Inside

Inside is a puzzle platformer from 2016 that places minimal stress on modern hardware, and the measured results for the Intel Core i3-12100F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti confirm this. The data shows a combination that is overwhelmingly GPU-bound at higher settings, with the CPU providing ample headroom even at lower resolutions where frame rates climb past 300 FPS. The benchmark set covers four presets across three resolutions, offering a clear picture of how this specific pairing scales under load.

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 the Alder Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its benchmark profile shows strong single-threaded performance for a modern entry-level chip, with a 3dmark_single_thread score of 893 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1681. In the context of Inside, a title that is not heavily threaded, this single-thread capability is the primary driver of CPU performance, ensuring that the game's logic and physics calculations are processed without bottlenecking the frame delivery.

The processor's multi-threaded scores are respectable but not the defining factor here. A Cinebench R23 multicore score of 11912 and a Geekbench multicore score of 7413 indicate that the chip can handle parallel workloads, but the game's rendering pipeline rarely demands more than a few cores. The measured frame rates support this interpretation: at 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS reaches 313.4, which is a figure that would be impossible if the CPU were the limiting factor. Even at 1440p Low, the average is 225.7 FPS, further confirming that the i3-12100F's 4 cores and 8 threads are sufficient to feed the GTX 1080 Ti in this specific title.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the i3-12100F sits nearly level with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, which has an average benchmark score of 13534 against the i3's 13516, a delta of -0.1%. It also edges out the Intel Core i7-1250U by 0.4% and the Intel Core i3-10105 by 0.6%. The most telling comparison is against the Intel Core i7-7700K, where the i3-12100F is 1.8% ahead in average score. This suggests that for a game like Inside, the CPU's raw throughput is more than adequate, and its 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it is comfortably above the median for gaming workloads. The data does not show any scenario where the CPU drags down performance; instead, the frame rates scale cleanly with resolution and preset changes, which is the signature of a system where the CPU is not the constraint.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is a Pascal architecture card with 11 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 352-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 484.4 GB/s. Its base clock is 1481 MHz with a boost of 1582 MHz, and it houses 3584 shading units. For a game released in 2016, this GPU is substantially over-provisioned, which is reflected in the high frame rates across all tested configurations. The GPU's average benchmark score of 19402 places it at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 with a delta of 0%, and the NVIDIA TITAN Xp, which is 1.1% slower in average score.

The VRAM capacity of 11 GB is never a concern for Inside, as even at 4K Ultra, the game's texture and geometry demands are far below this threshold. The GPU's raw compute power, measured at 11.34 TFLOPS FP32, is what drives the exceptional performance. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 149.2, which is already high, but dropping the preset to Low yields 313.4 FPS, showing that the GPU can deliver over 300 frames per second when not constrained by pixel shading complexity. The pixel rate of 139.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 354.4 GTexel/s are more than sufficient to handle the game's 2D side-scrolling rendering, which typically involves limited geometry but can still be fill-rate intensive at high resolutions.

The data shows a clear pattern: as resolution increases, the average FPS drops, but not dramatically. From 1080p High (160.2 FPS) to 1440p High (115.3 FPS), the drop is 28%, and to 4K High (70.8 FPS), it is 56% from the 1080p baseline. This scaling is consistent with a GPU that is being pushed harder at higher resolutions, but the absolute values remain playable. The GTX 1080 Ti's performance in this game is such that even at 4K Ultra, the average FPS of 70.9 is well above the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that this pairing is capable of maxing out the game at 4K with no compromises.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience depends on the target refresh rate and resolution. At 1080p, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 149.2 FPS, which is sufficient for high-refresh-rate monitors, but the High preset at 160.2 FPS offers a marginal improvement with likely similar visual fidelity. The Medium preset at 252 FPS and Low at 313.4 FPS are excessive for most displays, and the visual downgrade is not worth the frame rate increase when the Ultra preset already exceeds 144 FPS.

At 1440p, the Ultra preset averages 106.9 FPS, which is excellent for a 144 Hz display, while High at 115.3 FPS is slightly better. The Medium preset at 179.9 FPS is overkill for most monitors, but it does provide a buffer for demanding scenes. The Low preset at 225.7 FPS is unnecessary unless targeting a 240 Hz panel, but the visual compromise is substantial for a game that relies on atmospheric lighting and shadow.

At 4K, the High preset averages 70.8 FPS, while Ultra averages 70.9 FPS. This near-identical performance suggests that the Ultra preset adds negligible overhead compared to High, making it the better choice for 4K gaming on a 60 Hz display. The Medium preset at 111.8 FPS is a strong option for those with a 120 Hz 4K panel, but the visual difference between Medium and High is likely minimal in a game with such stylized graphics. The Low preset at 141.7 FPS is the only way to approach high refresh rates at 4K, but it sacrifices too much visual quality for a puzzle platformer. In summary, the data recommends Ultra at 1080p and 1440p for the best visual experience, and Ultra at 4K for a locked 60 FPS experience with maximum fidelity.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Inside at 4K with maximum settings?

A: Yes. The measured data shows an average FPS of 70.9 at 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck at 1080p?

A: No. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 313.4, indicating that the Intel Core i3-12100F provides ample headroom and is not limiting performance in this game.

Q: How does the GTX 1080 Ti compare to its closest rival in this test?

A: The GTX 1080 Ti has an average benchmark score of 19402, which is identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (delta of 0%), and it is 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN Xp.

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

A: The High preset averages 115.3 FPS, while Ultra averages 106.9 FPS, a difference of 8.4 FPS in favor of High, which is a 7.3% performance gain.

Q: Is the 11 GB VRAM on the GTX 1080 Ti necessary for this game?

A: The data does not indicate any VRAM limitation. The game runs at high frame rates across all presets and resolutions, and the 11 GB capacity is far above the requirements for Inside.

Q: Does the CPU's single-thread performance matter more than its multi-thread score for this title?

A: Yes. The game relies on single-threaded performance, and the i3-12100F's 3dmark_single_thread score of 893 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1681 help achieve frame rates above 300 FPS at 1080p Low, showing that multi-threading is not critical.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent scaling pattern as resolution increases, which points to the GPU as the primary limiting component. At the High preset, the average FPS drops from 160.2 at 1080p to 115.3 at 1440p, a 28% reduction, and then to 70.8 at 4K, a further 38.6% reduction from 1440p. This steep drop at 4K is characteristic of a GPU that is being pushed to its limits by pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth demands, while the CPU remains idle.

The same pattern holds for the Medium preset, where 1080p averages 252 FPS, 1440p averages 179.9 FPS (a 28.6% drop), and 4K averages 111.8 FPS (a 37.9% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across presets suggests that the scaling is resolution-driven and not affected by the game's settings complexity. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rates to plateau or drop less steeply at higher resolutions, but that is not the case here.

At the Low preset, the drop from 1080p (313.4 FPS) to 1440p (225.7 FPS) is 28%, and to 4K (141.7 FPS) is 37.2% from 1440p. This is the largest absolute frame rate drop, but the percentage change is nearly identical to the High and Medium presets. This uniformity indicates that the GPU's rendering throughput scales linearly with the number of pixels, which is exactly what we would expect from a system where the graphics card is the sole constraint. The CPU's role is to maintain a high enough frame rate ceiling, and with a 3dmark_16_threads score of 4051 and a passmark_multithread score of 14015, it does so without issue.

The data strongly suggests that to improve performance at 4K, one would need a more powerful GPU, as the GTX 1080 Ti is already delivering 70.8 FPS at High settings, which is close to the 60 FPS target. The CPU's performance is not a factor, as its nearest rivals in average benchmark score are within 1.8% of its performance, and none of them would produce different results in this game. The limiting component is unequivocally the GPU, and the frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K is a textbook example of a pixel-bound workload.