Inside

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 produces a wide spread of frame rates in Inside, and the pattern shows exactly where the bottleneck lives. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 132.8 FPS, but dropping to 4K High collapses the average to 28.4 FPS. That is a 78.6% reduction in performance from the best-case scenario to the worst-case preset, which points directly at the GPU as the limiting factor. The CPU has plenty of headroom, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21279 and a passmark multi-thread score of 25032, but the GTX 1650's 4 GB of VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth cannot sustain high frame rates at higher resolutions. The data is clear: this is a GPU-bound pairing for Inside once you move past 1080p or raise the quality preset.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS rows show a predictable and steep drop as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 132.8 FPS, which is more than enough for smooth gameplay. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 95.1 FPS, a 28.4% decrease, and 4K Low lands at 62.4 FPS, which is still playable but clearly lower. The pattern repeats across all settings: 1080p High runs at 64.5 FPS, 1440p High falls to 49.4 FPS, and 4K High bottoms out at 28.4 FPS. The Ultra preset tells a similar story, with 67 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p, and 29.9 FPS at 4K.

These numbers indicate that the GTX 1650 is the primary constraint. The CPU's benchmark scores, such as the 3dmark single-thread score of 960 and the passmark single-thread score of 3634, suggest it can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them at higher resolutions. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is larger than the gap between 1440p and 4K, which is typical of a GPU running out of pixel throughput and memory bandwidth. The GTX 1650's pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are simply not enough to maintain high frame rates at 4K, regardless of the CPU's capability.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Inside at 4K smoothly?*

A: Not at High or Ultra settings. The measured averages are 28.4 FPS at 4K High and 29.9 FPS at 4K Ultra, which are below the typical 60 FPS target. At 4K Low, it reaches 62.4 FPS, which is playable but requires sacrificing visual quality.

Q: What is the best resolution for this pairing?

A: 1080p is the sweet spot. The data shows 64.5 FPS at High, 67 FPS at Ultra, and 105.9 FPS at Medium. All of these are above 60 FPS, making 1080p the only resolution where every preset except the most demanding stays smooth.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its closest rivals in this context?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713, which is 0.4% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746) and 0.4% lower than the AMD Radeon 550X (8749). It is 0.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8671). These small deltas mean the GPU performs nearly identically to its nearest competitors.

Q: Is the CPU holding back the GPU in this game?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-13400F has a percentile rank of 82 versus all CPUs, and its 3dmark max-threads score is 7307. The GPU is the bottleneck, as shown by the FPS dropping sharply with resolution increases while the CPU has ample headroom.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the CPU and GPU?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F had a launch MSRP of $196, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 had a launch MSRP of 149 USD.

Q: Does the 4 GB VRAM cause issues at 4K?

A: The data suggests yes. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 29.9, and at 4K High it is 28.4. The 4 GB frame buffer and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for high-quality 4K rendering, leading to these low numbers.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the deciding factor in this combo's performance. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by modern standards. The base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost of 1665 MHz, and the card has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. These specifications translate to a passmark G3D score of 7880 and a percentile rank of 43 versus all GPUs, placing it in the lower half of the performance spectrum.

In Inside, the GPU's role is evident from the scaling behavior. At 1080p Low, the card can push 132.8 FPS, but raising the settings to Ultra at the same resolution only yields 67 FPS. The difference is even more pronounced at 4K, where the GPU cannot keep up with the pixel count. The FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is sufficient for a puzzle platformer at lower resolutions, but the memory bandwidth and VRAM capacity become limiting factors as resolution increases. The closest rivals, such as the RTX 3050 A Mobile and Radeon 550X, score within 0.4% of the GTX 1650, which confirms that the card is not an outlier but rather a typical entry-level option.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of presets for each resolution. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 132.8 FPS, which is overkill for a game like Inside. Medium drops to 105.9 FPS, still very smooth, while High runs at 64.5 FPS and Ultra at 67 FPS. The latter two are nearly identical, suggesting that the Ultra preset does not add a significant load over High at this resolution. For a balanced experience, Medium at 1080p is the best choice because it stays well above 60 FPS while offering better visual quality than Low.

At 1440p, the options narrow. Low runs at 95.1 FPS, Medium at 78.4 FPS, and High at 49.4 FPS. The drop from Medium to High is steep, indicating that High exceeds the GPU's comfort zone. Ultra is worse at 45 FPS. For 1440p, Medium is the only preset that maintains a playable frame rate above 60 FPS. At 4K, the situation is more constrained: Low hits 62.4 FPS, Medium drops to 50.4 FPS, and both High and Ultra fall below 30 FPS. Only Low is viable for 4K, and even then, the margin above 60 FPS is thin.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is 1080p Medium at 105.9 FPS. It offers a significant visual upgrade over Low while keeping the frame rate well above the 60 FPS threshold. For users with a 1440p monitor, Medium at 78.4 FPS is the practical ceiling. Pushing beyond these settings results in diminishing returns, as the data shows a sharp FPS penalty when moving from Medium to High at both 1440p and 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1608 out of 1671 tested combos in Inside. This places it in the bottom 3.8% of all combinations, which is a poor showing for a game that is not visually demanding. The low rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, as the CPU is a strong performer in isolation. The i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25236, putting it 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13620H (25201) and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25365) in the opposite direction, meaning it is effectively tied with these rivals.

The GPU, however, drags the combo down. The GTX 1650's percentile rank of 43 versus all GPUs indicates that it performs worse than 57% of the graphics cards in the database. When paired with a CPU that ranks in the 82nd percentile, the mismatch is stark. The benchmark results show that the GPU is the limiting factor, and the combo's rank reflects this imbalance. In a game like Inside, which is a 2D puzzle platformer with simple geometry, the low rank is surprising but consistent with the GPU's inability to handle higher resolutions and settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full set of measured FPS values is as follows. At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 132.8 FPS, Medium averages 105.9 FPS, High averages 64.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 67 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low runs at 95.1 FPS, Medium at 78.4 FPS, High at 49.4 FPS, and Ultra at 45 FPS. At 3840x2160, Low achieves 62.4 FPS, Medium drops to 50.4 FPS, High falls to 28.4 FPS, and Ultra is nearly identical at 29.9 FPS.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: Low is always the fastest, followed by Medium, then High and Ultra are close together. The gap between Medium and High is significant at every resolution. At 1080p, the difference is 41.4 FPS (105.9 to 64.5), at 1440p it is 29 FPS (78.4 to 49.4), and at 4K it is 22 FPS (50.4 to 28.4). This suggests that the High and Ultra presets introduce a rendering load that the GTX 1650 cannot handle efficiently. The data also shows that the Ultra preset offers no benefit over High at 1080p and 4K, with only a 2.5 FPS difference at 1080p and a 1.5 FPS difference at 4K. For practical purposes, High and Ultra are interchangeable in this game, and the user should pick the lower setting to save GPU resources without sacrificing visual quality.