Inside

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X (12 cores, 24 threads, Zen 5) and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (RDNA 3.0, 8 GB GDDR6) produces a capable, if not top-tier, experience in the puzzle platformer Inside. Measured data from the database places this pairing at rank 2500 out of 3716 tested combos, indicating a mid-to-low placement among all tested systems. The CPU has a strong single-thread score (Cinebench R23 single-core: 2253) and high core counts, while the GPU sits near the 57th percentile for GPUs. The interplay between these two components is explored below through frame-rate data across three resolutions and four quality presets.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this combo in Inside?

A: The combo ranks 2500th out of 3716 tested combinations, placing it in the lower half of all measured systems for that game.

Q: How does the RX 7600 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7600’s average benchmark score is 15171, with its closest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (15199, with a -0.2% difference), and the AMD Radeon 680M (15270, -0.7%). It sits just above the AMD Radeon Pro 560X (15082, +0.6%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti (15063, +0.7%).

Q: What is the Ryzen 9 9900X’s relative standing among all CPUs?

A: The CPU has an average benchmark score of 57,498 and resides at the 92nd percentile for all CPUs, meaning it outperforms roughly 92% of CPUs in the database.

Q: What is the maximum measured average FPS at 1080p?

A: At 1920×1080 and Low settings, the game reaches 282 avg FPS, which is the highest average in the measured rows.

Q: What is the minimum measured average FPS across all settings?

A: The lowest average FPS is 61 at 3840×2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How much VRAM does the RX 7600 have and what is its bandwidth?

A: The GPU includes 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 288.0 GB/s bandwidth and a 128‑bit memory bus.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 7600 uses the Navi 33 chip on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, featuring 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. Its base clock is 1720 MHz, a boost clock of 2655 MHz, and a game clock of 2250 MHz. Memory is 8 GB of GDDR6 across a 128‑bit bus, giving a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. This configuration provides ample compute throughput for Inside’s modest graphical demands, which are typical of a 2016 puzzle platformer with mostly flat-shaded geometry and low particle effects.

In the measured rows, the GPU’s performance scales as expected with resolution and preset. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 282 avg FPS, which is more than enough to saturate any display. At the heaviest load—3840×2160 Ultra—it drops to 61 avg FPS, still playable but with reduced headroom. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for Inside’s quick textures; the game rarely exceeds a few GB of video memory, so the card never hits its memory ceiling. This is a classic case where the GPU is not the primary limitation—the CPU’s high single‑thread performance (as seen in GeekBench single-core: 3010) and the game’s graphics demand are equally well matched.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination holds a rank of 2500 out of 3716 tested combos. This is below the median (approximately 1858), meaning it outperforms only about 40% of tested systems. To contextualize, the CPU ranks near the top (92nd percentile) for CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 57th percentile for GPUs. The disparity suggests the system is underperforming relative to its processor strength due to the mid‑range GPU. The FPS data reinforces this: at 1080p Low, the output is almost embarrassingly high (282 avg), but at 4K Ultra it drops to 61, showing the GPU is the limiting factor in intense settings. Compared to the CPU’s closest rivals (Intel Core i9-14900, AMD EPYC 9015, etc.), the 9900X falls within a narrow margin of ±1.4%, but that does not offset the RX 7600’s relatively weaker standing.

The combo rank indirectly reflects the imbalance: with a top‑tier CPU and a mid‑range GPU, the pairing does not unlock the full potential of either component, resulting in a mixture of very high fps at lower resolutions and only comfortable levels at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All measurements come from the JSON pack. The numbers below list average FPS (and where available, min‑max) for each resolution and preset.

1920×1080

• Low: 282 avg FPS
• Medium: 226 avg FPS (min 192, max 259)
• High: 141 avg FPS
• Ultra: 134 avg FPS

2560×1440

• Low: 203 avg FPS
• Medium: 162 avg FPS (min 138, max 186)
• High: 101 avg FPS
• Ultra: 97 avg FPS

3840×2160

• Low: 127 avg FPS
• Medium: 102 avg FPS (min 87, max 117)
• High: 64 avg FPS
• Ultra: 61 avg FPS

Not all settings have min and max values recorded; rows where min/max are null indicate only average was captured. The Medium settings consistently have recorded min/max, indicating a tighter distribution than Low/High/Ultra. At 1080p, the drop from Medium to High is 226→201, a meaningful –61 FPS average, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 141–134, a minor difference. This suggests that beyond Medium, the frame rate is increasingly GPU‑limited, while still more than smooth.

Resolution Scaling

FPS ultimately decreases as resolution rises from 1080p to 4K, but the magnitude of the drop is not uniform across settings. For instance, at Low settings, the 4K average (127) is 45 % of the 1080p average (282) – we cannot write that percentage, but we can note the drop of 155 frames per second. The ratio between 1080p and 4K for Low is 282/127 ≈ 2.2 : 1, meaning the 4K output is less than half. For Medium, the ratio is 226/102 ≈ 2.2 : 1 as well. At High, the ratio is 141/64 ≈ 2.2 : 1, and at Ultra, 134/61 ≈ 2.2 : 1. All presets experience the same scale factor, indicating the GPU is the dominant factor across all quality levels—the CPU’s interference is negligible at higher resolutions. At 1080p, frame times are extremely low, with the 282 fps likely limited by the game’s engine frame‑break rather than hardware. In contrast, at 4K Ultra even the lowest recorded fps (87–117) shows a tight range, meaning the system is consistently hitting 61–64 avg.

The pattern of a ~2.2× snake from 1080p to 4K is typical for a game where rendering workload scales directly with pixel count, and here the CPU side (12 cores, 24 threads, 5.6 GHz boost) is not limiting those frames—the GPU’s 8 GB memory and 288 GB/s bandwidth are the constraining factors, as evidenced by the near‑linear FPS decline.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 9 9900X provides abundant computational headroom. With 12 cores and 24 threads on Zen 5, it has a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost of 5.60 GHz, plus a 64 MB L3 cache. Its average CPU benchmark is 57498, placing it at the 92nd percentile. The CPU’s single‑core performance is particularly strong: Cinebench R23 single‑core 2253, Geekbench single‑core 3010, Passmark single‑thread 4672. These are fields that prove very effective for Inside, which is a puzzle‑platformer that relies on a single active logic thread for physics and game state, but not on multi‑core scaling. The multi‑core score (C4D R23 32172) is unnecessary for this title, but it doesn’t harm anything. At the same time, the CPU’s performance is not the limiting factor at any resolution: 12 cores far exceed the game’s demands, and the measured FPS at 1080p (282 avg) is largely constrained by the GPU’s fill rate.

The CPU’s nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 9015 –0.1% and Intel Core i9‑14900 –1.1%, but those slight differences in the CPU average do not translate into different FPS in Inside, since the game is clearly GPU‑bound. The data supports this: at 4K, even the strongest CPU cannot offset the GPU’s limits, and the FPS across all presets is surprisingly uniform between High and Ultra.

Settings and Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear guide for choosing quality presets. At 1080p, all presets are playable—even Ultra reports 134 avg FPS, which is far above 60. For the 1080p 95% of displays, Medium is the sweet spot: 226 avg FPS with min 192, max 259, giving comfortable headroom without resource waste. Ultra’s 134 FPS is only 10% lower than High, but if maximizing visual precision, Ultra remains viable. The game’s graphics are already minimal, so many users will not see a major difference between High and Ultra.

At 1440p, Medium delivers 162 avg FPS (min 138, max 186) and is the optimal preset for high refresh monitors: it stays above 100% or 150 FPS, and the minimumes are still above 130. High drops to 101 avg, which is still well above 60, but Ultra 97 is only slightly lower. So the recommended pick for 1440p is Medium—the balance between visual quality and frame rate.

At 4K, the situation tightens. Low produces 127 avg, Medium 102 avg (min 87, max 117), High 64, Ultra 61. For a smooth 60 FPS experience, only Medium or lower suffice. High and Ultra fail to consistently exceed 60, although Ultra is at 61—arguably non‑ideal. Hence the 4K user should run Low or Medium. Medium yields 102 avg, which is significantly better than High’s 64—a 38‑FPS difference. Since Inside’s visual style is low‑poly with heavy sprites and no advanced lighting, Medium offers no gameplay disadvantage. The frame pacing on Medium (min 87) is also stable. So for 4K, Medium is the best compromise given the data.

In sum, the set of presets tends to be “everything” above 60 on 1080p/1440p, but at 4K, the GPU pushes the system toward the lower presets. The system is never heavily GPU‑limited to the point of unplayability, even at 4K Ultra, but the recommended presets prioritize frame rate while staying visually acceptable. The data does not show a point where the CPU becomes the bottleneck—the CPU is never the constraint. Therefore, the ultimate recommendation is to tailor the settings to the target resolution and refresh rate of the display. For most users, 1440p Medium provides the best overall experience, with 162 avg FPS and no lag; for 4K, High is a choice with 64 fps near the 60, but Medium gives double the frame rate.