for 100Hz monitors, but for most users, Medium provides the best balance of fluidity and fidelity.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, and the settings ladder tightens significantly. High yields 64 FPS, Ultra drops to 62.5 FPS, and Medium jumps to 105.1 FPS. Low is the outlier at 132.4 FPS. For a 60Hz 4K display, High is the sweet spot—it stays above 60 FPS and offers the best visual quality. Ultra is not worth the 1.5 FPS loss over High. For 120Hz 4K panels, Medium is the only viable option, providing a 105.1 FPS average, though it still falls short of 120 FPS. The data suggests that 4K High is the "best experience" for standard monitors, while 4K Medium is a compromise for higher refresh rates.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming on a standard 60Hz monitor?

A: Yes. The measured data shows 64 FPS average at 3840x2160 on High settings, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra settings also remain playable at 62.5 FPS, but the 1.5 FPS difference does not justify the visual preset jump.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p gaming?

A: Medium is the standout choice. The measured average FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium is 165.6 FPS, which is 62.1 FPS higher than High (103.5 FPS) and 66.4 FPS higher than Ultra (99.2 FPS). This makes it the only preset that can saturate a 144Hz panel.

Q: How does the CPU's performance influence the frame rates at high resolutions?

A: The CPU is a high-end 12-core Zen 5 part, and the data indicates it is not the limiting factor. The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial (e.g., 146.8 to 64 FPS on High), which is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU's benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 46438, suggest it has ample headroom.

Q: Is the Ultra preset ever worth using?

A: Only at 1080p, where it sits at 142.2 FPS, which is still very playable. At 1440p, Ultra (99.2 FPS) provides no advantage over High (103.5 FPS) and actually performs slightly worse. At 4K, Ultra (62.5 FPS) is marginally slower than High (64 FPS), making it a poor choice.

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

A: The gap is significant. At 1080p, Low (294.2 FPS) is 147.4 FPS faster than High (146.8 FPS). At 1440p, Low (212.7 FPS) is 109.2 FPS faster than High (103.5 FPS). At 4K, Low (132.4 FPS) is 68.4 FPS faster than High (64 FPS).

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 1059 out of 1671 tested combinations. This places it in the lower-middle tier of the database, which is surprising given the high frame rates, but it reflects that many other combos with stronger GPUs achieve even higher absolute numbers, particularly at 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on High settings, the average FPS drops from 146.8 to 103.5, a 43.3 FPS reduction (approximately 29.5% lower). The subsequent jump from 1440p to 3840x2160 is far more severe: the frame rate plummets from 103.5 to 64, a 39.5 FPS reduction (approximately 38.2% lower). This non-linear drop is characteristic of a GPU that is running out of pixel throughput and memory bandwidth at higher resolutions.

The RX 6650 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 280.3 GB/s bandwidth and a pixel rate of 168.6 GPixel/s. These specs are modest for 4K, and the data confirms it. The scaling on Low settings also shows this trend: 294.2 FPS at 1080p, 212.7 at 1440p, and 132.4 at 4K. The relative drop from 1440p to 4K is consistently larger than from 1080p to 1440p across all presets, which indicates the GPU's fillrate and memory bandwidth are the primary constraints.

Conversely, the CPU's role appears minimal. The Ryzen 9 9900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz and a 64 MB shared L3 cache. Its performance, as evidenced by a Geekbench single-core score of 3341 and a Passmark multi-thread score of 54643, is far beyond what a 2D puzzle-platformer requires. The fact that the frame rate scales so heavily with resolution, even on Low settings where the CPU load is relatively higher, confirms that the 6650 XT is the limiting component. The data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield direct FPS gains at 4K, while the CPU would remain idle.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers outstanding results across the board. The Low preset produces an average of 294.2 FPS, making it the fastest configuration measured. Medium follows at 234.5 FPS, High at 146.8 FPS, and Ultra at 142.2 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is only 4.6 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset offers diminishing returns. All settings are comfortably above 140 FPS, meaning the system is never CPU-limited at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains strong but shows a wider spread. Low leads with 212.7 FPS, followed by Medium at 165.6 FPS. High drops to 103.5 FPS, and Ultra trails at 99.2 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 62.1 FPS, which is a substantial jump that highlights the cost of higher-quality shadows and effects. The 100 FPS threshold is crossed only by Low and Medium, indicating that High and Ultra are better suited for 100Hz monitors rather than 144Hz ones.

At 3840x2160, the GPU struggles to maintain high frame rates on demanding presets. Low achieves 132.4 FPS, which is impressive for 4K, but Medium drops to 105.1 FPS. High falls to 64 FPS, and Ultra is the slowest at 62.5 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is a mere 1.5 FPS, making Ultra the least efficient preset. The scaling from Medium to High is a steep 41.1 FPS drop, indicating that the High preset introduces effects that heavily tax the 6650 XT's 10.79 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 64 ROPs.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1059 out of 1671 tested combinations in the database for Inside. This places it in the 63rd percentile of tested systems, which is lower than the individual components' percentiles might suggest. The CPU ranks in the 94th percentile versus all CPUs, and the GPU sits in the 72nd percentile versus all GPUs. The discrepancy arises because the game is highly GPU-bound, and the 6650 XT is a mid-range card, whereas the CPU is a high-end part. Many other tested combos likely feature stronger GPUs (e.g., higher-tier Radeon or GeForce cards) that push the average FPS higher, especially at 4K.

The nearest rivals for the CPU include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, which scores slightly higher (deltaPct of -0.4%), and the Intel Core i7-14700F, which scores lower (deltaPct of 0.7%). For the GPU, the closest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (deltaPct of 0%), the AMD Radeon RX 470 (deltaPct of 0.1%), and the Intel Arc A370M (deltaPct of -0.5%). These rivals are all within 1% of the 6650 XT's average benchmark score of 29024, showing that the GPU sits in a very tight performance cluster.

The rank of 1059 suggests that while the combo is perfectly capable of delivering excellent frame rates—as evidenced by the 294.2 FPS peak at 1080p—it is outclassed by a significant number of alternatives in the database. This is not a reflection of poor performance but rather of the competitive field. The data shows that the combo is a solid mid-tier performer, and the rank is consistent with its position in the hardware hierarchy. For a game like Inside, which is not graphically demanding, the 6650 XT provides more than enough power for high refresh rates at 1080p and 1440p, and the 9900X ensures the system never stutters due to CPU limitations.