Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer with modest hardware demands, and the combination of the Intel Core i5-11400F and AMD Radeon RX 7600 delivers a performance profile that is heavily skewed by the CPU’s generational architecture and the GPU’s raw throughput. This analysis uses measured data to explain how each component contributes to the frame rates at various resolutions and settings, and how this specific pairing ranks against other tested configurations.

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

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Rocket Lake architecture, built on Intel’s 14 nm process node. Its base clock of 2.60 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz define its single-threaded responsiveness, which is critical for a game like Inside that relies heavily on consistent physics updates and scripting rather than massive multi-threaded workloads. The processor’s 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 80 KB of L1 cache per core provide adequate memory locality for the game’s asset streaming, though the dual-channel DDR4 memory bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s is not a bottleneck at the frame rates observed.

Benchmark data for the i5-11400F shows a single-thread score of 868 in 3dmark, which places it in the 71st percentile against all CPUs. This single-thread strength is directly relevant to Inside’s engine, which typically scales with per-core performance. In multi-threaded tests, the CPU achieves a 3dmark max-threads score of 5652 and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14340, indicating that even when the game does spawn additional threads, the processor has headroom. The nearest rivals in the average benchmark score rankings—such as the AMD EPYC 7H12 (0.3% higher score) and the Intel Core i5-12450H (0.4% lower score)—show that the i5-11400F sits in a tightly contested performance band, but for Inside specifically, the CPU’s boost clock behavior and per-core efficiency are the dominant factors.

In practical terms for Inside, the CPU is never the limiting component at lower resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the measured average FPS is 273, which is far beyond the game’s 60 FPS target and indicates that the CPU can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them in many scenarios. However, the CPU’s 6-core/12-thread configuration ensures that background tasks and game logic do not cause frame hitches, as evidenced by the consistent minimum FPS values at Medium settings (192 FPS at 1080p). The processor’s 65W TDP and Intel Socket 1200 compatibility make it a conventional choice, but the data shows that its Rocket Lake architecture, while not the latest, provides sufficient computational power for this title’s requirements.

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

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achievable with this CPU and GPU combo in Inside?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 273, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the peak performance point, with no minimum or maximum FPS recorded for this configuration.

Q: How does the i5-11400F compare to its closest rival in average benchmark score?

A: The i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17177, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD EPYC 7H12 (17120) and 0.4% lower than the Intel Core i5-12450H (17239). This places it within a 1% performance band of its nearest competitors.

Q: Does the RX 7600’s VRAM capacity affect performance at 4K in Inside?

A: The RX 7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. At 3840x2160 Ultra settings, the measured average FPS is 61, which suggests that while the VRAM capacity is sufficient for the game’s textures, the GPU’s compute throughput becomes the limiting factor rather than memory size.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested configurations for Inside?

A: This CPU and GPU combination ranks 2594 out of 3716 tested combos, placing it in the 30th percentile of all configurations. This indicates that while it performs adequately, many other pairings achieve higher frame rates in this specific game.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-11400F’s integrated graphics relevant for this game?

A: The i5-11400F has no integrated graphics (null value in the data), so the AMD Radeon RX 7600 is the sole rendering device. This is a discrete-GPU-only setup, and all measured FPS values rely on the RX 7600.

Q: What is the difference in average FPS between 1080p and 1440p at High settings?

A: At 1920x1080 High settings, the average FPS is 141, while at 2560x1440 High settings, it drops to 101. This represents a 28.4% reduction in frame rate when moving from 1080p to 1440p, indicating a growing GPU workload.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions clearly illustrates the shift in bottleneck from CPU-bound at 1080p to GPU-bound at 4K. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 273, which is exceptionally high and suggests that the CPU is capable of processing frames faster than the GPU can display them, though the RX 7600 still manages to render at this rate. Moving to 2560x1440 Low, the average FPS drops to 203, a 25.6% decrease, and at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 127, a further 37.4% reduction from 1440p. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU that is increasingly stressed by pixel count, while the CPU maintains its ability to feed frames.

At High settings, the scaling is more moderate: 1080p yields 141 FPS, 1440p yields 101 FPS (28.4% drop), and 4K yields 64 FPS (36.6% drop from 1440p). The relative consistency of these percentage drops across settings indicates that the RX 7600’s shading units and texture units are the primary constraint at higher resolutions. The GPU’s 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs provide a fixed compute capacity, and as the resolution increases, the pixel fill rate requirement grows, which is reflected in the FPS decline.

The data also shows that at 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is substantial: 127 FPS at Low versus 61 FPS at Ultra. This 66 FPS gap (52% reduction) demonstrates that the GPU’s 64 ROPs and 169.9 GPixel/s pixel rate are heavily taxed by the combination of high resolution and high-quality settings. Conversely, at 1080p, the gap between Low (273 FPS) and Ultra (134 FPS) is 139 FPS, but the absolute values are so high that the game remains playable. The limiting component at 1080p is likely the CPU’s single-thread performance in-game logic, while at 4K, the GPU’s raw throughput dominates, as evidenced by the 61 FPS at Ultra being the lowest measured value across all configurations.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i5-11400F and AMD Radeon RX 7600 ranks 2594 out of 3716 tested combos for Inside, which places it in the lower third of all configurations. This ranking is surprising given the high absolute FPS values measured, but it reflects the fact that many other combos—likely those with newer CPUs or higher-tier GPUs—achieve even higher frame rates in this game. The percentile position suggests that while the combo is capable of running Inside smoothly, it is not optimized for maximum performance relative to the test pool.

The CPU’s percentile vs all CPUs is 71, meaning it outperforms 71% of processors in synthetic benchmarks, but the combo’s rank of 2594/3716 indicates that the GPU or overall pairing drags down the relative standing. The GPU’s percentile vs all GPUs is 57, which is lower than the CPU’s percentile, suggesting that the RX 7600 is the weaker link in this pairing for Inside. This is corroborated by the measured FPS at 4K Ultra (61 FPS), which is barely above the 60 FPS threshold, whereas the CPU could likely push higher frame rates if paired with a stronger GPU.

Compared to other combos, this pairing sits in a position where it is neither a top-tier performer nor a budget outlier. The nearest GPU rivals in average benchmark score—such as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (0.2% higher score) and the AMD Radeon 680M (0.7% lower score)—show that the RX 7600 is competitive with mid-range options, but the combo’s rank suggests that many users with similar or slightly better components achieve better results in Inside. The data indicates that this combo is a solid mid-pack choice, but not one that excels in this particular title’s performance hierarchy.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with a Navi 33 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 6 nm process. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for Inside’s relatively modest texture and geometry requirements. The GPU’s base clock of 1720 MHz and boost clock of 2655 MHz, with a game clock of 2250 MHz, determine its sustained performance under load. The 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs define its compute and pixel throughput, with a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 339.8 GTexel/s.

For Inside, the GPU’s FP32 performance of 21.75 TFLOPS is more than adequate for the game’s lighting and post-processing effects, but the measured FPS at 4K Ultra (61 FPS) suggests that the ROPs are the limiting factor at high resolutions. The 8 GB VRAM is not a constraint, as the game’s asset sizes are unlikely to exceed this capacity, even at 4K with Ultra settings. The GPU’s 32 RT cores are irrelevant for this title, as Inside does not support ray tracing, and the DirectX 12 Ultimate API support ensures compatibility, but the game likely runs in a simpler rendering path.

The RX 7600’s average benchmark score is 15171, placing it in the 57th percentile of all GPUs, with a Passmark G3D score of 16634. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (0.2% higher score) and the AMD Radeon 680M (0.7% lower score), indicating that it sits in a competitive mid-range segment. In Inside, the GPU’s performance scales predictably with resolution: at 1080p Low, it achieves 273 FPS, which is GPU-limited at that point, but at 4K Ultra, the 61 FPS average shows that the GPU is working near its limits. The 165W TDP and single 8-pin power connector suggest a modest power draw, but the data does not include power consumption figures, only the suggested PSU of 450W.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low settings yield 273 FPS, Medium settings yield 226 FPS with minimum and maximum values of 192 and 259 FPS respectively, High settings yield 141 FPS, and Ultra settings yield 134 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 139 FPS, with the Medium setting providing a balanced frame rate that is still well above the 60 FPS threshold. The minimum FPS at Medium (192 FPS) indicates that even in the most demanding scenes, the frame rate does not drop below playable levels.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS values are: Low settings at 203 FPS, Medium at 162 FPS with minimum and maximum values of 138 and 186 FPS, High at 101 FPS, and Ultra at 97 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at each settings tier is consistent, ranging from a 25.6% reduction at Low (273 to 203 FPS) to a 28.4% reduction at High (141 to 101 FPS). The minimum FPS at Medium (138 FPS) remains comfortably above 60 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS values are: Low settings at 127 FPS, Medium at 102 FPS with minimum and maximum values of 87 and 117 FPS, High at 64 FPS, and Ultra at 61 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K is more pronounced, with Low settings losing 76 FPS (37.4% reduction) and High settings losing 37 FPS (36.6% reduction). The minimum FPS at 4K Medium (87 FPS) is still above 60 FPS, but the Ultra setting at 61 FPS average is right at the edge, suggesting that any scene with heavy alpha effects or particle systems could push the frame rate below 60 FPS.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and the user’s preference for frame rate versus visual fidelity. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset is the recommended choice, as it delivers an average of 226 FPS with a minimum of 192 FPS, providing a substantial performance buffer over the 60 FPS threshold while maintaining higher visual quality than Low. The High and Ultra presets at 141 FPS and 134 FPS respectively are also excellent, but they offer diminishing returns in visual quality for a 60% reduction in frame rate compared to Medium.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset again offers the best balance, with an average of 162 FPS and a minimum of 138 FPS. This provides a smooth experience with headroom for occasional frame drops. The High preset at 101 FPS is acceptable for users with 100Hz monitors, but the Ultra preset at 97 FPS is close enough to High that the extra visual fidelity may not justify the slight frame rate loss. For users prioritizing maximum visual quality, High is the better choice over Ultra, as the 4 FPS difference is negligible.

At 3840x2160, the Medium preset is the only recommended option for maintaining a consistent 60 FPS experience, with an average of 102 FPS and a minimum of 87 FPS. The High preset at 64 FPS is borderline, as the average is above 60 FPS but the margin is thin, and the Ultra preset at 61 FPS is not recommended for 4K due to the risk of frame drops below 60 FPS in demanding scenes. The Low preset at 127 FPS is a viable alternative for users who prioritize frame rate over visual quality, but Medium provides a significantly better visual experience with only a 25 FPS penalty. Overall, the data suggests that Medium settings offer the best experience across all resolutions, balancing frame rate stability with acceptable visual quality for this title.