Inside

The Intel Core i5-12600KF is a 10-core, 16-thread desktop processor based on the Alder Lake architecture. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, and its 20 MB of shared L3 cache helps keep frequently accessed data close to the cores. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates strong multi-threaded capability, scoring 23,391 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 9,824 in Cinebench R20 multi-core. Its overall average benchmark score of 27,799 places it at the 79th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms the majority of processors on the market. When compared to its nearest rivals, the data shows a near-tie: it is 0.3% slower than the Intel Core i9-10900K and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, and 0.3% faster than the AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE.

For a game like Inside, which is a puzzle platformer from 2016, the CPU is rarely the limiting factor. The game’s logic and physics are not particularly demanding on multi-threading, so the i5-12600KF’s remaining cores are largely underutilized. However, the single-thread performance is still relevant. The processor scores 3,302 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 1,016 in 3DMark single-thread, which ensures that any frame pacing or game logic calculations are handled swiftly. The measured frame rates confirm this: even at 1080p with Low settings, where CPU overhead is most visible, the system achieves 359 FPS average. This high result indicates that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU far more frames than the display can likely use, so in this title, the processor’s role is to stay out of the way rather than to push performance. The benchmark data shows no scenario where the CPU bottleneck creates a significant frame rate drop, as even the most demanding settings at 4K still yield playable numbers.

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

The i5-12600KF’s 10 cores and 16 threads are a substantial resource, but Inside does not require that level of parallelism. The game’s performance is far more dependent on clock speed and per-core efficiency. With a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, the processor can quickly process the game’s update loop, which is typically single-threaded. The measured results support this: at 1080p with Ultra settings, the system averages 210 FPS, showing that the CPU can maintain high frame rates even when the GPU is not fully taxed. In contrast, when the resolution drops to 4K, the average FPS at Ultra settings falls to 95, which is a clear sign that the GPU is now the primary constraint. The CPU’s 3DMark 16-thread score of 7,956 and 2-thread score of 1,995 indicate that while multi-threaded scaling is good, the single and dual-thread performance is what matters most here. The data does not show any stutter or low 1% lows that would indicate a CPU limitation; the only frame rate range provided in the Medium settings shows a minimum of 135 FPS at 4K, which is well above playable thresholds. Therefore, the CPU role in this game is supportive—it provides enough headroom to ensure the GPU is the sole deciding factor in frame output.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is the dominant component in this pairing. With 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus, it offers a memory bandwidth of 760.3 GB/s. The GPU’s base clock is 1440 MHz, with a boost clock of 1710 MHz. For a game from 2016 like Inside, the visual complexity is not extreme, but the GPU still has to render the atmospheric lighting and shadow effects that define the game’s moody aesthetic. The RTX 3080’s 8,704 shading units and 96 ROPs handle these tasks efficiently. The benchmark results show that the GPU is the primary driver of performance scaling. At 1080p Low, the system delivers 359 FPS, but this is likely beyond the refresh rate of most monitors. As resolution increases to 1440p and 4K, the GPU’s workload grows, and frame rates drop accordingly. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 23,172, placing it at the 68th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA P106-100, is 0.3% slower, and the AMD Radeon RX 6600M is 0.4% slower. This indicates the RTX 3080 is a high-end card, but for this specific game, it is overkill at lower resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the GPU still manages 95 FPS average, proving its strength. The VRAM footprint of Inside is modest, so the 10 GB capacity is more than sufficient, and the high bandwidth ensures no texture streaming bottlenecks occur.

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

The measured frame rates across resolutions reveal a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern. Starting at 1080p, the system achieves 359 FPS on Low, 331 FPS on Medium, 220 FPS on High, and 210 FPS on Ultra. Moving to 1440p, those numbers fall to 317, 253, 158, and 151 FPS respectively. At 4K, the drop is more pronounced: 199 FPS on Low, 159 FPS on Medium, 99 FPS on High, and 95 FPS on Ultra. The relative drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial. For example, on Ultra settings, the frame rate falls from 210 FPS to 95 FPS, a reduction of roughly 55%. On Low settings, the drop is from 359 FPS to 199 FPS, a reduction of about 45%. These are large percentage decreases that point directly to the GPU being the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect frame rates to stay relatively flat as resolution increases, but that is not the case. The data shows that at 1080p, the CPU and GPU are both capable of producing extremely high frame rates, but as pixel count increases, the GPU’s fill rate and shading power become the deciding factors. The consistent scaling pattern across all settings confirms that the RTX 3080 is the component being stressed at higher resolutions, while the i5-12600KF maintains its headroom. The Medium settings row even provides min FPS data, showing a minimum of 281 FPS at 1080p and 135 FPS at 4K, which further illustrates that the GPU’s performance envelope is being expanded as resolution grows.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Inside at 4K with maximum settings?*

A: Yes. The measured data shows an average of 95 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is well above the standard 60 FPS target, indicating smooth gameplay even at the highest visual quality.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for this game at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the system achieves very high frame rates across all settings, with Low hitting 359 FPS and Ultra hitting 210 FPS. The CPU’s strong single-thread performance (3,302 in Cinebench R23 single-core) ensures it is not a bottleneck, but the GPU still has the final say on frame output. The data does not show a CPU limitation at this resolution.

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

A: For a 144Hz display, 1440p is the sweet spot. The measured average FPS at 2560x1440 is 317 on Low, 253 on Medium, 158 on High, and 151 on Ultra. All of these exceed 144 FPS except for the Ultra preset, which is close. At 4K, only the Low preset (199 FPS) and Medium preset (159 FPS) exceed 144 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 3080 compare to its nearest rival in terms of benchmark scores?

A: The RTX 3080 has an average benchmark score of 23,172. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA P106-100, scores 23,249, which is 0.3% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M scores 23,273, also 0.4% higher. This puts the RTX 3080 in a very close performance tier with these cards.

Q: Is there any scenario where the frame rate drops below 60 FPS?

A: No. The lowest average frame rate recorded is 95 FPS at 4K Ultra. The lowest minimum frame rate provided is 135 FPS at 4K Medium. Therefore, the system never drops below the 60 FPS playability threshold in the measured rows.

Q: Does the game benefit from the CPU’s 16 threads?

A: The benchmark data does not show a direct correlation. The game appears to be GPU-bound, as evidenced by the significant frame rate drops from 1080p to 4K. The CPU’s multi-threaded scores (23,391 in Cinebench R23 multi-core) are high, but the game likely does not scale beyond a few threads, so the extra cores provide headroom rather than direct performance gains.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings balance depends on the target refresh rate and resolution. At 1080p, the High preset delivers 220 FPS, which is excellent for any high-refresh monitor, but the Ultra preset at 210 FPS is nearly identical and offers better visual quality for a minimal performance cost. The data shows only a 10 FPS difference between High and Ultra at 1080p, so Ultra is the clear recommendation for 1080p users seeking the best image quality. At 1440p, the High preset provides 158 FPS, which is still above 144 FPS, making it the best choice for high-refresh 1440p monitors. Ultra at 1440p drops to 151 FPS, which is still playable but slightly below the 144 FPS mark, so High is the safer pick. For 4K, the situation is different. The Ultra preset averages 95 FPS, which is fine for a 60Hz display, but the High preset at 99 FPS offers nearly the same performance. However, the Medium preset at 4K provides 159 FPS, which is a significant jump and is the only way to exceed 144 FPS at this resolution. Since the visual difference between Medium and High in a puzzle platformer is often less impactful than in a fast-paced shooter, Medium at 4K is the recommended preset if you prioritize frame rate. For a 60Hz 4K panel, the Ultra preset is the best choice, as it delivers 95 FPS and maximizes visual fidelity without sacrificing playability. In summary, the data suggests using Ultra at 1080p, High at 1440p, and either Ultra (for 60Hz) or Medium (for high refresh) at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

This section provides the exact measured average frame rates from the FACT PACK, organized by resolution and settings.

1920x1080

• Low: 359 FPS average
• Medium: 331 FPS average (min 281, max 381)
• High: 220 FPS average
• Ultra: 210 FPS average

2560x1440

• Low: 317 FPS average
• Medium: 253 FPS average (min 215, max 291)
• High: 158 FPS average
• Ultra: 151 FPS average

3840x2160

• Low: 199 FPS average
• Medium: 159 FPS average (min 135, max 183)
• High: 99 FPS average
• Ultra: 95 FPS average

The data shows a consistent pattern: each step up in resolution reduces the average frame rate, and each step up in settings (from Low to Ultra) also reduces it. The Medium settings rows are the only ones with min and max FPS data, providing insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the min is 281 FPS, which is still very high. At 1440p Medium, the min drops to 215 FPS, and at 4K Medium, the min is 135 FPS. This indicates that even in the most demanding scenario (4K Medium), the frame rate never dips below 135 FPS, ensuring a smooth experience. The gap between High and Ultra is consistent across resolutions: 10 FPS at 1080p, 7 FPS at 1440p, and 4 FPS at 4K. This small delta suggests that the Ultra preset’s additional visual effects are not heavily taxing the GPU. Conversely, the gap between Low and Medium is larger (28 FPS at 1080p, 64 FPS at 1440p, 40 FPS at 4K), indicating that the Medium preset introduces a significant increase in rendering workload. Overall, the system delivers excellent performance across all measured configurations, with the lowest average frame rate being 95 FPS at 4K Ultra.