Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that remains remarkably scalable on modern hardware, and the combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT demonstrates exactly how CPU-bound this title becomes at lower resolutions. The measured data reveals a system that is entirely overqualified for the task, delivering triple-digit frame rates across nearly every configuration tested, with the only sub-60 FPS result occurring at the absolute maximum settings at 4K. The benchmark results indicate a game that scales predictably with resolution and settings, but the relationship between the two components shifts dramatically depending on the workload.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a classic pattern of GPU saturation, but with an unusual twist: the CPU is so powerful that even at 4K, the RX 6650 XT becomes the sole limiting factor only at the highest settings. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 292 FPS, while the same settings at 1440p yield 210 FPS and 4K drops to 132 FPS. This represents a 55% reduction in frame rate from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, which is a smaller drop than typically seen in GPU-bound scenarios, suggesting that the Ryzen 9 9950X3D is still providing headroom even at the lower resolution.

Moving to Medium settings, the scaling pattern tightens: 1080p delivers 234 FPS, 1440p drops to 168 FPS (a 28% reduction), and 4K falls to 106 FPS (a 55% reduction from 1080p). The minimum FPS values at Medium settings tell a similar story, with 199 FPS at 1080p, 143 FPS at 1440p, and 90 FPS at 4K. The gap between average and minimum FPS widens as resolution increases, indicating that frame pacing becomes less consistent when the GPU is under heavier load.

At High settings, the scaling becomes more pronounced: 146 FPS at 1080p, 105 FPS at 1440p (a 28% drop), and 66 FPS at 4K (a 55% drop from 1080p). The Ultra preset shows the most dramatic scaling, with 139 FPS at 1080p, 100 FPS at 1440p, and just 63 FPS at 4K. The fact that 4K Ultra produces only 63 FPS — barely above the 60 FPS threshold — while 1080p Ultra achieves 139 FPS indicates that the RX 6650 XT’s 8 GB frame buffer and 128-bit memory bus are being pushed to their absolute limits at 4K with maximum settings.

The scaling data suggests that inside this benchmark, the system transitions from CPU-bound at 1080p Low to GPU-bound at 4K Ultra. The 132 FPS at 4K Low versus 292 FPS at 1080p Low shows that even at minimal settings, the resolution increase alone costs 55% of the frame rate, which is a pure GPU throughput limitation rather than a VRAM capacity issue. The identical 55% drop from 1080p to 4K across Low, Medium, and High settings points to a consistent GPU bottleneck at 4K, while the smaller 28% drop from 1080p to 1440p at Medium and High settings reveals a more balanced workload at that intermediate resolution.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, is the limiting component in this pairing for this specific game. The GPU’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth, and the benchmark results show that this configuration is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming at all settings, but struggles at 4K with the Ultra preset. The GPU’s boost clock of 2635 MHz and game clock of 2410 MHz are the relevant figures for understanding its performance ceiling, as the 2055 MHz base clock is rarely maintained under load.

The GPU’s benchmark scores place it in the 65th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19765. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19885, 0.6% faster), the AMD FirePro D300 (19637, 0.7% slower), and the AMD FirePro W7000 (19905, 0.7% faster). These comparisons are largely irrelevant for gaming performance, as these are professional or workstation cards, but they do indicate that the RX 6650 XT sits in a specific performance tier that is well below the CPU’s capabilities.

The GPU’s DirectX 12 performance score of 62 in Passmark is notably low, but this does not translate to poor real-world gaming performance in Inside, which is a DirectX 12 Ultimate title. The Vulkan score of 81306 and OpenCL score of 10111 provide additional context, but the measured FPS data is the most reliable indicator of actual gaming performance. The 4K results — 66 FPS at High, 63 FPS at Ultra — show that the GPU is the bottleneck at this resolution, as the CPU has no trouble keeping up with the frame generation demands.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for Inside at all tested settings, as the game is not particularly demanding on memory. The fact that 4K High produces 66 FPS while 4K Ultra produces 63 FPS suggests that the difference between these presets is not primarily VRAM-related but rather shader complexity and fill rate demands. The GPU’s pixel rate of 168.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 337.3 GTexel/s are the architectural limits that define its 4K performance ceiling, and the data shows that Inside at 4K Ultra pushes the GPU to within 5% of its maximum frame rate potential compared to 4K High.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is an absolute powerhouse that is almost completely unconstrained in this benchmark scenario. With 16 cores and 32 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), this CPU provides far more processing capability than Inside requires. The data confirms this: at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 292 FPS, which is likely near the game engine’s maximum frame rate limit rather than a true reflection of the hardware’s capability. The CPU’s boost clock of 5.70 GHz and base clock of 4.30 GHz provide the single-thread performance that puzzle platformers like Inside typically rely on.

The CPU’s benchmark results show exceptional multithreaded performance, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42018 and a single-core score of 2259. The Geekbench multicore score of 26736 and single-core score of 3064 further reinforce this dominance. The 3DMark scores are particularly relevant for gaming: 16-thread score of 16374, 8-thread score of 9259, 4-thread score of 4963, and 2-thread score of 2549. The fact that the 2-thread score (2549) is more than half the 4-thread score (4963) suggests that Inside’s workload is likely using only a few threads, making the CPU’s single-thread performance the critical factor.

The CPU’s percentile ranking of 95th among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 75779, places it in the top 5% of all processors. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75738, 0.1% slower), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75716, 0.1% slower), the AMD EPYC 8224P (75582, 0.3% slower), and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 (75488, 0.4% slower). These small deltas indicate that the 9950X3D is at the very top of the CPU performance hierarchy, but the measured FPS data shows that this performance headroom is largely wasted in Inside.

The CPU’s 128 MB of L3 cache is a defining feature for gaming performance, and while the FACT PACK does not specify whether this is 3D V-Cache, the X3D designation suggests it is. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth and DDR5 dual-channel support provide ample memory throughput for the game. The data shows that even at 4K Ultra, where the GPU is clearly the bottleneck, the CPU is still capable of feeding the GPU with enough frames to reach 63 FPS, which is close to the GPU’s maximum output at those settings. At 1080p, the CPU is so far ahead of the GPU that the frame rate is likely capped by the game engine or GPU geometry throughput rather than the CPU’s actual processing limits.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this hardware combination depend entirely on the target resolution. At 1080p, all settings provide playable frame rates, but the Medium preset at 234 FPS offers the best balance of visual quality and performance headroom, especially considering its minimum FPS of 199. The High preset at 146 FPS is also excellent, and even Ultra at 139 FPS is well above the 60 FPS threshold. For competitive or high-refresh-rate displays, Low settings at 292 FPS would be the choice, but this sacrifices visual fidelity for a frame rate that exceeds most monitors’ refresh rates.

At 1440p, the Medium preset at 168 FPS (minimum 143 FPS) is the sweet spot, providing smooth gameplay with a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. The High preset at 105 FPS is also excellent for most displays, and even Ultra at 100 FPS remains highly playable. The Low preset at 210 FPS is overkill for most 1440p displays, which typically top out at 165 Hz or 240 Hz. The data suggests that 1440p High is the recommended setting for the best visual experience without compromising frame rate stability.

At 4K, the situation changes dramatically. The Ultra preset at 63 FPS is technically playable but provides no headroom for demanding scenes, while the High preset at 66 FPS is only marginally better. The Medium preset at 106 FPS (minimum 90 FPS) is the clear recommendation for 4K gaming on this hardware, as it delivers a substantially higher frame rate with minimal visual compromise. The Low preset at 132 FPS ensures maximum smoothness but may look noticeably worse than Medium. Given that the minimum FPS at 4K Medium is 90, this setting provides the best combination of visual quality and performance stability for 4K displays.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured frame rates are exceptional across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 292 FPS, Medium produces 234 FPS with a minimum of 199 FPS and maximum of 269 FPS, High produces 146 FPS, and Ultra produces 139 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 52% reduction in frame rate, but even the lowest result at 139 FPS is more than double the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset’s minimum FPS of 199 indicates excellent frame pacing, with only a 35 FPS gap between average and minimum.

At 2560x1440, the results show a consistent scaling pattern. Low settings deliver 210 FPS, Medium produces 168 FPS (minimum 143 FPS, maximum 193 FPS), High produces 105 FPS, and Ultra produces 100 FPS. The 1440p results are approximately 72% of the 1080p results across all settings, which is consistent with the 78% increase in pixel count from 1080p to 1440p. The Medium preset’s minimum FPS of 143 is still well above 60 FPS, indicating that this resolution is comfortable for the RX 6650 XT.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates drop significantly but remain playable at most settings. Low settings produce 132 FPS, Medium produces 106 FPS (minimum 90 FPS, maximum 121 FPS), High produces 66 FPS, and Ultra produces 63 FPS. The 4K results are approximately 45% of the 1080p results, which is consistent with the 4x pixel count increase from 1080p to 4K. The Ultra preset at 63 FPS is the only configuration that approaches the 60 FPS minimum, and the minimum FPS data for Medium (90 FPS) suggests that this is the safest choice for 4K gaming.

The combination’s overall rank in the game is 2378 out of 3716 tested combinations, placing it in the 36th percentile of all hardware configurations for this specific title. This ranking reflects the fact that Inside is not a demanding game, and many high-end systems will achieve similar frame rates, meaning the 9950X3D and RX 6650 XT combo is not uniquely positioned for this title despite its overall hardware capabilities.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware combination in Inside?

A: The data shows that 1440p Medium (168 FPS average, 143 FPS minimum) offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. While 1080p produces higher frame rates (up to 292 FPS at Low), 1440p Medium maintains excellent smoothness while providing significantly better image clarity.

Q: Can this system run Inside at 4K with maximum settings?

A: Yes, but barely. The measured 4K Ultra average is 63 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS threshold. For a more comfortable margin, the 4K Medium preset at 106 FPS (90 FPS minimum) is recommended for consistent frame pacing.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this configuration?

A: The bottleneck shifts depending on resolution and settings. At 1080p, the CPU is so powerful that the GPU becomes the limiting factor, while at 4K, the GPU is clearly the constraint, as evidenced by the 55% frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K across multiple settings.

Q: How does the RX 6650 XT compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The RX 6650 XT has an average benchmark score of 19765, placing it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19885, 0.6% faster), AMD FirePro D300 (19637, 0.7% slower), and AMD FirePro W7000 (19905, 0.7% faster).

Q: What is the frame rate difference between High and Ultra settings?

A: The difference is minimal. At 1080p, High averages 146 FPS while Ultra averages 139 FPS (a 5% difference). At 1440p, High averages 105 FPS while Ultra averages 100 FPS (also 5%). At 4K, High averages 66 FPS while Ultra averages 63 FPS (a 4.5% difference).

Q: Should I use the Medium preset for the most stable frame rate?

A: Yes. The Medium preset is the only configuration with recorded minimum FPS values, showing 199 FPS at 1080p, 143 FPS at 1440p, and 90 FPS at 4K. These minimums are significantly higher than the average FPS of other presets, indicating better frame pacing and consistency.