Inside

# Inside — AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D + AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT

This combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT delivers a thoroughly playable experience in Inside, a Puzzle Platformer from 2016-07-06. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings indicate that this GPU-bound title runs comfortably on this hardware, with even the most demanding preset at 4K holding an average of 63 FPS. The data shows a system that is far more capable than the game requires, but the scaling patterns reveal where the performance ceiling sits and how each component contributes to the final output.

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, with a 120 W TDP. The CPU features a substantial 128 MB of L3 cache, alongside 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, which aids in reducing memory latency for workloads that exhibit high cache locality.

In the context of Inside, this processor is massively overprovisioned. The game is a 2D side-scrolling puzzle platformer with modest physics and AI demands; it does not stress multi-threaded rendering or complex simulation workloads. The CPU's benchmark scores reflect its general-purpose strength — a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 47737 and a single-core score of 6739, a Geekbench multi-core score of 22884 and single-core score of 3041 — but these figures are largely irrelevant to the frame rates observed here. The game's engine is not built to exploit 24 threads, and the performance bottleneck is clearly not the processor.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 91 among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54762, places it far above what this title requires. Its nearest rivals — the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF (average score 55093, deltaPct -0.6), Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (54053, deltaPct 1.3), Intel Xeon 6505P (53701, deltaPct 2), and Intel Core i7-14700F (53620, deltaPct 2.1) — all sit within a narrow performance band, indicating that the 9900X3D's raw compute is comparable to these parts. However, for Inside, such distinctions are immaterial; the game's frame rates are dictated by the GPU at higher resolutions and by engine limits at lower ones. The CPU's single-thread performance, which is critical for older or lightly threaded games, is strong enough that it will not introduce stutter or frame pacing issues in this title. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 295 FPS average, a figure that approaches the practical limits of many display refresh rates and indicates that the CPU can feed the GPU without becoming a limiting factor.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture (Navi 33 chip, codename Hotpink Bonefish), fabricated on a 6 nm process. It features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s, with memory clocked at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The GPU's core runs at a base clock of 1980 MHz, a game clock of 2470 MHz, and a boost clock of 2755 MHz. It contains 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray-tracing cores, delivering a theoretical FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.

For Inside, the GPU is the primary determinant of performance, particularly at higher resolutions and settings. The game's art style — dark, atmospheric, with volumetric lighting and subtle particle effects — scales with GPU fill rate and memory bandwidth. The RX 7600 XT's 16 GB VRAM is far more than the game requires; Inside is not a VRAM-heavy title, and even at 4K Ultra, the memory footprint will not approach the 16 GB capacity. The bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s is sufficient to feed the renderer at all tested settings.

The GPU's percentile ranking of 60 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17083, places it in the mid-range tier. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (avgScore 17037, deltaPct 0.3), AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17019, deltaPct 0.4), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (17208, deltaPct -0.7), and NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16932, deltaPct 0.9). These deltas are all within 1%, indicating that the RX 7600 XT's raw compute is comparable to these parts, though the RTX 3070 is a notably older architecture. In practice, the RX 7600 XT's performance in Inside is strong: at 1080p Ultra, it averages 140 FPS; at 1440p Ultra, 101 FPS; and at 4K Ultra, 63 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p to 4K shows a clear GPU-bound trend, with frame rates dropping by roughly 28% and then another 38% as resolution increases, consistent with the pixel count growth.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves in Inside?*

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 295 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At Medium settings, the average drops to 236 FPS, and at High it is 147 FPS.

Q: Can this system maintain a smooth experience at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes, the data shows an average of 63 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is above the 60 FPS threshold commonly considered smooth, though there is no minimum frame rate recorded for this preset.

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

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X3D has an average benchmark score of 54762, which is 0.6% lower than the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF (55093), 1.3% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (54053), 2% higher than the Intel Xeon 6505P (53701), and 2.1% higher than the Intel Core i7-14700F (53620).

*Q: Is the GPU's 16 GB VRAM necessary for Inside?*

A: The data does not indicate VRAM usage, but the game is a 2D puzzle platformer from 2016-07-06, which is not a VRAM-intensive title. The 16 GB capacity is far beyond what the game requires, and it does not appear to be a limiting factor at any tested resolution or settings.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings average 212 FPS, while Ultra settings average 101 FPS. This represents a 52% drop in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

*Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations for Inside?*

A: The combo ranks 1767 out of 2887 tested combinations, placing it in the 61st percentile of all combos. This is a mid-pack ranking, reflecting that while the hardware is capable, many other combinations deliver higher frame rates in this title.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT ranks 1767 out of 2887 tested combos for Inside. This places the combo in the lower-middle portion of the overall distribution, which is notable given the CPU's high percentile ranking (91 among all CPUs) and the GPU's mid-range ranking (60 among all GPUs). The rank suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor in this pairing; the CPU's considerable compute power does not translate to a higher combo rank because the game is not CPU-intensive.

The data indicates that the combo's rank is driven primarily by the GPU's performance tier. The RX 7600 XT's nearest rivals — the GTX 690, HD 7970M, RTX 3070, and Tesla M4 — all have similar average benchmark scores, and in Inside, the game's frame rates are consistent with a mid-range GPU. The CPU's contribution to the rank is minimal, as even a significantly slower processor would likely produce similar results in this title. The rank of 1767 means that roughly 61% of tested combos perform better, which is expected for a mid-range GPU paired with a high-end CPU. The combo's absolute performance is still strong — 140 FPS at 1080p Ultra and 63 FPS at 4K Ultra — but the rank reflects the broader field of tested hardware, where higher-tier GPUs (e.g., RTX 3070, which is a rival on paper but delivers similar scores) may not translate to better Inside performance due to the game's simplicity.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS across resolutions shows a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling. From 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average frame rate at Ultra settings drops from 140 FPS to 101 FPS, a 28% reduction. From 2560x1440 to 3840x2160, the average drops from 101 FPS to 63 FPS, a 38% reduction. These percentages are consistent with the pixel count increases: 1080p has 2.07 million pixels, 1440p has 3.69 million (a 78% increase), and 4K has 8.29 million (a 125% increase from 1440p). The fact that frame rates do not drop proportionally to the pixel count suggests that the game's rendering is not purely pixel-limited; other factors, such as fill rate efficiency and memory bandwidth, play a role.

At Low settings, the scaling is more aggressive: 1080p Low averages 295 FPS, 1440p Low averages 212 FPS (a 28% drop), and 4K Low averages 133 FPS (a 37% drop from 1440p). This pattern indicates that even at the lowest settings, the GPU is still the primary constraint, as the CPU is capable of delivering over 295 FPS without becoming a bottleneck. At Medium settings, the frame rates are 236 FPS at 1080p, 170 FPS at 1440p, and 107 FPS at 4K, with minimum frame rates of 201, 144, and 91 respectively. The presence of minimum FPS data for Medium settings (but not for other presets) suggests that Medium is the only setting where frame pacing was measured, and the minimums are all well above 60 FPS.

The resolution scaling analysis indicates that the limiting component is the GPU across all settings. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at lower resolutions, but the data shows continuous scaling from 1080p to 4K. The 1080p Low result of 295 FPS is likely near the engine's maximum frame rate cap, but it still scales down as resolution increases, confirming GPU-bound behavior.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are: Low 295 FPS, Medium 236 FPS (minimum 201, maximum 271), High 147 FPS, and Ultra 140 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 59 FPS (20% drop), while the gap between High and Ultra is only 7 FPS (5% drop). This suggests that the High to Ultra transition adds minimal visual fidelity for a small performance cost, while the Low to Medium transition is more demanding.

At 2560x1440, the average frame rates are: Low 212 FPS, Medium 170 FPS (minimum 144, maximum 195), High 106 FPS, and Ultra 101 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 42 FPS (20% drop), and the drop from High to Ultra is 5 FPS (5% drop). The consistency of these percentages across resolutions (20% for Low-to-Medium, 5% for High-to-Ultra) indicates that the settings' performance scaling is resolution-independent.

At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are: Low 133 FPS, Medium 107 FPS (minimum 91, maximum 123), High 67 FPS, and Ultra 63 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 26 FPS (20% drop), and the drop from High to Ultra is 4 FPS (6% drop). The 4K results show that even the most demanding preset (Ultra) stays above 60 FPS on average, though the minimum FPS at Medium (91) suggests that frame pacing remains stable.

The data shows a consistent pattern: Medium settings cost roughly 20% of performance compared to Low, while Ultra costs roughly 5% compared to High. Across all resolutions, the system delivers playable frame rates (above 60 FPS) at every setting, with the only exception being 4K Ultra at 63 FPS average, which is still above the 60 FPS threshold.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1080p displays, the High preset (147 FPS average) offers a substantial improvement over Medium (236 FPS) in visual quality while still delivering frame rates far above any display's refresh rate, making High the best balance. The Ultra preset (140 FPS) provides only a 5% performance drop from High with minimal visual gains, so High is the more efficient choice unless the user wants absolute maximum quality.

For 1440p, the Medium preset (170 FPS average, minimum 144) is the recommended choice for high refresh rate displays, as it maintains a minimum frame rate above 144 Hz, which is the refresh rate of many gaming monitors. The High preset (106 FPS) is still smooth for 60 Hz or 100 Hz displays, but Medium offers a better experience for competitive or high-refresh-rate play. The Low preset (212 FPS) is unnecessary unless the user prioritizes absolute maximum frame rates over visual quality.

For 4K, the Medium preset (107 FPS average, minimum 91) is the clear recommendation. It delivers well above 60 FPS with a comfortable minimum, and the visual difference from High (67 FPS) is noticeable in the game's atmospheric lighting and shadows. The Ultra preset (63 FPS) is playable but leaves little headroom for frame drops, making Medium the safer choice for a consistent experience. The Low preset (133 FPS) is overkill for 4K, as the game's art style benefits significantly from higher settings, and the 60 FPS buffer provided by Medium is sufficient.

In summary, the best experience per the measured rows is: High at 1080p, Medium at 1440p, and Medium at 4K. These presets provide the highest visual quality while maintaining frame rates that are either well above typical refresh rates or comfortably above the 60 FPS minimum threshold. The data shows no scenario where Low or Ultra is the optimal choice, as Low sacrifices too much visual fidelity for marginal gains, and Ultra does not provide enough of a quality improvement to justify its performance cost.