Inside

The Intel Core i3-12100F paired with the Intel Arc B390 presents a fascinating case study in bottleneck dynamics when running Inside. The data reveals a system that is profoundly limited by its graphics solution, yet the CPU demonstrates enough headroom to suggest that a more powerful GPU would unlock significantly higher frame rates. Analysis of the measured FPS across resolutions shows a classic pattern of GPU-bound scaling, where the performance delta between settings widens as resolution increases, placing the onus squarely on the integrated graphics.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate data from 1080p to 4K tells a clear story about where the performance ceiling lies. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 156 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low drops that to 112 FPS, a 28.2% reduction. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 70 FPS, a further 37.5% decline from the 1440p figure. This steep drop-off as pixel count increases is the hallmark of a GPU-limited scenario; the Arc B390’s fill rate and shading capacity are being saturated.

This trend is consistent across all settings presets. At Medium settings, the average FPS scales from 125 at 1080p, down to 90 at 1440p (a 28% decrease), and then to 56 at 4K (a 37.8% decrease from 1440p). The High preset shows similar behavior: 78 FPS at 1080p, 56 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K. The pattern is uniform: the performance penalty for moving to a higher resolution is substantial and nearly linear, which is characteristic of a system where the graphics processor is the primary constraint.

The data indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor in these tests. The i3-12100F, with its 4 cores and 8 threads, has more than enough processing power to feed the Arc B390 at these frame rates. The evidence lies in the fact that even at the lowest resolution and settings (1080p Low, 156 FPS), the frame rate does not plateau at a CPU-imposed limit. Instead, it continues to scale down as resolution increases, proving that the graphics hardware is the bottleneck. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions at the same settings, but that is not the case.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this specific CPU and GPU combination at rank 2547 out of 2887 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the bottom 11.8% of all tested systems, which is a sobering statistic for gaming performance. The ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU’s low benchmark scores; the Arc B390 sits at the 9th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU is much stronger, ranking at the 68th percentile against all CPUs.

This disparity in component strength is the defining characteristic of this combo. The GPU is a severe bottleneck, dragging the overall gaming experience down. The comboRankInGame of 2547 reflects this, positioning the system far behind the majority of tested configurations. The data suggests that this pairing is not optimized for gaming, as the CPU’s potential is left largely untapped. The GPU’s modest 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 places it alongside much older and less capable graphics solutions, which explains its low percentile ranking and the subsequent poor performance in this game.

Settings Recommendations

Given the GPU-bound nature of this system, the settings recommendations are straightforward but have significant implications for visual fidelity. The measured data shows that the only way to achieve a consistently smooth experience at higher resolutions is to drastically reduce graphical settings. At 3840x2160, the Low preset yields an average of 70 FPS, which is playable. However, the Medium preset at 4K drops to 56 FPS, and High falls to 35 FPS, making them less ideal for a smooth experience.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset achieves a comfortable 112 FPS, while Medium still holds at 90 FPS. For a 60Hz display, 1440p Medium is the optimal balance, offering a 90 FPS average with a minimum of 76 FPS, ensuring no significant stutter. At 1920x1080, the system has ample headroom. The Medium preset delivers a 125 FPS average with a minimum of 106 FPS, providing a very smooth experience. The Low preset at 1080p achieves 156 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate displays, but the visual compromise may not be worth it given the Medium preset’s strong performance.

The data indicates that users should prioritize the Medium preset when possible. It provides a significant boost over Low settings while maintaining frame rates that are substantially higher than High or Ultra. For 4K gaming, Low is the only viable option for a consistent 60+ FPS experience. The Ultra preset is effectively not recommended at any resolution, as it yields the lowest frame rates across the board, with 74 FPS at 1080p being the only instance of it breaking the 60 FPS barrier.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following data represents the exact measured average frame rates for this combo across all tested configurations. This table serves as the definitive reference for what users can expect.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

| :--------- | :------- | :------ | :------ | :------ |

| 3840x2160 | High | 35 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 70 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 56 | 48 | 65 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 34 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 56 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 112 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 90 | 76 | 103 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 53 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 78 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 156 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 125 | 106 | 144 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 74 | - | - |

The data shows a clear hierarchy. At 1080p, the Low preset nearly doubles the frame rate of the Ultra preset (156 vs 74 FPS). At 4K, the Low preset offers double the performance of High (70 vs 35 FPS) and more than double that of Ultra (70 vs 34 FPS). The Medium preset consistently offers a middle ground, with frame rates that are roughly 60-80% higher than High settings at the same resolution. The minimum FPS data for Medium settings shows good consistency; at 1080p Medium, the minimum of 106 FPS is 84.8% of the average, indicating a stable frame pacing. At 4K Medium, the minimum of 48 FPS is 85.7% of the average, which is still a stable experience.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Inside at 4K resolution?*

A: Yes, but only at the Low settings preset. The measured average frame rate at 3840x2160 with Low settings is 70 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 56 FPS, while High and Ultra are below 40 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 1440p monitor?

A: The Medium preset is the optimal choice for 2560x1440. It achieves an average of 90 FPS with a minimum of 76 FPS, providing a smooth and stable experience. The Low preset is faster at 112 FPS, but the visual upgrade to Medium is significant.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset achieves an average of 74 FPS, which is slightly lower than the High preset’s 78 FPS. The performance cost of Ultra settings is minimal at this resolution, but the frame rate is still lower than Medium’s 125 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck for this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. This is evident from the significant frame rate drops as resolution increases. The CPU, which ranks in the 68th percentile of all processors, is not limiting performance, as frame rates scale predictably with pixel count.

Q: What kind of frame rate stability can I expect at Medium settings?

A: The frame pacing is consistent. At 1080p Medium, the minimum FPS is 106, which is 84.8% of the 125 FPS average. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 76 (84.4% of 90 FPS), and at 4K Medium, the minimum is 48 (85.7% of 56 FPS), indicating stable performance without major stutters.

Q: How does this combo’s performance rank among other tested systems?

A: This combination ranks 2547 out of 2887 tested combos for Inside, placing it in the lower percentile of systems. This low rank is primarily due to the Intel Arc B390’s modest performance, which sits at the 9th percentile of all GPUs.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture. It operates with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its performance metrics are respectable for a modern entry-level chip, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11860 and a single-core score of 1674. In this specific game, however, the CPU’s role is largely secondary to the GPU.

The game Inside is not particularly demanding on the processor. The benchmark results show that the frame rate is dictated by the graphics settings and resolution, not by the CPU’s processing capabilities. Even at 1080p Low, where the system achieves 156 FPS, the CPU is not the limiting factor. The data suggests that the i3-12100F has ample headroom, as its benchmark scores are significantly higher than what would be required to drive the Arc B390 to its limits. The CPU’s 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support are more than sufficient for this workload.

The CPU’s percentile ranking of 68 against all CPUs highlights its relative strength. Its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-9500 and the Intel Core 3 N355, have nearly identical average benchmark scores, with deltas of 0.3% and 0%, respectively. This places the i3-12100F in a solid performance tier. The fact that the system still performs poorly in Inside is a direct result of the GPU’s limitations, not the CPU’s. The Arc B390, with its low 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482, is the definitive constraining factor, making this a stark example of an unbalanced pairing where a capable CPU is held back by a weak graphics solution.