Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that places modest demands on modern hardware, yet the measured frame rates for the Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 reveal a clear scaling pattern. The data shows a system that is thoroughly capable of running the game smoothly at high refresh rates, but the performance curve across resolutions and settings tells a story about where the bottleneck lies and how the hardware responds to graphical loads.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a predictable and steep decline as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound workload. At 1080p with Ultra settings, the system produces 111.5 FPS on average. Moving to 1440p drops that to 77.9 FPS, a reduction of roughly 30%. At 4K, the average falls to 47.6 FPS, which is a further 39% drop from the 1440p figure. This consistent degradation with each pixel-count increase strongly indicates that the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is the limiting component at higher resolutions, while the CPU has ample headroom to feed the GPU.

The scaling from Low to Ultra settings at each resolution reinforces this interpretation. At 1080p, the difference between Low (229.9 FPS) and Ultra (111.5 FPS) is substantial, but both numbers are well above playable thresholds. At 4K, the same settings swing from 102.9 FPS on Low down to 47.6 FPS on Ultra. The fact that even 4K Low produces over 100 FPS is notable—it means that the game’s visual effects, rather than raw resolution, are the primary driver of performance drops. The gap between High and Ultra settings is relatively small at every resolution: at 1080p they are 114.3 FPS versus 111.5 FPS, at 1440p 85.7 versus 77.9, and at 4K 52.7 versus 47.6. This suggests that Ultra adds only marginal graphical fidelity while costing measurable frame rate, making it the least efficient preset for this hardware combination.

The data also indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor across the board, not the CPU. Even at the lowest settings and lowest resolution measured—1080p Low at 229.9 FPS—the frame rate does not suggest a CPU ceiling, as the i5-12400F has a strong single-thread score of 909 in 3dmark_single_thread and a Cinebench R23 single-core result of 2332. If the CPU were the constraint, the 1080p Low figure would likely plateau at a lower number regardless of settings changes.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is built on the 16 nm Pascal architecture with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 256.3 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock of 1506 MHz boosts to 1683 MHz, and it carries 1920 shading units. In the context of Inside, these specifications are more than sufficient, as the game’s art style uses simple geometry and limited texture complexity compared to modern AAA titles. The benchmark results confirm this: the GPU sits at the 51st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 12331, placing it right between the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 (12241, 0.7% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (12490, 1.3% faster).

The VRAM capacity of 8 GB is not a concern at any measured setting. Even at 4K Ultra, the game does not appear to exceed this limit, as the frame rate drop from 4K High (52.7 FPS) to 4K Ultra (47.6 FPS) is modest—about 10%—rather than a catastrophic falloff that would indicate memory swapping. The memory clock of 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) is consistent with the card’s mid-range positioning and is adequate for a game of this visual scope. The GPU’s pixel rate is 107.7 GPixel/s and texture rate is 202.0 GTexel/s, which are healthy figures for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but they explain why 4K Ultra pushes the card to its limits, as the fill rate demands scale with pixel count.

The GTX 1070’s performance in synthetic benchmarks aligns with its measured FPS here. Its Passmark G3D score of 13498 and DirectX 12 score of 48 indicate a card that is capable but not top-tier, which matches the observed 4K Ultra result of 47.6 FPS—playable but not ideal for a 60 Hz display. In contrast, 1440p High at 85.7 FPS is a comfortable experience, and 1080p High at 114.3 FPS is excellent for high-refresh monitors.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Inside at 4K with playable frame rates?

A: Yes, at 4K High the system averages 52.7 FPS, and at 4K Medium it reaches 81.5 FPS. The 4K Ultra setting drops to 47.6 FPS, which is below a typical 60 FPS target but still technically playable.

Q: What is the best resolution for a 144 Hz monitor?

A: The 1080p High preset gives 114.3 FPS, which is below 144 FPS, but 1080p Medium reaches 184.3 FPS and 1080p Low hits 229.9 FPS. For a consistent 144 Hz experience, 1080p Medium is the safest choice.

Q: How much performance is lost when switching from 1080p to 1440p?

A: At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 114.3 FPS at 1080p to 85.7 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 28.6 FPS or about 25%. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 111.5 FPS to 77.9 FPS, a 30% decrease.

Q: Is the GTX 1070 or the i5-12400F the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU is the bottleneck at higher resolutions and settings. Evidence is in the scaling: 4K Low produces 102.9 FPS, while 4K Ultra drops to 47.6 FPS, showing that graphical load on the GPU drives the frame rate. The CPU’s high single-thread score of 909 in 3dmark supports that it is not the limiting factor.

Q: What is the difference between High and Ultra settings in terms of FPS?

A: At 1080p, High gives 114.3 FPS and Ultra gives 111.5 FPS, a difference of only 2.8 FPS. At 1440p the gap is 7.8 FPS (85.7 versus 77.9), and at 4K it is 5.1 FPS (52.7 versus 47.6). The performance cost of Ultra is minimal at 1080p but grows at higher resolutions.

Q: How does this GPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1070 has an average benchmark score of 12331, which is 0.7% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 (12241) and 1.3% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (12490). It is also 1.4% slower than the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (12504).

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a full matrix of average frame rates across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 229.9 FPS on Low, 184.3 FPS on Medium, 114.3 FPS on High, and 111.5 FPS on Ultra. The jump from Low to Medium costs 45.6 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs 70 FPS—a much steeper penalty that suggests High enables more demanding effects. Interestingly, the step from High to Ultra only costs 2.8 FPS, indicating that Ultra is nearly identical in load to High.

At 2560x1440, the figures are 163.1 FPS on Low, 131.5 FPS on Medium, 85.7 FPS on High, and 77.9 FPS on Ultra. The relative scaling is similar to 1080p, but the absolute drops are larger: Low to Medium is 31.6 FPS, Medium to High is 45.8 FPS, and High to Ultra is 7.8 FPS. The 1440p Ultra result of 77.9 FPS remains comfortably above 60 FPS, making this resolution viable for high-refresh gaming if the user tolerates the visual downgrade from 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the results are 102.9 FPS on Low, 81.5 FPS on Medium, 52.7 FPS on High, and 47.6 FPS on Ultra. This is the only resolution where High and Ultra dip below 60 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 21.4 FPS, Medium to High is 28.8 FPS, and High to Ultra is 5.1 FPS. The 4K Low result of 102.9 FPS is remarkable, showing that the game can run at high frame rates even at 4K if the user sacrifices most visual effects.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal preset for this hardware depends on the target display refresh rate. For a standard 60 Hz display, 1440p High at 85.7 FPS or 4K Medium at 81.5 FPS both provide excellent experiences with plenty of headroom. The 4K High setting at 52.7 FPS is also viable, though it sits below the 60 FPS threshold and may be noticeable during fast camera movements.

For users with 144 Hz monitors, 1080p Medium at 184.3 FPS is the best balance, as it clears the refresh rate target with substantial margin while retaining more visual quality than Low. The 1080p High preset at 114.3 FPS would also be acceptable, but it does not fully saturate a 144 Hz panel. Pushing to 1440p Medium at 131.5 FPS is another option that offers higher resolution but still falls short of 144 FPS, making 1080p Medium the more consistent choice.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution. At 1080p it only improves on High by 2.8 FPS in the opposite direction—it actually lowers the average to 111.5 FPS from 114.3 FPS—while at 1440p and 4K the cost is more significant: 7.8 FPS and 5.1 FPS respectively. Since the visual difference between High and Ultra is likely minimal given the small performance delta, High offers the better frame rate per unit of visual investment.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Alder Lake generation, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16518 and a Passmark multithread score of 19433. Single-thread performance is equally solid, with a Geekbench single-core score of 2221 and a 3dmark single-thread score of 909.

In Inside, the CPU’s role is mostly about maintaining a high minimum frame rate and ensuring that the GPU is never starved of draw calls. The game is a 2.5D puzzle platformer with limited on-screen entities, so it does not stress multi-core scaling heavily. The i5-12400F’s 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 12 threads are far more than needed for this workload. The data reflects this: the CPU sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19221, just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-8700K (19210) and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-1335U (19167).

The lack of CPU bottlenecking is evident from the FPS scaling. If the CPU were the constraint, the frame rate at 1080p Low (229.9 FPS) would be similar to 1080p Ultra (111.5 FPS), since the CPU workload is largely independent of graphical settings. Instead, the wide gap between these settings confirms that the GPU is doing the heavy lifting. Even at the highest CPU stress point—likely 1080p Low with the GPU rendering as fast as possible—the system still exceeds 200 FPS, which is well beyond the refresh rate of most displays and far from the CPU’s limits. This pairing is balanced for the game, but the balance tilts heavily toward GPU limitation as resolution and settings increase, making the i5-12400F a non-factor in determining playability.