Inside

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 paired with the AMD Radeon 760M integrated GPU delivers a playable but decidedly entry-level experience in Inside, a 2016 puzzle platformer. Benchmark data shows the combination ranks 2876th out of 2887 tested combos for this game, placing it in the bottom 0.4% of all systems. The measured frame rates reveal a clear pattern: this setup is fundamentally constrained by its graphics solution, with CPU headroom that never becomes the limiting factor at any resolution or setting tested.

FAQ

Q: What average frame rate does this combo achieve at 1080p with Low settings?

A: The system hits 96 FPS average at 1920x1080 on Low settings, which is the highest result recorded across all tested configurations. This represents the only setting where the game approaches high-refresh-rate territory.

Q: How does the 4K Ultra experience compare to 1080p Low?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 21, which is 75 frames per second lower than the 1080p Low result. The 4K Ultra figure falls below the 30 FPS threshold typically considered the minimum for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the best playable configuration for this hardware?

A: The data indicates 1080p Medium provides 77 FPS average with a minimum of 65 FPS and maximum of 88 FPS. This is the highest settings level that maintains an average above 60 FPS while offering improved visual quality over Low.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU bottleneck this game?

A: The benchmark results point to the GPU as the primary constraint. The Radeon 760M sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 ranks in the 95th percentile for CPUs. The frame rate drops consistently as resolution increases, a signature of GPU limitation.

Q: How does the Radeon 760M compare to its nearest rival, the RX 6400?

A: The Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6400's 6001 score. The performance delta is negligible, indicating these two GPUs are essentially equivalent in overall capability.

*Q: Is 4K gaming viable on this system for Inside?*

A: At 4K High, the average FPS is 22, and at 4K Ultra it drops to 21. Even at 4K Low, the system only manages 43 FPS. These results suggest 4K is not a practical target for smooth gameplay, though 4K Low may be acceptable for slower-paced sections of the game.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning the GPU draws from the same LPDDR5X pool as the CPU rather than having dedicated VRAM. This shared memory arrangement means bandwidth is system-dependent, which directly impacts how the GPU performs at higher resolutions where memory traffic increases.

Clock speeds for the Radeon 760M show a base frequency of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz. The gap between base and boost is substantial, indicating the GPU can scale its frequency significantly under load, though thermal and power constraints within the mobile platform will influence sustained performance. The chip contains 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines, with 8 ray tracing cores present but largely irrelevant for a game like Inside that does not utilize RT effects.

The GPU's compute capabilities include 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and an identical 5.323 TFLOPS for FP16, reflecting a 1:1 ratio that favors general-purpose workloads. Pixel rate is rated at 41.58 GPixel/s and texture rate at 83.17 GTexel/s. These figures place the 760M in the lower tier of modern graphics solutions, consistent with its 35th percentile ranking among all GPUs tested.

For Inside, which is a 2D side-scrolling puzzle platformer with minimal geometry and lighting demands, the GPU's modest specifications prove adequate for 1080p gaming at medium settings. The game's art style is atmospheric and monochromatic, but it does not require the heavy shader work that would stress the 760M's limited shading unit count. At higher resolutions, however, the fixed-function rasterization and memory bandwidth constraints become apparent, as evidenced by the steep FPS drops observed at 1440p and 4K.

The Radeon 760M's benchmark scores reinforce its entry-level positioning. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 400. Geekbench results show 20255 in OpenCL and 30336 in Vulkan. Passmark scores include 5310 for G3D, 2840 for GPU compute, and notably low DirectX results: 19 for DX10, 52 for DX11, 25 for DX12, and 65 for DX9. These DirectX scores are particularly telling for Inside, as the game's renderer relies on DirectX 11, and the 52 score indicates weak performance in that specific API.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and AMD Radeon 760M ranks 2876th out of 2887 tested combinations for Inside. This places the system in the bottom 11 positions, a remarkably low standing that reflects the GPU's limitations rather than the CPU's capabilities. The rank is a composite measure that considers both components' contributions to this specific game's performance.

To contextualize this rank, it is useful to examine the individual components' standings. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 CPU has a percentile ranking of 95 among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms 95% of processors in general benchmark suites. Its average benchmark score is 77740, which is 1.6% higher than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and 1.6% higher than the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, while being 1.7% lower than the Intel Core i9-14900K and 2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX.

In contrast, the Radeon 760M GPU sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6019. Its nearest rivals show extremely tight clustering: the AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 6001 (0.3% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M scores 6000 (0.3% lower), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5996 (0.4% lower), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049 (0.5% higher). This grouping indicates the 760M performs within a narrow band of mid-2010s discrete GPUs and modern entry-level parts.

The combination rank of 2876 out of 2887 suggests that Inside is particularly demanding on the GPU relative to other games, or that the game's optimization favors discrete graphics solutions. Given that the CPU is a top-5% performer, the rank is almost entirely attributable to the GPU. Systems with similar CPU performance but discrete GPUs would rank substantially higher, while systems with weaker CPUs but the same GPU would likely rank similarly.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates for this combo cover three resolutions and four quality settings, providing a comprehensive view of performance scaling. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings produce 96 FPS average, Medium produces 77 FPS with a minimum of 65 and maximum of 88, High produces 48 FPS, and Ultra produces 46 FPS. The progression from Low to Medium shows a 19 FPS drop, while the step from Medium to High costs 29 FPS, and High to Ultra is only 2 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance tiers compress significantly. Low settings yield 69 FPS average, Medium yields 55 FPS with a minimum of 47 and maximum of 63, High yields 34 FPS, and Ultra yields 33 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 36 FPS, compared to 50 FPS at 1080p. This compression indicates that the GPU is becoming the bottleneck even at Low settings, as the resolution increase consumes additional fill rate and memory bandwidth.

The 3840x2160 results show the steepest degradation. Low settings produce 43 FPS average, Medium produces 35 FPS with a minimum of 29 and maximum of 40, High produces 22 FPS, and Ultra produces 21 FPS. At 4K, even the lowest settings fail to reach 60 FPS, and the gap between Low and Ultra narrows to just 22 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is saturated regardless of quality settings.

The data reveals that Medium settings offer the best balance at both 1080p and 1440p, with the minimum FPS recorded at those resolutions (65 and 47 respectively) staying above the 30 FPS playability floor. At 4K, no settings level achieves a minimum FPS above 29, and the average at the best case (Low) is only 43. For a puzzle platformer where precision timing is less critical than in action games, 4K Low might be tolerable, but the 1440p Medium configuration appears to be the sweet spot for visual fidelity and smoothness.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K illustrates the GPU-bound nature of this configuration. At Low settings, the average FPS progresses from 96 at 1080p to 69 at 1440p to 43 at 4K. This represents a 28% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 55% drop from 1080p to 4K. For reference, a perfectly scaling GPU would show a 56% reduction in FPS when moving from 1080p to 1440p (due to pixel count increasing by 1.78x), and a 75% reduction from 1080p to 4K (pixel count increasing by 4x). The observed drops of 28% and 55% are much shallower, indicating that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound at Low settings.

At High settings, the pattern shifts. The average FPS goes from 48 at 1080p to 34 at 1440p to 22 at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p drop is 29%, and the 1080p to 4K drop is 54%. These percentages are nearly identical to the Low settings scaling, which is unexpected. This similarity suggests that at higher settings, the bottleneck shifts toward the GPU's shading and texture units, which scale more predictably with resolution than with quality settings.

The Ultra settings show the most compressed scaling: 46 FPS at 1080p, 33 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K. The drops are 28% and 54% respectively, again matching the pattern. This consistency across all quality settings is a hallmark of a system where the GPU is the limiting component at every resolution. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see minimal FPS variation between 1080p and 1440p at lower settings, since the CPU load per frame would not increase proportionally with pixel count.

The data also reveals that the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference is 50 FPS (96 versus 46). At 1440p, it narrows to 36 FPS (69 versus 33). At 4K, it narrows to 22 FPS (43 versus 21). This convergence indicates that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily loaded that quality settings have diminishing impact on performance, as the resolution itself is the dominant cost.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, code-named Strix Halo. It operates with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, within a 55 W TDP envelope. The chip is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². Cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache.

For a game like Inside, which is a 2D puzzle platformer with modest CPU demands, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is vastly over-provisioned. The game's logic, physics, and rendering calls for a single scene with limited entities would tax only a fraction of the available cores. Benchmark results confirm the CPU's strength: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 35314 and singlecore 2044, Geekbench multicore 20992 and singlecore 2464, and Passmark multithread 54934 with single thread 4147.

The CPU's memory subsystem is notable for an integrated platform, with quad-channel LPDDR5X support providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is shared with the Radeon 760M, which has no dedicated VRAM. The high memory bandwidth is beneficial for the iGPU, as it mitigates some of the performance penalty of shared memory, but it does not eliminate the fundamental bandwidth limitations at 4K resolutions.

The 64 MB L3 cache is particularly relevant for gaming. This large shared cache can hold significant portions of game data, reducing the frequency of memory accesses that would otherwise go to system RAM. In Inside, where the game world is relatively small and self-contained, the cache may help maintain consistent frame pacing, as evidenced by the relatively narrow min-max FPS ranges at Medium settings across all resolutions.

The CPU's 95th percentile ranking among all processors places it alongside workstation-class parts. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (76513, 1.6% lower), AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (76492, 1.6% lower), Intel Core i9-14900K (79097, 1.7% higher), and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (76212, 2% lower). This positioning means that for CPU-bound scenarios, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 would not be the limiting factor in almost any game, including Inside.

However, the measured FPS data for this combo shows no evidence of CPU limitation. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 96 FPS, which is well below what the CPU could sustain. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar FPS numbers at 1080p and 1440p Low, since the CPU workload per frame would not change with resolution. Instead, the FPS drops from 96 to 69, confirming the GPU is the constraining component. The CPU's role in this system is to feed the GPU with data and commands fast enough, which it does with substantial headroom to spare.