Inside

# Inside — AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 + AMD Radeon RX 7800M

FAQ

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

A: The measured average is 143 FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings. At Medium settings, the average rises to 229 FPS, with a minimum of 194 FPS and maximum of 263 FPS.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 35,314 in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Its average benchmark score of 77,740 is 1.6% higher than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (76,513) and 2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (76,212), but 1.7% lower than the Intel Core i9-14900K (79,097).

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all tested GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7800M sits in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 27,883 places it within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020) and 0.3% below the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (27,973).

Q: Does the combo maintain playable frame rates at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 61. This is above the 60 FPS threshold, though the margin is slim. High settings at 4K yields 65 FPS average, while Medium produces 103 FPS with a minimum of 88 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU score in synthetic DirectX benchmarks?

A: In PassMark DirectX 11, the GPU scores 176; in DirectX 12 it scores 89; in DirectX 10 it scores 99; and in DirectX 9 it scores 174. The PassMark G3D score is 17,613.

Q: What memory configuration does the CPU support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It also supports ECC memory.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800M is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The GPU contains 28,100 million transistors across a 346 mm² die, with a transistor density of 81.2M per mm². It features 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation pipelines, alongside 60 ray tracing cores.

Clock behavior is defined by three distinct figures: a base clock of 1295 MHz, a game clock of 2145 MHz, and a boost clock of 2335 MHz. The memory subsystem consists of 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Memory runs at 2250 MHz, which translates to 18 Gbps effective. Pixel fill rate is 224.2 GPixel/s, texture fill rate is 560.4 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute reaches 35.87 TFLOPS.

In Inside, a 2D side-scrolling puzzle platformer, the GPU's raw throughput matters less than consistent frame pacing and memory bandwidth. The game's art style uses silhouettes and atmospheric lighting, which places moderate demand on pixel shading and fill rate. The RX 7800M's 96 ROPs and 224.2 GPixel/s pixel rate are sufficient to handle the game's rendering at high resolutions. The 12 GB VRAM is more than adequate for this title, as Inside's texture sets are modest by modern standards. The GPU's 73rd percentile ranking among all GPUs indicates it is positioned above the median, while its nearest rivals—the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (0.2% higher average score), AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (0.3% higher), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (0.5% higher)—show that this GPU sits in a tightly contested performance band.

The GPU's API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,994 provides a synthetic reference point. In PassMark, the G2D score is 892 and the GPU compute score is 9,342. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 120,778 and Vulkan score of 126,668 offer additional compute-oriented data points. For a game like Inside, the GPU's architecture overhead at lower resolutions becomes evident: the frame rate scales strongly as resolution drops, suggesting the GPU is not the primary constraint at 1080p.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo. It operates with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of 55 W. The processor 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. It uses the AMD Socket FP11 and supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics is Radeon 8060S, and the CPU has a production status of Active with a release date of 2025-01-05.

Benchmark scores for the CPU show strong multi-threaded capabilities: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 35,314, Geekbench multi-core scores 20,992, and PassMark multithread scores 54,934. Single-thread performance is also solid, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 2,044 and Geekbench single-core at 2,464. The PassMark single-thread score is 4,147. The CPU's average benchmark score of 77,740 places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs.

In Inside, the CPU's role is less demanding than in many other titles because the game's physics and logic are relatively lightweight. However, the CPU's high single-thread performance (2,044 in Cinebench R23 single-core) ensures that the game's main thread does not become a bottleneck at high frame rates. The 16 cores and 32 threads provide substantial headroom for background tasks or streaming. The 64 MB of shared L3 cache helps with data locality, which can reduce latency in frame-time-sensitive scenarios.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (average score 76,513, 1.6% lower), AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (76,492, 1.6% lower), Intel Core i9-14900K (79,097, 1.7% higher), and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (76,212, 2% lower). This places the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 in the upper echelon of processors, with performance deltas of less than 2% against these competitors. For Inside, the CPU is unlikely to be the limiting component at any resolution tested, given the game's modest computational demands.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are as follows: Low settings produce 286 FPS, Medium produces 229 FPS with a minimum of 194 FPS and maximum of 263 FPS, High produces 143 FPS, and Ultra produces 136 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a drop of 150 FPS, with the largest single-step decrease occurring between Medium (229 FPS) and High (143 FPS), a reduction of 86 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 206 FPS, Medium at 164 FPS with a minimum of 140 FPS and maximum of 189 FPS, High at 103 FPS, and Ultra at 98 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 42 FPS, while Medium to High costs 61 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 5 FPS. This suggests diminishing returns from High to Ultra at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 129 FPS, Medium at 103 FPS with a minimum of 88 FPS and maximum of 119 FPS, High at 65 FPS, and Ultra at 61 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 38 FPS, while High to Ultra is only 4 FPS. The minimum FPS of 88 at 4K Medium indicates that even in demanding scenes, the combo maintains a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low settings deliver roughly double the frame rate of Ultra settings. At 1080p, Low yields 286 FPS versus 136 FPS at Ultra (2.1x difference). At 1440p, the ratio is 206 FPS to 98 FPS (2.1x). At 4K, it is 129 FPS to 61 FPS (2.1x). This uniform scaling suggests that the performance cost per setting tier is consistent regardless of resolution.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 1440p to 4K reveals how the component bottleneck shifts. At Low settings, moving from 1080p (286 FPS) to 1440p (206 FPS) costs 80 FPS, a 28% reduction. From 1440p to 4K (129 FPS), the drop is 77 FPS, a 37% reduction. The total drop from 1080p to 4K at Low is 157 FPS, or 55%.

At Medium settings, the progression is 229 FPS (1080p) to 164 FPS (1440p) to 103 FPS (4K). The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 65 FPS (28%), and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 61 FPS (37%). The total reduction is 126 FPS, or 55%.

At High settings, the numbers are 143 FPS (1080p) to 103 FPS (1440p) to 65 FPS (4K). The first drop is 40 FPS (28%), and the second is 38 FPS (37%). Total reduction is 78 FPS, or 55%.

At Ultra settings, the progression is 136 FPS (1080p) to 98 FPS (1440p) to 61 FPS (4K). The drops are 38 FPS (28%) and 37 FPS (38%). Total reduction is 75 FPS, or 55%.

The consistent 55% reduction from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates that the scaling is resolution-bound rather than setting-bound. The GPU becomes the primary limiting component at higher resolutions, as evidenced by the 4K Ultra result of 61 FPS sitting close to the 60 FPS threshold. The CPU's high single-thread performance (2,044 in Cinebench R23 single-core) ensures that at 1080p Low (286 FPS), the CPU is still not the bottleneck; the frame rate is instead limited by the GPU's ability to issue draw calls and process the game's rendering pipeline. The uniform percentage drops suggest that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth (432.0 GB/s) scale predictably with pixel count.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimal settings. At 4K, Medium settings deliver 103 FPS average with a minimum of 88 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS playability threshold. High settings at 4K drop to 65 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 61 FPS—both playable but with less headroom. The 4K Medium configuration offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, as the average frame rate is 42 FPS higher than High while the minimum stays above 85 FPS.

At 1440p, Medium settings produce 164 FPS average with a minimum of 140 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate displays. High settings at 1440p yield 103 FPS, still sufficient for most displays. Ultra at 1440p provides 98 FPS, only 5 FPS lower than High, making it a viable option for users prioritizing visual fidelity. The data shows that the High-to-Ultra gap at 1440p is minimal (5 FPS), so users with capable displays may prefer Ultra.

At 1080p, all settings exceed 136 FPS, with Low reaching 286 FPS. Medium at 229 FPS with a minimum of 194 FPS offers the best experience for competitive or fast-paced play, while High at 143 FPS and Ultra at 136 FPS provide nearly identical performance. The 7 FPS difference between High and Ultra at 1080p suggests that Ultra is essentially free in terms of performance cost.

The most efficient settings across all resolutions are Medium, as they consistently maintain frame rates more than 60% above the next tier down. The minimum FPS values at Medium (194 at 1080p, 140 at 1440p, 88 at 4K) indicate that the combo handles demanding scenes without significant frame drops.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7800M ranks 1,877 out of 2,887 tested combinations for Inside. This places it in the 35th percentile of all combos for this specific game, meaning roughly two-thirds of tested configurations perform better.

This ranking is notable because the individual components have strong database standings: the CPU sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU in the 73rd percentile. The combo's lower game-specific ranking suggests that Inside is more sensitive to GPU performance than CPU performance, and the RX 7800M's position relative to its nearest rivals—0.2% below the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X, 0.5% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, and 0.8% below the AMD FirePro S7150—places it in a competitive but not overwhelmingly powerful segment.

The measured frame rates confirm this analysis. The combo achieves 61 FPS at 4K Ultra and 136 FPS at 1080p Ultra, which are respectable but not class-leading figures. The 4K Medium result of 103 FPS demonstrates that the hardware is capable of smooth gameplay when settings are adjusted. The rank of 1,877 out of 2,887 indicates that while this combination is above the median, there are many combos with stronger GPU configurations that achieve higher frame rates in Inside. The CPU's high percentile ranking does not translate to a top-tier game-specific ranking, underscoring that this title is primarily GPU-limited.