Inside

# Inside Performance Analysis: Intel Core i5-12600KF + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

The measured frame rates for this combination in Inside reveal a system that is heavily GPU-limited across most settings and resolutions, with the CPU showing clear headroom. The data shows a total of twelve measured configurations, spanning three resolutions and four quality presets. The overall combo rank of 1458 out of 1671 tested combinations places this pairing in the lower-middle tier of all tested systems, which aligns with the GTX 1660 Ti's percentile ranking of 55 among all GPUs. The Intel Core i5-12600KF, meanwhile, sits at the 84th percentile among all CPUs, indicating a substantial performance gap between the two components that becomes evident in the frame rate scaling patterns.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep but not uniform across all settings, which tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies. At Low settings, the system delivers 216.9 FPS at 1920x1080, drops to 157.5 FPS at 2560x1440, and further falls to 97.9 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 54.9% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, indicating that even at the lowest quality preset, the GPU is still the primary limiting factor. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at Low settings shows a 37.8% performance loss, which is substantial and points to the GPU's memory bandwidth and pixel throughput becoming increasingly constrained as resolution rises.

At High settings, the trend is similar but with a different magnitude. The system achieves 108.9 FPS at 1080p, 79.3 FPS at 1440p, and 48.2 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K here is 55.7%, almost identical to the Low preset's scaling. This consistency across presets suggests that the GPU's compute and memory resources are being saturated at all quality levels, and the resolution increase is what primarily drives the performance penalty. The 4K High result of 48.2 FPS is exactly the same as the 4K Ultra result of 48.2 FPS, which is a notable data point indicating that the Ultra preset at 4K is not adding any additional GPU load beyond what High already achieves—or that the GPU has hit a hard performance ceiling at this resolution.

The Medium preset shows the most dramatic scaling: 175.2 FPS at 1080p, 126.6 FPS at 1440p, and 78.4 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-4K reduction of 55.3% is consistent with the other presets. The fact that all four presets show roughly 55% performance drops from 1080p to 4K strongly indicates that the limiting component is the GPU, as CPU-bound scenarios would typically show less severe scaling with resolution changes.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12600KF is a 10-core, 16-thread processor with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Its benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23444 and a single-core score of 3309. The Geekbench scores of 12373 multi-core and 2529 single-core further confirm this processor's capability. The CPU sits at the 84th percentile among all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 27827 places it in close competition with the Intel Core i9-10900K, which scores 27829, and the Intel Core i5-12600K at 27851, with negligible deltas of 0% and -0.1% respectively.

Given the frame rates observed, the CPU is clearly not the bottleneck in Inside. At 1080p Low, the system pushes 216.9 FPS, which is a high frame rate that would stress many CPUs, yet the i5-12600KF handles it without apparent limitation. The CPU's single-thread performance, as indicated by the 3DMark single-thread score of 1016 and the PassMark single-thread score of 3925, suggests it can handle the game's logic and physics calculations with substantial headroom. The 10-core, 16-thread configuration is far more than what a puzzle platformer like Inside would require, and the benchmark data supports this—the CPU's multithreaded scores are exceptional, but the game's demands are likely modest in comparison.

The data shows that even at 4K Ultra, where the GPU is heavily loaded, the system still maintains 48.2 FPS, and the CPU's role in this result is likely minimal. The consistency of frame rates across CPU-intensive scenarios (or lack thereof) suggests that the CPU is never the limiting factor in any of the twelve measured configurations. The processor's 20 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support provide adequate bandwidth for the game's data requirements, and its PCIe Gen 4 interface with 20 lanes ensures no bottleneck in data transfer to the GPU.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing-architecture GPU with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Its base clock is 1500 MHz with a boost clock of 1770 MHz, and it has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The GPU's FP32 performance is 5.437 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 84.96 GPixel/s. The GPU sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13925. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 570X at 13871 (0.4% delta), the NVIDIA Tesla K10 at 14029 (-0.7% delta), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at 13821 (0.8% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 at 13812 (0.8% delta).

The GPU's 6 GB VRAM is a critical factor at higher resolutions. The measured data shows that at 4K, the system delivers 48.2 FPS at both High and Ultra settings, which suggests that the GPU is hitting a memory or compute ceiling. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth appears to be insufficient for 4K Ultra settings, where the frame rate does not improve when dropping from Ultra to High—both yield 48.2 FPS. This indicates that the GPU's memory bandwidth is the limiting factor at 4K, as the VRAM capacity or bandwidth is saturated regardless of the quality preset.

At 1440p, the GPU shows more differentiation between presets: 73.3 FPS at Ultra, 79.3 FPS at High, 126.6 FPS at Medium, and 157.5 FPS at Low. The jump from High to Ultra at 1440p results in a 7.6% frame rate drop (from 79.3 to 73.3 FPS), while the jump from Medium to High costs 37.3% performance (126.6 to 79.3 FPS). This non-linear scaling suggests that the GPU's compute units are being pushed harder as settings increase, but the memory subsystem is not the primary constraint at this resolution. At 1080p, the GPU performs strongly, with 216.9 FPS at Low and 105.7 FPS at Ultra, showing a 51.3% performance difference between the lowest and highest presets.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates across all presets. Low settings produce 216.9 FPS average, Medium produces 175.2 FPS, High produces 108.9 FPS, and Ultra produces 105.7 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 3.2 FPS (108.9 vs 105.7), indicating that the Ultra preset adds minimal visual load over High at this resolution. The step from Medium to High is substantial, costing 66.3 FPS, which represents a 37.8% performance drop.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates are significantly lower but still playable across all presets. Low produces 157.5 FPS, Medium produces 126.6 FPS, High produces 79.3 FPS, and Ultra produces 73.3 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to 6.0 FPS, while the Medium-to-High drop is 47.3 FPS (37.4%). The 1440p results show that the GPU begins to struggle with the higher-quality presets, but the system remains comfortably above 60 FPS for all settings except potentially Ultra, which still holds at 73.3 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system's performance drops significantly. Low produces 97.9 FPS, Medium produces 78.4 FPS, and both High and Ultra produce 48.2 FPS. The identical results at High and Ultra are striking and suggest that the GPU has reached a hard performance limit at this resolution. The drop from Medium to High at 4K is 30.2 FPS (38.5%), which is consistent with the scaling observed at lower resolutions. The fact that Ultra does not degrade performance further at 4K indicates that the GPU is fully saturated at High settings, and the additional Ultra-level effects either do not apply or are not rendered due to the resolution constraint.

FAQ

*Q: Is this system capable of 60 FPS at 4K in Inside?*

A: No. The measured data shows that at 3840x2160, the system achieves 48.2 FPS at both High and Ultra settings, and 78.4 FPS at Medium. Only the Low preset at 4K exceeds 60 FPS, with 97.9 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination?

A: At 2560x1440, the system delivers 73.3 FPS at Ultra and 79.3 FPS at High, both comfortably above 60 FPS. At 1920x1080, all presets exceed 100 FPS, with the lowest being 105.7 FPS at Ultra.

Q: Why do High and Ultra settings produce identical frame rates at 4K?

A: Both settings yield exactly 48.2 FPS at 3840x2160. This indicates that the GPU has reached a performance ceiling at this resolution, where the memory bandwidth or compute resources are fully utilized regardless of the quality preset.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-12600KF has an average benchmark score of 27827, which is essentially tied with the Intel Core i9-10900K at 27829 (0% delta) and the Intel Core i5-12600K at 27851 (-0.1% delta). It is 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13700H at 27716.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset produces 216.9 FPS while Ultra produces 105.7 FPS, representing a 111.2 FPS difference or a 51.3% reduction from Low to Ultra.

Q: Does the GPU have enough VRAM for 4K in this game?

A: The GPU has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The measured data shows that 4K performance is limited to 48.2 FPS at High settings, and the identical results at Ultra suggest memory bandwidth may be a constraint, though the game's requirements are met at lower resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for the optimal experience with this hardware. For 1920x1080, the Ultra preset at 105.7 FPS is the best choice, as the performance difference between High (108.9 FPS) and Ultra (105.7 FPS) is negligible at just 3.2 FPS, and the visual quality improvement from Ultra is worth the small trade-off. The system has ample headroom at this resolution, with even the most demanding preset delivering well over 100 FPS.

For 2560x1440, the High preset at 79.3 FPS offers the best balance, as the Ultra preset drops to 73.3 FPS—a 7.6% reduction—while the Medium preset at 126.6 FPS sacrifices significant visual quality for a frame rate that exceeds what most displays can show. The High preset at 1440p provides a smooth experience above 60 FPS while maintaining good visual fidelity, and the data suggests that the step up to Ultra is not worth the performance cost at this resolution.

For 3840x2160, the Medium preset at 78.4 FPS is the clear recommendation. The High and Ultra presets both drop to 48.2 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, while Medium maintains a fluid experience. The jump from Medium to High at 4K costs 30.2 FPS (38.5%), which is a significant penalty for what is likely a modest visual improvement in a game with Inside's art style. The Low preset at 97.9 FPS is an option for players prioritizing frame rate, but Medium offers a better visual-to-performance ratio.

Overall, the data indicates that the system is best suited for 1080p Ultra or 1440p High, with 4K being playable only at Medium settings. The GPU's 55th percentile ranking and the CPU's 84th percentile ranking suggest that the graphics card is the limiting factor in this pairing, and users should target settings that keep the GPU's workload manageable while leveraging the CPU's substantial headroom.