Inside

Inside is a puzzle platformer from 2016, and the combination of an Intel Core i5-10400F with an AMD Radeon RX 9070 produces extremely high frame rates across all tested resolutions and presets. The data records a combo rank of 1790 out of 3716 tested configurations, positioning this pairing among the better-performing systems in the database. The measured FPS reveals that even at 4K Ultra, the game stays fluid, while at 1080p and 1440p the system delivers far more frames than a typical display can show.

FAQ

Q: What is the exact ranking of this CPU and GPU combination in the tested set of combinations?

A: The combo rank is 1790 out of 3716 total combos tested, placing it above the median configuration.

Q: How do the GPU and CPU benchmarks compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The RX 9070’s average benchmark score is 23877; it is 0.6% higher than the GeForce GTX TITAN Z, 1.1% higher than the GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile, 0.8% lower than the Radeon RX 6800S, and 1.2% lower than the RTX 2080 Super. On the CPU side, the i5-10400F’s average score is 14185, which is 0.2% higher than the Xeon 6756E, 0.5% higher than the EPYC 7552, but 0.3% lower than the Core 7 160UL and 0.6% lower than the Ryzen 3 7320C.

Q: What is the maximum FPS recorded for this combo in the test?

A: The highest average FPS is 233 at 1920×1080 with the Low preset. The same setting yields 208 FPS at 2560×1440 and 179 FPS at 3840×2160.

Q: At which resolution and preset does the system exceed 150 FPS at 4K?

A: Only the Medium preset at 3840×2160 reaches an average of 157 FPS, while each of High and Ultra return below 98 FPS.

Q: What does the min FPS for the Medium preset at each resolution indicate?

A: For Medium at 4K, the minimum observed FPS is 133, at 1440p it is 164, and at 1080p 183 FPS. This shows that even during the most demanding frames, the average frame times remain well within 60 FPS.

Q: What is the GPU memory configuration?

A: The RX 9070 features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is passed as memory 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective).

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 drives the visuals in this measuring. At its core, the Navi 48 chip uses 3584 shader units, 224 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, and its base clock is 1330 MHz with a boost of 2520 MHz and a game clock of 2070 MHz. The GPU computes at a pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 564.5 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance at 36.13 TFLOPS. These specifications translate into the large FPS counts seen in the charts.

The GPU’s average benchmark score is 23877, ranking it in the 69th percentile among all tested GPUs. Its close rivals in the database are spread within a narrow band: it outperforms the GTX TITAN Z by 0.6% and the RTX 3080 Mobile by 1.1%, while it stands 0.8% behind the RX 6800S and 1.2% below the RTX 2080 Super. Those margins are small, which suggests the RX 9070 is a near-peer to several high-end graphics cards. In Inside, such GPU strength is sufficient to push even the 4K Ultra preset to 93 FPS, which is comfortably above 60 for this game’s title.

How This Combo Ranks

The rank of 1790 out of 3716 combinations places the CPU‑GPU pair in the upper half of tested combinations. It outranks the CPU’s own 68th percentile standing, which again indicates that the GPU is the stronger component. The high absolute frame counts (see the next section) corroborate that ranking. When a configuration ranks at that position, it typically manages 60 FPS or more at 4K and much higher at lower resolutions. This is no exception: the weakest measured preset, Ultra at 2160p, still achieves 93 FPS on average, while the Low preset at 1080p tops out at 233. Against the relative standing of its GPU (69th percentile) and CPU (68th percentile), the final rank of 1790/3716 is consistent with an above-average combination.

Measured FPS

Below are the exact FPS numbers for each measured resolution and preset. Only the Medium preset includes the recorded min and max frame data during the test.

| Resolution | Setting | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

| 3840×2160 | High | 98 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 179 | – | – |

| 84×2160 | Medium | 157 | 133 | 180 |

| 640×2160 | Ultra | 93 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | High | 156 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 208 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 192 | 164 | 221 |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 148 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | High | 179 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Low | 233 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 215 | 183 | 247 |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 176 | – | – |

The FPS increases as resolution drops, but even at Ultra the system stays above 90 FPS at all three resolutions. The largest gap between the high and 4K is on High: from 179 FPS at 1080p to 98 FPS at 4K, a dip that shows the graphical load scaling with pixel count. Low and Medium also experience substantial reductions when going from 1080p to 4K, but the average still stays above 90 FPS.

Resolution Scaling

Looking at the Low preset as a pure scaling test: 233 →1080, 208→1440, 179→2160. That is a 23% drop from 1080p to 4K in raw terms (numbers not computed). But the absolute FPS stays high—179 at 4K is very smooth. The magnitude confirms that the GPU is the primary factor that responds to pixel count increase; the CPU does not retrieve the same load.

The same pattern appears for Medium: 215, 192, 157. High: 179, 156, 98. Ultra: 176, 148, 93. In each case, the frame rate drops noticeably at 4K compared to 1080p, with an average of 42 to 27 FPS decreasing. That indicates a GPU-bound monster. Since the i5‑5‑10400F provides stable performance even at low resolution, the CPU is not the bottleneck, or at least not in a way that would cap the FPS seen here.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6‑core, 12‑thread part with a 2.90 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost clock; it has a 12 MB L3 cache and 42.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth usage. Its measured performance scores are moderate, but ahead of many alternatives. For instance, its Cinebench R23 multi‑core score is 10283, and its single‑core score is1451, while 3DMark single‑thread reports 688. Within the CPU database, its average benchmark score of 14185 and a 68th percentile ranking put it in the upper‑mid region. The rival list shows that its nearest neighbors are within a single percentage point, and none of those rivals are drastically faster or slower. Since the measured FPS never dips below 93, the CPU clearly does not prevent the GPU from achieving those numbers. Even at 1080p Low, the system reaches 233 FPS, while the GPU is the obvious limiter: dropping the resolution from 4K to 1080p introduces 79 additional frames on Low (179→233), a difference that is entirely due to GPU load reduction.

A 6‑core / 12‑thread processor is sufficient for this game’s context. The multi‑core and single‑core tests show that the i5‑10400F has enough single‑thread capacity for worry‑free rendering and enough multi‑core performance for other background tasks. Its average benchmark score places it at the 68th percentile, which is above the global average. In this puzzle platformer, with frame rates exceeding 140 even at Ultra, the CPU contribution becomes second‑ary to the large amount of vertices, shaders, and pixel fill.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS, the highest visual fidelity with a safe margin is the Ultra preset at 1440p and 1K: both remain above 140 average, and the min FPS is not even recorded because it stays above 140. At 4K, Ultra still delivers 93 FPS, which can be used for a single display (60Hz) and is acceptable, but running Medium at 4K offers a much larger headroom: the average of 157 FPS, a min of 133, and a max of 180, guaranteeing a tear‑free experience. Choosing Low at 1080p is unnecessary unless the user intends to take advantage of a high‑refresh monitor with 233 FPS. Similarly, 1440p with Low gives 208 FPS, which is also above most monitors.

The most balanced in terms of visual depth and smoothness is the Medium setting across resolutions. It maintains a high average FPS while still providing better than Low visual quality (this indicates not a graphical inventory, but the preset itself). At 4K Medium achieves 157 FPS, which is nearly 70 more than Ultra. Given that this is a puzzle platformer, the char of bumps in the visual load doesn’t influence the control reaction, so Medium emerges as the recommended preset when using a 4K display. For 1440p, Ultra yields 148 FPS and 1080pg even harder 176, so Ultra is safe on those displays.

The min/max data for Medium also shows that the game’s fluctuations are very contained. At all three resolutions, the row from min to max is less 50 frames, indicating a consistent experience that avoids stutter. This is an extra reason to choose Medium if you prefer stable patterns.

Further analysis

The low preset's gains are mainly in the 4K range: 179 versus 157 Medium – a 22 FPS improvement, but you would also sacrifice shading. Since the base average is already > 90, choosing Medium or Ultra does not risk falling below 60. For this title, settings are a matter of taste; the hardware is well above the threshold.

---

Data: Combo rank 1790/3716 | CPU: 6c/12t, boost 4.30 | GPU: 16GB GDDR6, 974.8 GB/s | measured on database