Inside

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile is a capable combination for Inside, securing the 1,943rd position out of 3,716 tested combos. This places the pairing in the upper half of the database, indicating that while it is not a top-tier enthusiast setup, it delivers consistently smooth performance for this title. The percentile ranks for the individual components support this positioning: the CPU sits at the 95th percentile among all tested processors, while the GPU is at the 75th percentile. The data suggests a well-balanced system where the processor provides ample headroom, but the graphics card ultimately dictates the upper limits of performance in this game.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s overall rank of 1,943 out of 3,716 represents a solid mid-to-upper tier result. This is not a benchmark-topping configuration, but it is far from a low-end outlier. The CPU’s percentile rank of 95th is notably higher than the GPU’s 75th, which implies that the processor is the stronger component in this pairing relative to other hardware in the database. In practice, this means the RTX 5070 Mobile is likely the primary constraint for achieving higher frame rates, especially at lower resolutions where CPU overhead is less of a factor.

Comparing the CPU to its nearest rivals in the database, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 posts an average benchmark score of 77,740. This is 1.6% higher than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, both of which score 76,513 and 76,492 respectively. It also leads the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX by 2.0%, which scores 76,212. However, it trails the Intel Core i9-14900K, which scores 79,097, a difference of -1.7%. These margins are tight, indicating that the CPU’s performance is competitive with high-end desktop and workstation parts, despite being a mobile chip with a 55 W TDP.

For the GPU, the RTX 5070 Mobile’s average score of 29,928 is nearly identical to that of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti, which scores 29,945 (a delta of -0.1%). It also edges out the RTX 2080 Ti by 0.5% (29,783) but falls behind the AMD Radeon RX 6800 by -0.6% (30,095) and the RX 6700 by -1.7% (30,433). The performance gap between these rivals is minimal, all within a 2% range, which suggests that the 5070 Mobile offers last-generation enthusiast-level performance in this specific workload.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile’s role in Inside is defined by its 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus. This configuration yields a memory bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s, which is adequate for the game’s art style and effects. The GPU’s base clock is 907 MHz, with a boost clock of 1,425 MHz. The relatively low boost clock, combined with a 50 W TDP, indicates this is a power-efficient mobile part, not a high-frequency desktop replacement. The 4,608 shading units and 144 tensor cores are present to handle the game’s rendering, but the clock speeds are the limiting factor in raw throughput.

In terms of compute, the GPU delivers 13.13 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. This figure is modest, but it is sufficient for Inside, which is not a graphically demanding title by modern standards. The 8 GB VRAM is more than enough for the game’s textures, even at 4K resolution. The pixel rate of 68.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 205.2 GTexel/s suggest that the GPU can handle fill-rate-heavy scenes without bottlenecking. The data shows that at 4K High settings, the combo averages 74 FPS, which confirms that the GPU has enough headroom to keep the game smooth without relying on upscaling or reduced settings.

The GPU’s benchmark scores in the database reinforce this view. Its Passmark G3D score of 20,355 places it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 116,960 and OpenCL score of 122,238 indicate strong compute potential. For a game like Inside, which relies on 2D rendering and lighting effects, the GPU’s DirectX 12 score of 93 in Passmark is more relevant than raw compute. The data suggests that the RTX 5070 Mobile is never the bottleneck at 1080p, but it becomes the limiting factor at 4K Ultra where the frame rate drops to 71 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on the optimal settings for Inside. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers an average of 328 FPS, which is far beyond the refresh rate of most displays. The Medium preset yields 262 FPS, still exceptionally high, with a minimum of 223 FPS and a maximum of 302 FPS. The High preset drops to 164 FPS, and Ultra to 156 FPS. Given the high frame rates, even the Ultra preset at 1080p is playable, but the jump from High to Ultra only costs 8 FPS, making Ultra the best choice for visual fidelity without a meaningful performance hit.

At 1440p, the pattern continues. Low produces 236 FPS, Medium 189 FPS (minimum 160, maximum 217), High 118 FPS, and Ultra 112 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is again small, only 6 FPS, so Ultra remains viable for a smoother visual experience. However, if maximizing frame rate is the goal, Medium offers a significant 71 FPS advantage over High while still looking substantially better than Low.

At 4K, the recommendation shifts. Low delivers 148 FPS, which is still smooth, but Medium drops to 118 FPS (minimum 101, maximum 136). High falls to 74 FPS, and Ultra to 71 FPS. The jump from High to Ultra is negligible (3 FPS), but the drop from Medium to High is substantial (44 FPS). For a game like Inside, which has a slower pace, 74 FPS is acceptable, but Medium offers a much safer margin above 60 FPS. The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot at 4K, providing 118 FPS with a minimum of 101 FPS, ensuring no noticeable stutter.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the RTX 5070 Mobile and Ryzen AI Max+ 395 combination shows extreme headroom. The Low preset hits 328 FPS, which confirms the CPU’s strength, as even a weaker GPU could likely achieve high numbers at these settings. Medium drops to 262 FPS with a minimum of 223 FPS and a maximum of 302 FPS. High and Ultra are closer together: 164 FPS and 156 FPS respectively. The delta between Low and Ultra is 172 FPS, indicating that the GPU is not the primary limiter at this resolution until the higher presets are engaged.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance scales down proportionally. Low delivers 236 FPS, a 28% reduction from 1080p Low. Medium produces 189 FPS, with a minimum of 160 FPS and a maximum of 217 FPS. High and Ultra again cluster together, with 118 FPS and 112 FPS respectively. The 4 FPS difference between High and Ultra is within the margin of measurement error, meaning the visual uplift from Ultra comes at virtually no cost. The minimum FPS for Medium (160) is still far above the refresh rate of most 1440p monitors, making this preset ideal for high-refresh displays.

At 3840x2160, the GPU begins to show its limits. Low still manages 148 FPS, which is impressive for 4K, but the scaling is steeper. Medium drops to 118 FPS, with a minimum of 101 FPS and a maximum of 136 FPS. High falls to 74 FPS, and Ultra to 71 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 77 FPS, which is substantial. The minimum FPS at Medium (101) is the only metric that stays above 100 FPS, making it the safest choice for a consistent 4K experience. High and Ultra are still playable but hover near the 70 FPS mark, which could be noticeable in fast-moving scenes.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data shows a clear trend in resolution scaling. From 1080p to 1440p at High settings, the frame rate drops from 164 FPS to 118 FPS, a 28% reduction. From 1440p to 4K at High, it drops further to 74 FPS, a 37% reduction. This non-linear scaling suggests that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor as resolution increases. At 1080p, the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU, but at 4K, the GPU’s pixel throughput becomes the bottleneck.

At Low settings, the scaling is more linear: 328 FPS at 1080p, 236 FPS at 1440p, and 148 FPS at 4K. This indicates that at low graphical loads, both the CPU and GPU are working in tandem, and the frame rate is constrained by the overall system capability rather than a single component. However, at Ultra settings, the drop from 1080p (156 FPS) to 1440p (112 FPS) is 28%, and to 4K (71 FPS) is 37%. The steeper decline at 4K Ultra points to the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and memory bandwidth being sufficient for the game’s needs, but the raw compute power (13.13 TFLOPS) is not enough to maintain high frame rates at the highest resolution.

The data indicates that the limiting component shifts with resolution. At 1080p, the CPU is likely the primary driver, as the GPU can easily render frames. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck, as evidenced by the 50% drop in FPS from 1440p to 4K at Ultra settings. This is a classic sign of a system where the CPU has more headroom than the GPU, which aligns with the component percentile ranks.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution to play Inside with this combo for a 60 FPS experience?*

A: All tested resolutions and settings achieve an average FPS above 60, except for 4K Ultra (71 FPS) and 4K High (74 FPS). The safest bet is 4K Medium, which delivers 118 FPS with a minimum of 101 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rival in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 5070 Mobile’s average score of 29,928 is 0.1% lower than the RTX 3070 Ti (29,945), but 0.5% higher than the RTX 2080 Ti (29,783). It is 0.6% behind the RX 6800 and 1.7% behind the RX 6700.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck at 1080p?

A: No, the data suggests the CPU is not a bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 328 FPS, which is far higher than any display’s refresh rate. The CPU’s 95th percentile rank and high multicore scores (35,314 in Cinebench R23) provide ample performance.

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

A: At 1440p, High averages 118 FPS, while Ultra averages 112 FPS. The difference is only 6 FPS, making Ultra a free visual upgrade.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM cause any issues at 4K?

A: The data shows no issues. At 4K Medium, the combo delivers 118 FPS with a minimum of 101 FPS, indicating that 8 GB is sufficient for this game’s texture requirements.

Q: How does the CPU’s performance compare to the Intel Core i9-14900K?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average benchmark score of 77,740, which is 1.7% lower than the Core i9-14900K’s score of 79,097. This is a small margin, showing the mobile chip is competitive with a high-end desktop processor.

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 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. This is a high-end mobile chip with a 55 W TDP, which is remarkable for the core count. The CPU’s cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB of L3 cache. This large L3 cache is beneficial for games like Inside that may have repeated data access patterns.

In this game, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. The benchmark data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution. Even at 4K Ultra, where the GPU is clearly the bottleneck, the CPU still provides enough single-thread performance (2,044 in Cinebench R23 single-core) to avoid stutters. The multi-threaded score of 35,314 in Cinebench R23 is among the highest for mobile processors, but Inside is not a heavily threaded title, so these cores are largely underutilized.

The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s via quad-channel LPDDR5X is more than sufficient for the GPU to access system memory if needed, though the GPU has its own 384.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 95th percentile rank confirms that this CPU outperforms the vast majority of tested processors. Its nearest rivals, including the Threadripper PRO 9945WX and EPYC Embedded 8224P, are workstation parts with similar average scores, but the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 achieves this within a mobile power envelope. In Inside, the CPU’s high single-core performance ensures that frame pacing remains consistent, even when the GPU is pushed to its limits at 4K.