Inside

The Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 presents a clear case of a capable processor paired with a modest graphics card, resulting in performance that varies dramatically with resolution and quality settings in Inside. The measured data reveals a system where the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the CPU’s strength becomes more apparent at lower settings. This configuration ranks 1628 out of 1671 tested combos for this game, placing it in the bottom percentile of potential experiences, yet the game remains playable under specific conditions.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data shows a predictable but steep decline as resolution increases, confirming that the GTX 1650 is the limiting component in this pairing. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves a smooth 136.3 FPS average, but this drops to 95.6 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of approximately 30%. Moving to 3840x2160 further cuts the average to 58.9 FPS, which is less than half of the 1080p figure. This pattern indicates that pixel throughput is the main constraint.

The scaling becomes even more pronounced at higher quality presets. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 65.8 at 1080p to 50.1 at 1440p (a 24% drop) and then to 27.6 at 4K (a further 45% drop from 1440p). The Ultra preset follows a similar trajectory: 63.7 FPS at 1080p, 48.5 FPS at 1440p, and 26.8 FPS at 4K. The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases; at 1080p the difference is 72.6 FPS (136.3 vs 63.7), but at 4K it narrows to 32.1 FPS (58.9 vs 26.8). This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so saturated that even reducing settings from Ultra to Low cannot fully compensate for the pixel load.

At 1080p, the jump from High to Ultra only costs 2.1 FPS (65.8 to 63.7), indicating that the GPU is not yet fully maxed out and the extra settings have diminishing returns. However, at 1440p, the same setting change costs 1.6 FPS (50.1 to 48.5), and at 4K, it costs 0.8 FPS (27.6 to 26.8). The relatively small differences between High and Ultra across all resolutions suggest that these two presets are nearly equivalent in cost, while the Medium preset sits in between. The data clearly shows that 4K is not viable for smooth gameplay on this hardware, while 1080p offers the most headroom for quality adjustments.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650’s specifications directly explain its performance ceiling in Inside. The card features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. For a game like Inside, which uses a muted color palette and relatively simple geometry, the VRAM capacity is likely sufficient at 1080p, but the bandwidth becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions where more texture data must be streamed. The card’s base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz are modest, and its 896 shading units deliver an FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS. These figures align with the measured FPS drops.

The GPU’s benchmark scores reinforce its position in the market. It achieves a Passmark G3D score of 7880, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (average score 8746, delta -0.4%) and the AMD Radeon 550X (average score 8749, delta -0.4%), both of which are within a fraction of a percent in synthetic tests. This indicates that the GTX 1650 is performing exactly as expected for its class. The 4 GB memory capacity is likely a factor in the 4K results, where the game may be exceeding the available VRAM, causing the steep drop to 27.6 FPS at High settings.

The card’s memory clock of 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) and 128-bit bus width combine to produce a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s, which is a common bottleneck for entry-level cards at high resolutions. The DirectX 12 score of 35 in Passmark is notably low, suggesting that the card’s driver optimization for modern APIs may not be its strong suit, though Inside is a title from 2016 and may not heavily rely on the latest API features. The GPU’s overall average benchmark score of 8713 is close to its rivals, confirming that it performs as a mid-low tier card. For this game, the GPU is clearly the dominant factor in determining frame rates, especially when moving from 1440p to 4K.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to use for a smooth experience?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the average FPS exceeds 60 across all presets, with Low hitting 136.3, Medium at 106.9, and High/Ultra at 65.8 and 63.7 respectively. At 2560x1440, only Low (95.6) and Medium (76.1) stay above 60 FPS, while High and Ultra fall to 50.1 and 48.5. 3840x2160 never reaches 60 FPS, with the highest being Low at 58.9.

Q: How much performance is lost when going from 1080p to 4K?

A: The FPS drop is substantial. At Low settings, the average falls from 136.3 to 58.9, a 56% reduction. At Medium, it drops from 106.9 to 47.9, a 55% loss. High settings see a decline from 65.8 to 27.6, a 58% drop, and Ultra goes from 63.7 to 26.8, a 58% decrease. The percentage loss is consistent, indicating a uniform scaling penalty.

Q: Is the Ultra preset worth the performance cost over High?

A: The measured difference between High and Ultra is minimal across all resolutions. At 1080p, the average FPS drops from 65.8 to 63.7 (2.1 FPS). At 1440p, it goes from 50.1 to 48.5 (1.6 FPS). At 4K, it falls from 27.6 to 26.8 (0.8 FPS). The performance cost is under 4% in all cases, so Ultra offers a visual upgrade for a negligible frame rate penalty.

Q: Can this hardware handle 4K at any settings?

A: The data suggests no. Even at Low settings, the 3840x2160 resolution only produces an average of 58.9 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. High and Ultra settings result in averages of 27.6 and 26.8 FPS, which are not playable. The GPU is not powerful enough to maintain a consistent frame rate at this resolution.

Q: How does the CPU compare to similar processors?

A: The i5-12400 has an average benchmark score of 19850, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. It is nearly identical to the Intel Core i7-9700 (score 19831, delta 0.1%) and slightly behind the Intel Core i7-8700 (score 19894, delta -0.2%). Its performance is effectively on par with these older i7 parts, showing that it is a strong mid-range option.

Q: What is the GPU’s performance percentile?

A: The GTX 1650 sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8713. This places it slightly below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (delta -0.4%) and AMD Radeon 550X (delta -0.4%), but slightly above the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (delta 0.5%). It is a low-to-mid tier graphics card.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for the i5-12400 and GTX 1650 combination is as follows. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 136.3 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded for this combo. Medium follows at 106.9 FPS, High at 65.8 FPS, and Ultra at 63.7 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is minimal, while the jump from Medium to High is significant, costing 41.1 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop across the board. Low remains above 60 FPS at 95.6, while Medium achieves 76.1. High falls to 50.1 FPS, and Ultra is marginally lower at 48.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 19.5 FPS, but the drop from Medium to High is 26.0 FPS, showing that the High preset is a major performance hurdle at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes marginal. Low is the only preset that comes close to playable, with an average of 58.9 FPS. Medium drops to 47.9 FPS, while High and Ultra are nearly identical at 27.6 and 26.8 FPS respectively. The scaling from 1080p to 4K is severe, with the Low preset losing 77.4 FPS and the Ultra preset losing 36.9 FPS. The data indicates that 4K is only feasible for static scenes or very slow-paced sections, and even then, it will not hold a consistent frame rate.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience for this hardware depends on the target resolution. For a 1920x1080 display, the High preset offers the best balance, delivering 65.8 FPS average. This is comfortably above 60 FPS, and the visual upgrade over Medium (106.9 FPS) is substantial for the 41.1 FPS cost. Ultra is not recommended at 1080p because it only adds 2.1 FPS of performance loss for a marginal visual gain, so High is the better choice for stability.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset is the highest quality option that remains playable, with an average of 76.1 FPS. High drops to 50.1 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay, so it should be avoided for action sequences. Low is a viable alternative for competitive play, offering 95.6 FPS, but Medium provides a richer visual experience without sacrificing frame rate.

For 3840x2160, no preset is truly recommended for continuous play. Low is the only option that gets close to 60 FPS with an average of 58.9, but it will likely dip below in busy scenes. Medium (47.9 FPS) is playable if the user can tolerate occasional stutter, but High and Ultra (27.6 and 26.8 FPS) are not suitable for gameplay. The best course of action for 4K is to lower the resolution to 1440p and use Medium or High settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Alder Lake-S architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its strong single-thread performance is evident in benchmarks, scoring 2249 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 3456 in Passmark single-thread. This is crucial for Inside, which likely relies on a single main thread for game logic and physics. The CPU’s multi-core performance is also solid, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15935, but the game does not appear to scale heavily with thread count.

The CPU’s average benchmark score of 19850 places it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-9700 (delta 0.1%) and Intel Core i7-8700 (delta -0.2%). This indicates that the i5-12400 is not the bottleneck in this system. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (136.3 FPS) is high enough to suggest the CPU can handle the game’s logic without issue, but the GPU quickly becomes the limiting factor as settings and resolution increase. The CPU’s L3 cache of 18 MB shared and dual-channel memory support (DDR4 and DDR5) provide ample bandwidth for feeding the GPU.

In synthetic tests, the CPU’s 3DMark scores show a scaling pattern from 1692 (2 threads) to 5890 (max threads), indicating good multi-thread scaling. However, the Passmark physics score of 1105 is relatively low, which could be a minor factor in games with complex physics, but Inside is a puzzle platformer with simpler interactions. The data strongly suggests that the CPU is performing its role adequately, and any frame rate issues are directly attributable to the GTX 1650’s limitations rather than a lack of processing power. The CPU’s 65W TDP and 10nm process also indicate it runs cool and efficient, allowing the GPU to be the sole focus of performance tuning.