Inside

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a profoundly unbalanced combination for Inside, placing 1637th out of 1671 tested combos. The data indicates that while the CPU is more than capable of handling this puzzle platformer, the GPU is the definitive bottleneck at nearly every measurable setting, resulting in a system that is playable only under specific, lower-demand configurations. Benchmark results place this combo in the bottom 2% of all tested systems, a ranking driven almost entirely by the graphics card’s age and limited capabilities.

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

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor from the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. This modern desktop chip, released on 2023-01-03, is massively overqualified for the workload presented by Inside, a 2016 puzzle platformer that does not demand high thread counts or extreme boost frequencies. The processor’s 20 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 are far beyond the requirements of this title’s physics and logic simulations.

In the context of this combo, the CPU is never the limiting factor. The measured FPS drops are not indicative of CPU stalls but rather of GPU saturation. The i5-13400F’s performance percentile sits at 82, meaning it outperforms 82% of all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 25236 places it in a dead heat with the Intel Core i7-13620H (0.1% difference) and just 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D. For a game like Inside, which relies on simple 2D rendering and straightforward collision detection, the CPU’s single-thread performance—evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3004—is more than sufficient to feed frames to the GPU without bottlenecking, even at 1080p where CPU load is typically highest relative to GPU load.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the polar opposite of the CPU in terms of capability. This Pascal-architecture card, based on the GP107 chip, features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. With a base clock of 1291 MHz and a boost clock of 1392 MHz, the card delivers a modest 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its 768 shading units and 32 ROPs are entry-level specifications by modern standards, and the card’s percentile rank of 30 reflects that it only beats 30% of all GPUs in the database.

The GPU’s limitations are starkly visible in the Inside results. At Ultra settings, the card cannot maintain a playable framerate at any resolution above 1080p, dropping to 34.7 FPS at 1440p and 24.7 FPS at 4K. The 4 GB VRAM buffer is a critical constraint at higher resolutions and detail settings, as the game’s visual effects and shadow maps quickly exceed this allocation. The GTX 1050 Ti’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (0.4% faster), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (0.7% faster), placing it in a performance tier that is several generations behind the CPU. This GPU is the sole reason the combo ranks so poorly; the CPU is effectively idle while the GPU struggles to render even a 2D side-scroller at high settings.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions reveals a textbook GPU-bound scenario. At Low settings, the average framerate drops from 109 FPS at 1920x1080 to 75.7 FPS at 2560x1440 (a 30.6% reduction), and then to 51.7 FPS at 3840x2160 (a further 31.7% reduction). This steep decline as pixel count increases is the signature of a GPU that is hitting its fillrate and memory bandwidth limits. The CPU, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, is not influencing these numbers; if it were, the framerate would plateau or drop less significantly at higher resolutions.

At High settings, the pattern is even more pronounced. The 1080p score of 56.9 FPS falls to 37.9 FPS at 1440p and then plummets to 23.1 FPS at 4K. The 4K High result is below the threshold of smooth gameplay, confirming that the GTX 1050 Ti’s 112.1 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB VRAM are insufficient for 4K rendering. The difference between Low and High at 1080p is 52.1 FPS (109 vs 56.9), which narrows to 28.6 FPS at 4K (51.7 vs 23.1). This narrowing delta at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is becoming the absolute bottleneck, regardless of settings, as the pixel workload dominates the rendering pipeline.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured data points to a clear recommendation: for a smooth experience, Low settings are mandatory at higher resolutions, while Medium is viable only at 1080p. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 109 FPS, which is excellent for a puzzle platformer, while Medium still offers a very playable 85.1 FPS. High at 1080p drops to 56.9 FPS, which is acceptable but not ideal, and Ultra falls to 53.8 FPS, showing diminishing returns for the visual fidelity gained.

At 2560x1440, the choice becomes more constrained. Low delivers 75.7 FPS, which is smooth, but Medium drops to 64.8 FPS, still playable. High at 1440p yields 37.9 FPS, which is borderline, and Ultra at 34.7 FPS is not recommended. For 3840x2160, only Low is viable, producing 51.7 FPS, while Medium (40.8 FPS), High (23.1 FPS), and Ultra (24.7 FPS) are all suboptimal. The data suggests that the best balance of visual quality and performance is achieved with Medium at 1080p, where the game maintains 85.1 FPS, or Low at 1440p for higher resolution at 75.7 FPS. Pushing to Ultra settings is not justified given the minimal FPS gain over High at 1080p (53.8 vs 56.9).

FAQ

*Q: Is this combo playable at 4K for Inside?*

A: Only at Low settings, where it achieves 51.7 FPS. At Medium, High, and Ultra, the average framerate falls to 40.8, 23.1, and 24.7 FPS respectively, making those presets unplayable at 4K.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU’s average benchmark score of 5316 is virtually identical to the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (0% delta), 0.4% faster than the GeForce 940M, and 0.7% faster than the AMD Radeon R7 240. It lags behind the AMD Radeon R7 M445 by 0.8%.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p?

A: Low is the best choice, delivering 75.7 FPS. Medium is also acceptable at 64.8 FPS, but High (37.9 FPS) and Ultra (34.7 FPS) fall below the 40 FPS threshold that is generally considered smooth for this genre.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this game?

A: No. The i5-13400F has a passmark multithread score of 25032 and a single-thread score of 3634, which are far above what Inside requires. The framerate drops are entirely attributable to the GPU, as evidenced by the steep scaling with resolution.

Q: What framerate can I expect at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: The measured average is 85.1 FPS. This is the highest preset that remains above 60 FPS at 1080p, making it the recommended setting for a smooth experience with better visual quality than Low.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: It ranks 1637th out of 1671 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 2% of all systems in the database. This low ranking is due to the GPU’s 30th percentile performance, not the CPU’s 82nd percentile ranking.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 1637 out of 1671 tested combinations is a damning indictment of the pairing’s balance. This position, in the 2nd percentile of all systems, is driven almost entirely by the GPU. The CPU’s 82nd percentile standing is neutralized by the GPU’s 30th percentile performance. In the context of Inside, this rank means that the vast majority of tested systems—1636 of them—deliver a better experience, likely due to having a more capable graphics card. The data indicates that this combo is functional but severely limited; it can run the game, but only with significant compromises in resolution or settings. For a game released in 2016, the GTX 1050 Ti’s age (released 2016-10-24) is apparent, as it fails to leverage the modern CPU’s capabilities. The rank is consistent across all resolutions, confirming that the GPU is the persistent weak link.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following table presents the exact average FPS measurements for every tested configuration.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS |

|---|---|---|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 109 |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 85.1 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 56.9 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 53.8 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 75.7 |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 64.8 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 37.9 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 34.7 |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 51.7 |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 40.8 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 23.1 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 24.7 |

The data shows a clear hierarchy: at 1080p, Low and Medium are the only presets that maintain framerates above 60 FPS. At 1440p, Low is the only preset above 60 FPS, while Medium just clears 64 FPS. At 4K, only Low achieves a playable 51.7 FPS, with all other settings falling below 41 FPS. The jump from High to Ultra at 4K is anomalous, with Ultra (24.7 FPS) slightly outperforming High (23.1 FPS), which suggests the Ultra preset may reduce certain effects that are particularly heavy on the GPU. Across all resolutions, the difference between Low and Medium is significant, while the difference between High and Ultra is marginal, indicating that the GPU struggles more with the specific rendering features enabled in the High preset.