Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that is not demanding by modern standards, yet the measured frame rates for this Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination reveal distinct performance ceilings. The data indicates that even at 4K Ultra, the system maintains a fluid 98.1 FPS average, which is well above the threshold for smooth gameplay in a title that does not require fast reaction times. However, the scaling pattern across resolutions shows that the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor only at the highest settings, while at lower presets, the CPU’s role becomes increasingly apparent. This analysis walks through the measured FPS data to determine where the bottleneck lies, how the components interact, and which settings deliver the optimal experience.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and expected trend: performance decreases as resolution increases, but the magnitude of the drop varies significantly depending on the quality preset. At the High preset, moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces the average frame rate from 229.3 FPS to 167 FPS, a drop of approximately 27%. Pushing further to 4K High yields 105.5 FPS, which is another 37% reduction from the 1440p result. This pattern indicates that at High settings, the GPU is heavily engaged, and the render resolution directly dictates the output.

The Low preset tells a different story. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 331.9 FPS, but at 1440p Low, it still manages 301.1 FPS, a much smaller decline of about 9%. The 4K Low result of 203.9 FPS represents a more substantial 32% drop from 1440p, suggesting that the GPU begins to reassert itself as the resolution climbs, but the headroom at lower resolutions is vast. This behavior implies that at 1080p and 1440p with Low settings, the frame rate is likely capped by CPU throughput or a game engine limit, not by the graphics card’s capability.

The Medium preset follows a similar curve to High, with 306.5 FPS at 1080p, 261.6 FPS at 1440p, and 163.5 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 15%, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 37%. The Ultra preset shows the most consistent scaling, with 219 FPS at 1080p, 154 FPS at 1440p, and 98.1 FPS at 4K, representing drops of 30% and 36% respectively. The data suggests that for this title, the limiting component shifts based on settings; at lower presets, the CPU is the bottleneck, while at higher presets and higher resolutions, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F features 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its benchmark scores show strong multi-threaded performance, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21279 and a single-core score of 3004. The 3DMark results demonstrate scalability from 1880 for 2 threads up to 7314 for 16 threads, indicating that the processor can leverage its full thread count effectively. This CPU sits in the 82nd percentile against all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 25236 is within 0.5% of its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i7-13620H and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D.

For Inside, which is a puzzle platformer with relatively simple physics and logic, the CPU’s role is primarily to maintain high frame rates at lower resolutions where the GPU is not fully utilized. The measured data supports this, as the 1080p Low preset achieves 331.9 FPS, which is likely near the engine’s internal limit. The 16 threads of the i5-13400F are more than sufficient for this game, and the high single-thread performance of 3004 in Cinebench R23 ensures that the primary game logic thread is not a limiting factor. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is not the bottleneck at 4K, where the GPU takes over, but at 1080p and 1440p with lower settings, the CPU’s ability to feed frames quickly becomes the ceiling.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is a high-end graphics card based on the RDNA 4.0 architecture, featuring 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with a bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s. Its boost clock reaches 2970 MHz, and it has 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 raster operation units. The GPU’s benchmark scores are robust, with a Passmark G3D score of 26795 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 184026. It ranks in the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 575 and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile, with performance deltas of less than 1%.

In this game, the GPU’s role becomes clear at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the card delivers 98.1 FPS, which is a playable rate but shows that the GPU is working hard. The 16 GB of VRAM is ample for a game from 2016, which likely uses less than 4 GB even at 4K, so memory capacity is not a concern. The high memory bandwidth and fast clock speeds allow the card to handle the increased pixel count at 4K, but the scaling from 1440p to 4K at Ultra (154 FPS to 98.1 FPS) shows a 36% performance loss, which is typical for a bandwidth-bound scenario. The data indicates that the GPU is the primary component determining performance at 4K and at High/Ultra presets, where the render workload is substantial enough to keep the card fully occupied.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT ranks 395th out of 1671 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the top 24% of all tested systems, which is a strong showing for a mid-range CPU paired with a high-end GPU. The rank is likely influenced by the CPU’s performance relative to other processors in the database, as the GPU is clearly capable of high frame rates in this title. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 25236 is comparable to its immediate rivals, and it does not significantly drag down the combo’s ranking.

Considering the game’s age and low system requirements, the high rank suggests that this combo is more than adequate for Inside. The data shows that even the most demanding setting tested, 4K Ultra, produces an average FPS above 60, which is the standard threshold for smooth gameplay. The combo’s rank of 395 out of 1671 indicates that there are 394 systems that perform better, but these are likely to have top-tier CPUs and GPUs that exceed the needs of this title. For a puzzle platformer, this rank is more than sufficient, and the measured FPS numbers confirm that the system is not struggling in any scenario.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user’s display resolution and refresh rate. At 1080p, the Ultra preset delivers 219 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors, and the High preset is only slightly lower at 229.3 FPS. The Medium and Low presets exceed 300 FPS, but these offer no practical benefit over Ultra for most users, as the visual quality improves without a significant frame rate penalty. For 1080p, Ultra is the recommended preset because it provides the best visual fidelity while maintaining a frame rate that exceeds the capabilities of most monitors.

At 1440p, the Ultra preset yields 154 FPS, which is still very high, but the High preset at 167 FPS offers a marginal improvement. The difference between High and Ultra is 13 FPS, which is unlikely to be noticeable in a slow-paced puzzle game, so Ultra remains the best choice for visual quality. At 4K, the situation changes. The Ultra preset produces 98.1 FPS, which is playable, but the High preset at 105.5 FPS is only 7.4% faster. The Medium preset at 163.5 FPS offers a significant performance jump, but the visual quality drop may be noticeable. For 4K, the High preset strikes the best balance between visual fidelity and frame rate, as it remains above 100 FPS while maintaining most of the graphical features.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low settings achieve 331.9 FPS, Medium settings achieve 306.5 FPS, High settings achieve 229.3 FPS, and Ultra settings achieve 219 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 34% reduction in performance from the lowest to the highest preset, but even the Ultra setting maintains a frame rate well above 200 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low settings achieve 301.1 FPS, Medium settings achieve 261.6 FPS, High settings achieve 167 FPS, and Ultra settings achieve 154 FPS. The drop from Medium to High is substantial at 36%, indicating that the High preset introduces a significant graphical workload. The difference between High and Ultra is only 8%, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end.

At 3840x2160, the measured values are: Low settings achieve 203.9 FPS, Medium settings achieve 163.5 FPS, High settings achieve 105.5 FPS, and Ultra settings achieve 98.1 FPS. The Low to Medium jump is a 20% reduction, while the Medium to High jump is 35%. The High to Ultra step is only 7%, again showing that the Ultra preset offers minimal performance cost over High. Across all resolutions, the data shows a consistent pattern: the CPU is the limiting factor at low settings, while the GPU becomes the bottleneck at high settings and 4K resolution. For a game like Inside, the system provides more than enough performance to enjoy the experience at maximum quality on any of the tested resolutions.