Inside

The Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the Intel Arc B390 presents a highly specific performance profile in Inside, a 2D puzzle platformer where frame pacing and fluidity matter more than raw graphical fidelity. The measured data reveals that this combo is heavily constrained by the graphics solution, making settings selection critical for achieving a playable experience. Benchmark results show a clear hierarchy where the "Low" preset is the only consistently smooth option across all tested resolutions, while higher presets quickly push the system into sub-60 FPS territory at 4K.

Settings Recommendations

For this specific hardware combination, the "Low" preset is the definitive recommendation for any resolution above 1080p. At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 112 FPS average, which is more than double the 53 FPS achieved on Ultra. The jump from Low to Medium at 1440p costs 22 FPS (from 112 to 90 FPS), which is a substantial 19.6% performance drop for what is likely a modest visual gain in a side-scrolling title. At 3840x2160, the Low preset remains the only option that stays above 60 FPS, hitting 70 FPS average. The Medium preset at 4K falls to 56 FPS with a minimum of 48 FPS, which introduces noticeable stutter in a game that requires precise timing.

At 1920x1080, users have more headroom. The High preset delivers 78 FPS, which is perfectly smooth for this genre, while Medium offers 125 FPS for those with high-refresh-rate displays. The Ultra preset at 1080p drops to 74 FPS, which is still playable but offers no meaningful advantage over High given the performance cost. The data suggests that High at 1080p is the sweet spot for visual quality and smoothness, while Low is mandatory for 1440p and 4K. The Medium preset at 4K, with its 48 FPS minimum, is not recommended for a game where a single mistimed jump can force a restart.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 and Intel Arc B390 ranks 3296 out of 3716 tested combos in Inside, placing it in the bottom 11.3% of all configurations. This rank is primarily dragged down by the GPU, which sits in the 9th percentile among all graphics cards. The CPU, by contrast, performs much better in isolation, ranking in the 72nd percentile among all processors. This massive discrepancy between the two components indicates a severe bottleneck where the Arc B390 is incapable of keeping pace with the i5-12400's processing power, even in a relatively lightweight 2D title.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% slower), GeForce 800M (1.5% slower), and GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5% slower). These are all entry-level or legacy mobile parts, which contextualizes the Arc B390's performance tier. The fact that a modern integrated GPU solution is competing with decade-old discrete mobile graphics is telling. In the context of Inside, this ranking means users should expect performance consistent with very low-end hardware, despite the CPU's capability. The combo rank of 3296/3716 suggests that most other tested configurations, including those with older mid-range GPUs, will outperform this pairing.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the primary limiting factor in this configuration. Its specifications include 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The memory subsystem is entirely "System Shared," meaning it relies on the host system's RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. This architectural choice explains the dramatic performance swings between settings, as memory bandwidth becomes a critical constraint when texture quality increases.

The GPU's FP32 throughput is 7.680 TFLOPS, which is mathematically respectable, but the shared memory architecture and 80 W TDP limit real-world gaming performance. The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s. Despite these theoretical numbers, the Arc B390 only scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 9th percentile. In Inside, the GPU's limitations manifest clearly: the difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 82 FPS (156 to 74), representing a 47.4% drop. At 4K, the same settings gap results in a 51.4% drop (70 to 34 FPS). This sensitivity to settings suggests that the shared memory bandwidth is saturated quickly, and the GPU cannot sustain high-quality textures without sacrificing frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured FPS ranges from a low of 74 FPS on Ultra to a high of 156 FPS on Low. The Medium preset averages 125 FPS with a minimum of 106 and a maximum of 144, showing good frame consistency. High sits at 78 FPS, which is only 4 FPS above Ultra but 47 FPS below Medium. This non-linear scaling indicates a significant performance cliff between Medium and High settings, likely due to texture memory or shader complexity increases.

At 2560x1440, the pattern repeats with lower absolute numbers. Low delivers 112 FPS, Medium drops to 90 FPS (min 76, max 103), High falls to 56 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 53 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 3 FPS at this resolution, suggesting that both settings are equally bottlenecked by the GPU. The jump from Low to Medium costs 22 FPS, while Medium to High costs 34 FPS, indicating that the High preset introduces a disproportionately heavy load.

At 3840x2160, the 4K results are the most revealing. Low averages 70 FPS, Medium averages 56 FPS (min 48, max 65), High averages 35 FPS, and Ultra averages 34 FPS. The High and Ultra presets are effectively unplayable, with averages below 40 FPS. The Medium preset's 48 FPS minimum is borderline, causing visible judder in fast-moving scenes. Only Low maintains a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. There is no recorded data for High or Ultra minimums at 4K, which likely indicates that the frame times were too inconsistent to register stable minimums.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a GPU-bound system. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 156 at 1080p to 112 at 1440p (a 28.2% decrease) and then to 70 at 4K (a 55.1% decrease from 1080p). This scaling is close to what would be expected from a purely pixel-bound workload, where 4K has four times the pixels of 1080p. The fact that FPS does not quarter, but rather halves, suggests that other bottlenecks (likely CPU or memory) partially mask the GPU load at lower resolutions.

At Medium settings, the progression is 125 FPS (1080p) to 90 FPS (1440p) to 56 FPS (4K). The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 28%, and from 1080p to 4K is 55.2%. These percentages are remarkably consistent across Low and Medium, indicating that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth scale linearly with pixel count. However, at High and Ultra settings, the scaling becomes non-linear. High goes from 78 FPS (1080p) to 56 FPS (1440p) to 35 FPS (4K), representing drops of 28.2% and 55.1% respectively. Ultra follows a similar pattern: 74 to 53 to 34 FPS. This consistency across all settings suggests that the limiting factor is not the specific shader workload but rather the raw pixel throughput, which is a direct function of the GPU's ROP count and memory bandwidth.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 15989 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2257 in single-core, with a Geekbench multi-core score of 8564. The CPU ranks in the 72nd percentile among all processors, which is a solid mid-range position.

In the context of Inside, the CPU's role is largely secondary. The game is a 2D platformer with limited physics and AI complexity, so even a modest dual-core processor would likely suffice. The benchmark data confirms this: at 1080p Low, the system achieves 156 FPS, which is likely near the game's engine limit. The CPU's 3DMark scores (5873 for 16 threads, 3012 for 4 threads, 910 for single thread) indicate strong multi-threaded performance, but Inside is unlikely to use more than a few threads. The real issue is that the CPU is far more capable than the GPU, as evidenced by the 72nd vs 9th percentile ranking. The i5-12400 could easily drive a more powerful discrete GPU to much higher frame rates. In this pairing, the CPU is frequently waiting for the Arc B390 to render frames, which is why the FPS scaling with resolution is so predictable.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset for a smooth 60 FPS experience at 1440p?

A: The Low preset is the only one that guarantees a smooth experience at 2560x1440, delivering 112 FPS average. The Medium preset drops to 90 FPS with a minimum of 76, which is still playable but offers less headroom for demanding scenes.

*Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Inside?*

A: Only at Low settings, which produces 70 FPS average. The Medium preset at 4K averages 56 FPS with a minimum of 48, which is borderline. High and Ultra presets at 4K are effectively unplayable, averaging 35 and 34 FPS respectively.

Q: Why is the performance difference between High and Ultra so small?

A: At every resolution, the gap between High and Ultra is minimal: 4 FPS at 1080p (78 vs 74), 3 FPS at 1440p (56 vs 53), and 1 FPS at 4K (35 vs 34). This indicates that both presets are equally bottlenecked by the GPU's memory and fill rate limits.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-12400 holding back the Arc B390?

A: No, the data shows the opposite. The CPU ranks in the 72nd percentile while the GPU ranks in the 9th percentile. The i5-12400's 6 cores and 12 threads are more than sufficient for this title, and the Arc B390 is the clear limiting factor.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: The Low preset averages 156 FPS while Ultra averages 74 FPS, a difference of 82 FPS or roughly 52.6% lower performance. This highlights the GPU's severe sensitivity to increased graphical settings.

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

A: It ranks 3296 out of 3716 total combos in Inside, placing it in the bottom 11.3%. The GPU's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and GeForce 800M, which are both entry-level parts from previous generations.