Inside

CPU Role, cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge). It operates with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, with a 120W TDP. This is a high-end desktop part designed for AM5 socket motherboards, featuring 64 MB of L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. Its memory bandwidth is rated at 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 interface.

For a puzzle platformer like Inside, the CPU's role is primarily about maintaining a stable frame pacing floor rather than pushing raw frame rates. The game's physics and logic are not particularly demanding, but the 9900X's strong single-thread performance ensures that even at very high frame rates, the CPU does not become a bottleneck. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU scores 1286 in 3dMark single-thread and 2253 in Cinebench R23 single-core, indicating robust per-core throughput. The multi-threaded results are even more impressive: 13929 in 3dMark max threads, 32172 in Cinebench R23 multicore, and 54643 in Passmark multithread. These figures place the CPU in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 57498.

The nearest rivals show how tightly packed the high-end CPU market is. The AMD EPYC 9015 scores 57555 (0.1% lower), the AMD EPYC 7313 scores 57399 (0.2% higher), the Intel Core i9-14900 scores 58115 (1.1% lower), and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M scores 58323 (1.4% lower). These deltas are minuscule, meaning the 9900X sits squarely within the top tier of processors. For Inside specifically, this means the CPU is never the limiting factor; the measured frame rates at all resolutions and settings are far more dictated by GPU workload than by processor capability. The 9900X's 24 threads are largely idle during gameplay, but the high clock speeds ensure that the few active threads can process game logic quickly enough to keep up with a GPU capable of outputting hundreds of frames per second.

GPU Role, VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is a Blackwell 2.0 architecture GPU (chip GB203) built on a 5 nm process. It features 16 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The core clocks are set at 2295 MHz base and 2452 MHz boost, with memory running at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). The GPU has 8960 shading units, 280 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 70 RT cores and 280 tensor cores. Its compute capabilities are substantial: FP32 throughput is 43.94 TFLOPS, and pixel rate is 235.4 GPixel/s.

For Inside, the GPU is the primary driver of performance differences across settings. The game's art style uses high-contrast silhouettes and volumetric lighting, which can be surprisingly taxing on fill rate and memory bandwidth. The RTX 5070 Ti's 16 GB VRAM is more than sufficient for this game, even at 4K Ultra, as Inside's texture budgets are modest by modern standards. However, the GPU's raw throughput determines how many frames can be rendered. In Passmark G3D, the GPU scores 32974, and in 3dMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 6604. The GPU's average benchmark score is 49957, placing it in the 86th percentile among all GPUs.

Its nearest rivals are interesting, as they are older or lower-tier parts. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 scores 50001 (0.1% lower), the Intel Arc A550M scores 49737 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT scores 50951 (2% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT scores 48477 (3.1% higher). The RTX 5070 Ti outperforms the RX 6900 XT by 2% and the RX 6800 XT by 3.1%, despite the latter having larger memory buses in some cases. This data indicates that the 5070 Ti is a strong GPU for high-refresh-rate gaming, which is exactly what Inside demands at lower resolutions. At 1080p, the GPU is so fast that the CPU's frame delivery becomes more relevant, but even then, the 9900X is up to the task.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achievable with this combo at 1080p?

A: The highest measured average is 428 FPS at 1080p Low settings. At 1080p Medium, it drops to 395 FPS, and at 1080p High, it is 277 FPS. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 263 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU's percentile ranking compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X is in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 9015, scores only 0.1% lower, while the Intel Core i9-14900 scores 1.1% lower. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M is the farthest behind at 1.4% lower.

Q: Does the GPU have enough VRAM for 4K Ultra settings in this game?

A: Yes, the RTX 5070 Ti has 16 GB of GDDR7 memory. Even at 4K Ultra, which is the most demanding setting, the measured average frame rate is 119 FPS, indicating the memory capacity and bandwidth are sufficient for the game's requirements.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 4K at High settings?

A: At 1080p High, the average FPS is 277. At 1440p High, it is 199 FPS. At 4K High, it drops to 125 FPS. This represents a 54.8% reduction from 1080p to 4K at High settings.

Q: Which settings preset shows the smallest performance gap between 1080p and 4K?

A: The Low preset shows the smallest relative drop. At 1080p Low, the average is 428 FPS, and at 4K Low, it is 250 FPS. That is a 41.6% reduction. The Ultra preset shows a larger drop, from 263 FPS at 1080p to 119 FPS at 4K, a 54.8% reduction.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: This CPU and GPU combination ranks 161st out of 3716 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the top 4.3% of all tested systems.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti achieves a rank of 161 out of 3716 tested combos in Inside. This places the system in the top 4.3% of all configurations tested, which is an excellent result for a game that is not typically considered a hardware stress test. The high ranking is largely due to the GPU's ability to maintain very high frame rates even at 4K, combined with the CPU's capacity to feed those frames without stuttering.

The rank is more impressive when considering that many of the 3716 combos include multi-GPU setups or more expensive server-class hardware. The 9900X's 92nd percentile CPU standing and the 5070 Ti's 86th percentile GPU standing combine to produce a balanced system. The data shows that the combo is not just fast in synthetic tests but also delivers real-world performance that is competitive with the best systems tested. The 4.3% placement suggests that only about 160 combos outperform it, which is a strong showing for a consumer desktop platform.

The near-rival deltas for both components reinforce this balance. The CPU is within 1.4% of its closest competitors, and the GPU is within 3.1% of its nearest rivals. This means the combo's rank is not dependent on one component being an outlier; rather, it is the synergy of two top-tier parts that yields the 161st position. The measured FPS data confirms that this is not a synthetic anomaly, as the frame rates are consistently high across all tested configurations.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the user's refresh rate and resolution. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 428 FPS, which is far beyond any consumer monitor's refresh rate (typically capped at 240-360 Hz). The Medium preset at 395 FPS is still excessive for most displays. The High preset at 277 FPS is also sufficient for the highest refresh rate monitors. The Ultra preset at 263 FPS provides the best visual quality while still exceeding 240 Hz. Therefore, at 1080p, the Ultra preset is recommended for the best experience, as it offers the highest visual fidelity without sacrificing frame rate in any meaningful way.

At 1440p, the situation shifts slightly. The Low preset delivers 384 FPS, Medium delivers 318 FPS, High delivers 199 FPS, and Ultra delivers 189 FPS. For a 144Hz or 165Hz monitor, the High preset at 199 FPS is the sweet spot, providing a significant visual upgrade over Medium while still offering a comfortable margin above the refresh rate. The Ultra preset at 189 FPS is also viable for 144Hz displays, but the 10 FPS difference may not justify the additional visual effects. For 240Hz monitors, the Medium preset at 318 FPS is the best choice, as it keeps the frame rate above the refresh rate while providing better image quality than Low.

At 4K, the measured frame rates are lower but still playable. The Low preset averages 250 FPS, which is excellent. The Medium preset averages 200 FPS with a minimum of 170 FPSchers, ensuring smooth gameplay even during demanding scenes. The High preset averages 125 FPS, which is suitable for 120Hz displays. The Ultra preset averages 119 FPS, which is also adequate for 120Hz panels. For 4K, the High preset is recommended for most users, as it provides a substantial visual improvement over Medium while maintaining a frame rate that matches the common 120Hz refresh rate. The Ultra preset is only slightly slower and may be preferred by those with slower displays or who prioritize image quality above all else.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are as follows: Low settings yield 428 FPS, Medium yields 395 FPS, High yields 277 FPS, and Ultra yields 263 FPS. The Medium preset also records a minimum of 336 FPS and a maximum of 455 FPS. These figures show a clear progression where each step up in settings costs a measurable amount of performance. The gap between Low and Medium is 33 FPS, the gap between Medium and High is 118 FPS, and the gap between High and Ultra is 14 FPS. The largest drop occurs between Medium and High, suggesting that the High preset introduces significantly more demanding effects such as higher-quality shadows or post-processing.

At 2560x1440, the measured averages are: Low at 384 FPS, Medium at 318 FPS, High at 199 FPS, and Ultra at 189 FPS. The Medium preset records a minimum of 271 FPS and a maximum of 366 FPS. The pattern is similar to 1080p, but the absolute numbers are lower. The drop from Low to Medium is 66 FPS, from Medium to High is 119 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 10 FPS. The Medium to High drop remains the largest, indicating that the same rendering features are responsible for the performance hit regardless of resolution.

At 3840x2160, the measured averages are: Low at 250 FPS, Medium at 200 FPS, High at 125 FPS, and Ultra at 119 FPS. The Medium preset records a minimum of 170 FPS and a maximum of 230 FPS. The drops are 50 FPS from Low to Medium, 75 FPS from Medium to High, and 6 FPS from High to Ultra. At 4K, the Medium to High drop is still the most significant, but the Low to Medium drop is also substantialška. This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU becomes more constrained by memory bandwidth and fill rate, making the settings that increase those demands more costly.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals important characteristics about the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 428 at 1080p to 384 at 1440p (a 10.3% reduction) and then to 250 at 4K (a 34.9% reduction from 1440p). The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 41.6%. This relatively shallow scaling curve indicates that the GPU is not fully saturated even at 4K Low; the frame rate is so high that the CPU's frame delivery rate may be the limiting factor at 1080p, and the GPU only becomes the primary bottleneck at 4K.

At Medium settings, the averages are 395 (1080p), 318 (1440p), and 200 (4K). The drops are 19.5% from 1080p to 1440p, and 37.1% from 1440p to 4K, for a total of 49.4%. At High settings, the averages are 277 (1080p), 199 (1440p), and 125 (4K). The drops are 28.2% from 1080p to 1440p, and 37.2% from 1440p to 4K, for a total of 54.9%. At Ultra settings, the averages are 263 (1080p), 189 (1440p), and 119 (4K). The drops are 28.1% from 1080p to 1440p, and 37.0% from 1440p to 4K, for a total of 54.8%.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is smaller than the drop from 1440p to 4K for all settings. This is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, as the pixel count increase from 1440p to 4K (2.25x) is much larger than from 1080p to 1440p (1.78x). However, the fact that the Low preset shows a much smaller total drop (41.6%) compared to the High and Ultra presets (54.9% and 54.8%) suggests that the CPU is still having an impact at Low settings. At Low, the GPU workload is light enough that the CPU's ability to issue draw calls becomes a factor, especially at 1080p where the 428 FPS is likely near the CPU's maximum frame rate for this game. As settings increase, the GPU becomes the sole bottleneck, and the scaling becomes more predictable and uniform. This analysis indicates that for this combo, the GPU is the primary limiting component at High and Ultra settings, while the CPU provides a secondary ceiling at Low settings, particularly at lower resolutions.