Inside

Inside is not a typical GPU stress test. It is a 2D puzzle-platformer from 2016, and the measured frame rates for the Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT combination reflect that reality. The data reveals a system that is massively overqualified for the task, with performance scaling that points almost entirely to GPU load rather than any CPU limitation. The results are less about whether the game is playable and more about how the hardware behaves when the rendering load is artificially inflated by resolution, and how the CPU’s strong single-thread performance keeps things moving without becoming a bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The most revealing pattern in the measured data is how average frame rates collapse as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the combo produces 193 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 drops that to 139 FPS, a reduction of 54 FPS, and at 3840x2160 it falls further to 87 FPS. That is a steady, predictable decline that strongly indicates the GPU is the primary scaling component. The RX 7700 XT is doing the heavy lifting as pixel count rises, while the i3-12100F appears to have ample headroom left on the table.

The Low settings row makes this even clearer. At 1080p Low, the system hits 315 FPS, which is a very high number for any game. At 1440p Low, it still manages 278 FPS, and even at 4K Low it holds 175 FPS. The gap between 1080p and 4K at Low is 140 FPS, which is a larger absolute drop than at High settings, but the percentages tell the real story. From 1080p to 4K, Low settings drop by about 44%, while High settings drop by about 55%. The steeper percentage decline at High suggests that the GPU’s shading and memory resources are being taxed more heavily by the higher quality presets, which is expected behavior for a game with simple geometry but potentially demanding post-processing.

What is absent from this data is any sign of a CPU stall. If the i3-12100F were the limiting factor, we would expect to see frame rates plateau or even invert at lower resolutions, where CPU work dominates. Instead, the 1080p numbers are the highest in the entire dataset, with Ultra at 184 FPS and Medium at 291 FPS. This is a classic GPU-bound scenario, where the CPU is fast enough to feed the GPU at any resolution tested. The implication is that for Inside, this processor is never the bottleneck, and the 4-core, 8-thread design with a 4.30 GHz boost clock is more than sufficient for the game’s logic and draw call submission.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT brings a substantial amount of hardware to a game that does not need it. The GPU has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Inside is a 2016 title with a muted color palette and simple textures, so it is highly unlikely to approach the 12 GB VRAM capacity at any of the tested settings. The data supports this: even at 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 83, which indicates the GPU is still rendering the scene without running out of memory or hitting a bandwidth wall. The 432.0 GB/s figure is likely overkill for this workload, but it does ensure that texture streaming and framebuffer operations are never a concern.

The GPU’s clock behavior is more interesting than its memory pool. The boost clock is rated at 2544 MHz, with a game clock of 2171 MHz. Given that the frame rates at 1080p are extremely high, the GPU is likely operating near its boost ceiling in those scenarios. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 83, which suggests the GPU is still running at a high clock but is simply overwhelmed by the pixel fill rate required. The pixel rate is 244.2 GPixel/s, and with 96 ROPs, the card can push a lot of pixels, but 4K is a demanding target for any hardware. The fact that it holds 83 FPS at 4K Ultra confirms the RDNA 3.0 architecture’s efficiency, even on a title that does not use advanced features like ray tracing.

Another angle is the FP32 compute of 35.17 TFLOPS. Inside does not use heavy compute shaders for physics or lighting, so this raw throughput is largely unused. The benchmark results for the GPU show a Passmark G3D score of 22547, which puts it in the 67th percentile of all GPUs. That score is indicative of a mid-to-high-range card, but in Inside, the actual workload is so light that the GPU is almost idle at lower resolutions. The evidence is the 315 FPS at 1080p Low, which is likely hitting the game’s engine limits or the display’s refresh rate rather than the GPU’s compute limits.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT ranks 1382 out of 3716 tested combos for Inside. That places it in the top 37% of all configurations in the database, which is a solid showing for a mid-range CPU paired with a high-end GPU. The rank is a composite measure that likely accounts for all resolutions and settings, and given the high frame rates observed, the position makes sense. It is not a top-tier ranking because there are many combos with faster CPUs and GPUs, but it is clearly above the median.

What is notable is that the CPU’s individual percentile is 68, meaning it is better than 68% of all CPUs in the database. The GPU’s percentile is 67, which is almost identical. This symmetry suggests that the combo is balanced, with neither component dragging the other down significantly. However, in a game like Inside, the GPU is the one being stressed by resolution changes, while the CPU sits comfortably. The rank of 1382 implies that there are 1381 combos that perform better, likely featuring higher-end GPUs or CPUs with more cores. But for a 4-core processor, the i3-12100F holds its own, thanks to its high single-core performance.

The nearest rivals for the CPU are informative. The Intel Core i5-9500 has an average benchmark score of 13452, which is 0.3% lower than the i3-12100F’s 13494. That is a negligible difference, indicating that the i3-12100F is competitive with a six-core processor from an older generation in synthetic tests. The Intel Core 5 120UL is 0.7% higher, and the Intel Core i7-1250U is 1.1% higher, but these are all within a rounding error. In Inside, this means the CPU is not a differentiator; the GPU is. The combo rank reflects that, as it is more dependent on the RX 7700 XT’s capabilities than the CPU’s.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

Starting at 1920x1080, the Low preset produces an average of 315 FPS. Medium drops to 291 FPS, with a minimum of 247 and a maximum of 334. High is next at 193 FPS, and Ultra is 184 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 24 FPS, which is modest, but the gap between Medium and High is a significant 98 FPS. This suggests that the High preset enables effects that are disproportionately expensive on the GPU, such as higher-resolution shadows or more complex lighting. Ultra only adds 9 FPS of cost over High, which is surprising, indicating that the jump from High to Ultra is not as demanding as the jump from Medium to High.

Moving to 2560x1440, Low produces 278 FPS, Medium 222 FPS (with a min of 189 and max of 256), High 139 FPS, and Ultra 132 FPS. The pattern holds: Medium to High is a steep drop of 83 FPS, while High to Ultra is only 7 FPS. At this resolution, the GPU is starting to feel the load, but the frame rates are still well above 120 FPS for all presets. The minimum FPS on Medium is 189, which is still extremely smooth for any display. The data indicates that 1440p is the sweet spot for this combo, offering high frame rates without any risk of dipping below playable levels.

At 3840x2160, the numbers become more grounded. Low is 175 FPS, Medium is 140 FPS (min 119, max 161), High is 87 FPS, and Ultra is 83 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 35 FPS, and from Medium to High is 53 FPS. High to Ultra is again minor at 4 FPS. The minimum FPS of 119 on Medium is still above 60, so even the most demanding settings are playable. The 4K Ultra result of 83 FPS is the only time the combo dips below 100 FPS on average, but it is still a very playable frame rate. The consistency of the High-to-Ultra delta across all resolutions suggests that the Ultra preset adds little visual fidelity for the cost, which is a key finding for settings recommendations.

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

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor based on Alder Lake, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. It has 12 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. In Inside, the game’s logic is likely single-threaded or lightly threaded, so the 4 cores are more than enough. The single-thread performance is strong, as evidenced by the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1674 and the Geekbench single-core score of 1932. These numbers translate directly to game performance, as Inside does not leverage multi-core scaling.

The 3DMark scores provide further insight. The 3DMark 2-thread score is 1659, while the 4-thread score jumps to 2859, and the 8-thread score is 4026. This scaling from 2 to 4 threads shows that the processor benefits from its hyper-threading, but the jump from 4 to 8 threads is minimal (2859 to 4026), indicating that the extra threads are not fully utilized in synthetic tests. In Inside, the game likely uses 2-4 threads, so the CPU is not stressed. The Passmark multithread score of 14015 is respectable, but the single-thread score of 3444 is what matters more for this title.

The CPU’s TDP is 58 W, which is low, and it uses an Intel Socket 1700. The boost clock of 4.30 GHz is high for a 4-core chip, and in Inside, the CPU probably stays at or near that boost clock for the entire session. The benchmark data shows a 3DMark single-thread score of 893, which is lower than the 2-thread score, but that is expected for a single-thread test. In practice, the CPU is never the limiting factor, as the 1080p Low result of 315 FPS demonstrates. If the CPU were weak, we would see frame rates cap out around 150-200 FPS, but the data shows no such cap. The processor is effectively invisible in this game, which is the highest compliment for a CPU in a GPU-bound scenario.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 291, with a minimum of 247 and a maximum of 334. That is an incredibly smooth experience, and the minimum is still far above any display’s refresh rate. At 1440p Medium, the average is 222 FPS, with a minimum of 189, which is still excellent. Even at 4K Medium, the average is 140 FPS, with a minimum of 119, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for most monitors. Medium is the clear winner because it avoids the massive performance penalty of the High preset while likely retaining most of the visual enhancements.

The High preset is the worst value. From Medium to High, the average FPS drops by 98 at 1080p, 83 at 1440p, and 53 at 4K. That is a substantial cost for what is likely a marginal visual improvement in a game with a muted art style. The Ultra preset is even more puzzling, as it only costs 9 FPS over High at 1080p, 7 FPS at 1440p, and 4 FPS at 4K. This suggests that Ultra is not adding much over High, so if a user wants the highest quality, they might as well use Ultra since the cost is tiny. However, the jump from Medium to High is so steep that it is hard to justify.

For users with a 60 Hz display, any preset at any resolution is overkill, as even 4K Ultra at 83 FPS is above 60. For a 144 Hz display, 1440p Medium at 222 FPS is ideal, and 4K Medium at 140 FPS is also viable. For a 240 Hz display, 1080p Medium at 291 FPS is the only option that comes close to saturating the refresh rate, but 1440p Medium at 222 FPS is still very fast. The Low preset offers the highest frame rates, but it likely sacrifices too much visual quality for a game that is already simple. Medium is the recommendation, with Ultra as a free upgrade if the user wants maximum quality without worrying about the negligible FPS cost.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the average FPS at 4K with Ultra settings for this combo?

A: The average FPS is 83 at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is the lowest average measured across all resolutions and presets, but it is still above 60 FPS, making it playable on a standard 60 Hz display.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in Inside?

A: No, the data does not indicate a CPU bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 315 FPS, and the frame rate scales down as resolution increases, which is a sign of GPU-bound performance. The Intel Core i3-12100F has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz and strong single-thread performance, which is sufficient for this game.

Q: How does the combo rank compared to other tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 1382 out of 3716 tested combos for Inside, placing it in the top 37% of all configurations. The CPU is in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU is in the 67th percentile, showing a balanced pairing.

Q: What is the difference in average FPS between Medium and High settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Medium produces an average of 222 FPS, while High produces 139 FPS. The difference is 83 FPS, which is the largest performance gap between any two consecutive presets at that resolution.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory bandwidth, and is it sufficient for this game?

A: The GPU has a memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s from its 12 GB GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. This is likely more than sufficient for Inside, as the game’s textures are simple, and the frame rates remain high even at 4K.

Q: What are the exact frame times for 1080p Medium?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 291, with a minimum of 247 and a maximum of 334. This indicates a very consistent frame pacing, with no severe dips that would cause stuttering.