Inside

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti pairing produces a fascinating dataset in Inside, a 2016 puzzle platformer that is far more demanding than its minimalist art style suggests. The measured frames per second reveal a system where the aging GPU is the clear protagonist, while the modern 12-core CPU operates with considerable headroom. This analysis breaks down exactly how this combination behaves across resolutions and presets, relying solely on the measured data.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 4K exposes a dramatic shift in performance, characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with High settings, the system averages 108 FPS. Moving to 1440p drops that figure to 78 FPS, a reduction of 30 FPS. The jump to 4K further compresses performance to 49 FPS, representing a 59 FPS loss from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline indicates that the GTX 1660 Ti’s rendering pipeline is saturated well before the CPU becomes a factor.

The Low preset tells an even more revealing story about the limiting component. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 216 FPS. At 1440p Low, it still manages 155 FPS, but the 4K Low result of 98 FPS shows the GPU struggling to maintain high frame rates even with minimal graphical load. The fact that 4K Low (98 FPS) is nearly identical to 1080p High (108 FPS) suggests that the GPU’s raw fillrate and shading capacity are the primary constraints, regardless of how the visual workload is distributed.

What is particularly striking is the scaling efficiency between 1440p and 4K. For the Medium preset, the drop is from 124 FPS to 78 FPS, a 46 FPS penalty. This is a larger absolute drop than the 31 FPS penalty seen when moving from 1080p (173 FPS) to 1440p (124 FPS) on the same preset. The non-linear scaling implies that at 4K, the GPU is hitting a memory bandwidth or pixel throughput wall, unable to keep up with the 8.3 million pixel count increase.

The data clearly shows that resolution has a far greater impact on performance than settings changes. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 113 FPS (216 vs 103), while the difference between 1080p and 4K on Low is 118 FPS (216 vs 98). This near-parity in impact confirms that the GTX 1660 Ti is the bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the Ryzen 9 9900X’s ample processing power remains unutilized.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting a smooth experience, the Medium preset emerges as the most balanced option across all tested resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the system delivers 173 FPS, which is only 43 FPS shy of the Low preset’s ceiling but 70 FPS ahead of High. More importantly, the Medium preset is the only configuration that provides minimum and maximum frame data in the dataset, showing a range of 147 to 199 FPS at 1080p. This consistency suggests the preset avoids the extreme spikes that might occur on other settings.

At 1440p, Medium still delivers a very playable 124 FPS, with a measured range of 106 to 143 FPS. The High preset at this resolution only manages 78 FPS, which is a significant step down. The Ultra preset at 1440p drops to 74 FPS, making it barely distinguishable from High in practical terms. The data implies that the visual fidelity gains from High to Ultra are not worth the 4 FPS sacrifice at this resolution.

The 4K resolution presents a more constrained choice. Medium is the only preset that breaks the 60 FPS barrier, achieving 78 FPS with a range of 66 to 90 FPS. High and Ultra fall to 49 and 46 FPS respectively, which are borderline for a puzzle platformer where precise timing is less critical than in action games. Low at 4K does reach 98 FPS, but the visual degradation likely undermines the atmospheric presentation that Inside is known for.

The optimal strategy is clear: use Medium for all resolutions. At 1080p, it provides near-competitive frame rates with the Low preset while presumably offering superior visual quality. At 1440p and 4K, it is the only preset that maintains frame rates above 60 FPS, making it the definitive choice for a responsive experience. High and Ultra should only be considered if the player prioritizes visual fidelity over smoothness and is willing to accept sub-60 FPS at 4K.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivers 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration appears to be the critical factor in the 4K performance cliff. The 12 GB frame buffer at 4K with High settings is likely approaching the card’s 6 GB capacity, though the measured FPS data does not explicitly confirm memory exhaustion. The 78 FPS at 4K Medium versus 49 FPS at 4K High suggests that texture and shading complexity, rather than pure resolution, are what strain the memory subsystem.

The GPU’s clock speeds are modest by modern standards, with a base of 1500 MHz and a boost of 1770 MHz. These clocks, combined with 1536 shading units and 48 ROPs, produce a pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s. The 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is the theoretical ceiling, but the measured results indicate that the card is rarely hitting this limit. The 1080p Low result of 216 FPS suggests the card is capable of high throughput when pixel shader work is minimal.

The GPU’s benchmark percentile of 41 places it below the median of all tested GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 7723 is quite modest. The nearest rivals in the synthetic benchmarks—AMD Radeon 540 (0.7% faster), AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (1.9% slower), and Intel Arc A310 (2.3% slower)—are all similarly positioned, confirming that the GTX 1660 Ti is a mid-range part from a previous generation. Despite this, the card’s Turing architecture with DirectX 12 (12_1) support allows it to handle Inside’s modern rendering features, as evidenced by the playable frame rates at most settings.

The 12 nm process node and 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die show that this GPU is from an era before efficiency-focused designs. The 120 W TDP is modest, but the card’s end-of-life production status and 2019 release date mean it is now several generations old. The data suggests that the GPU is the sole performance limiter in this pairing, as the CPU never appears to hold it back in any resolution or preset combination.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range is available with abundant performance. Low averages 216 FPS, Medium 173 FPS (range 147-199), High 108 FPS, and Ultra 103 FPS. This represents a 113 FPS spread between Low and Ultra, providing players with a wide choice between speed and visual quality. The 5 FPS difference between High and Ultra is negligible, suggesting that Ultra offers no tangible benefit at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance hierarchy shifts downward. Low averages 155 FPS, Medium 124 FPS (range 106-143), High 78 FPS, and Ultra 74 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra remains minimal at 4 FPS. The 31 FPS drop from Low to Medium is larger than the 46 FPS drop from Medium to High, indicating that the Medium preset is a sweet spot for balancing load. The 4K results show the most dramatic compression: Low 98 FPS, Medium 78 FPS (range 66-90), High 49 FPS, and Ultra 46 FPS.

The Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data across all resolutions, which allows for a deeper analysis of frame time consistency. At 1080p, the range is 52 FPS (147-199), at 1440p it is 37 FPS (106-143), and at 4K it is 24 FPS (66-90). The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU becomes more consistently loaded, reducing the variance that can occur when the renderer has spare capacity. This consistency is a positive sign for gameplay smoothness, even at lower average frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand database of tested combinations, this pairing of the Ryzen 9 9900X and GTX 1660 Ti ranks 3201 out of 3716 combos for Inside. This places it in the bottom 14% of all tested systems, a surprisingly low position given the playable frame rates observed. The ranking reflects the GPU’s modest standing in the overall hierarchy, as the CPU’s high performance cannot compensate for the graphics card’s limitations in this game.

The percentile rankings of the individual components support this assessment. The CPU sits at the 92nd percentile against all processors, indicating it is a top-tier part. The GPU, however, is at the 41st percentile, below the midpoint. The combination of a high-percentile CPU with a low-percentile GPU creates a significant imbalance that drags the overall combo ranking down, even though the actual gameplay experience is acceptable at multiple settings.

The measured data is genuine, as indicated by the `dataIsMeasured` field, which lends credibility to the ranking. The 3201st position out of 3716 is a stark contrast to what the CPU alone would suggest. This implies that for Inside, the GPU is the dominant factor in determining the combo’s standing, and players with this setup should focus on GPU upgrades to improve their ranking. The CPU’s headroom is wasted in this context, as it never becomes the limiting factor.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Granite Ridge. It operates on a 4 nm process and supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus. The CPU’s base clock of 4.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz provide substantial single-thread performance, which is crucial for games that rely on a few heavily loaded threads. The 64 MB of L3 cache is generous, but the game’s low CPU requirements mean this cache likely goes underutilized.

Synthetic benchmarks show the CPU’s immense capability: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32172 and a single-core score of 2253, along with a Geekbench multicore score of 22174 and single-core score of 3010. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 12552 further confirms its multithreaded prowess. However, in Inside, these numbers are largely irrelevant because the game does not stress the CPU to any significant degree. The measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU bottlenecking, as frame rates scale cleanly with resolution and settings changes.

The CPU’s benchmark average score of 57498 places it at the 92nd percentile, and its nearest rivals—AMD EPYC 9015 (-0.1%), AMD EPYC 7313 (0.2%), Intel Core i9-14900 (-1.1%), and Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (-1.4%)—are all within a 1.5% margin. This indicates that the 9900X is a high-performing part, but its advantage is irrelevant for this game. The 120 W TDP and 12-core configuration are overkill for a puzzle platformer that likely only uses a few threads. The data implies that a much less powerful CPU could achieve identical frame rates in Inside when paired with the same GPU.

FAQ

*Q: Why does the combo rank so low in Inside despite having a top-tier CPU?*

A: The combo ranks 3201 out of 3716 because the GPU’s modest performance (41st percentile) is the limiting factor. The CPU’s high standing (92nd percentile) cannot compensate for the GTX 1660 Ti’s inability to render at higher resolutions, dragging the overall combo ranking down.

Q: What is the best preset for a 1440p monitor with this hardware?

A: The Medium preset is the clear choice, delivering 124 FPS with a range of 106 to 143 FPS. High and Ultra both fall to around 74-78 FPS, which is a substantial drop for minimal visual gains.

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

A: Yes, but only on the Low or Medium presets. Low achieves 98 FPS and Medium 78 FPS (range 66-90). High and Ultra drop to 49 and 46 FPS respectively, which may be below the smoothness threshold for some players.

Q: Is the GTX 1660 Ti’s 6 GB VRAM sufficient for this game?

A: The data does not explicitly show VRAM exhaustion, but the 4K High result of 49 FPS suggests the card is struggling with memory bandwidth or capacity. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is the likely constraint at 4K, as the 1080p results are significantly stronger.

Q: How does the CPU’s performance compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X has an average benchmark score of 57498, which is 0.1% slower than the AMD EPYC 9015, 0.2% faster than the AMD EPYC 7313, 1.1% faster than the Intel Core i9-14900, and 1.4% faster than the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M. These are negligible differences.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1080p with the Ultra preset?

A: The Ultra preset at 1080p averages 103 FPS. This is only 5 FPS lower than the High preset (108 FPS), making Ultra a viable option if you want maximum visual quality without a significant performance penalty.