Inside

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER delivers a compelling performance profile in Inside, a Puzzle Platformer from 2016. The data reveals a system that is largely GPU-limited at higher resolutions, yet capable of extreme frame rates at 1080p, making it a versatile option for both high-refresh monitors and 4K displays. This analysis examines the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, contextualizes the hardware’s standing, and provides actionable recommendations based solely on the provided benchmark data.

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

The performance trajectory from 1080p to 4K clearly identifies the GPU as the primary bottleneck in this configuration. At the High preset, the average frame rate drops from a smooth 105.7 FPS at 1920x1080 to 78.5 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 27.2 FPS. Moving further to 3840x2160, the average falls to 50.4 FPS, representing a 55.3 FPS decrease from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline is characteristic of a system where the graphics card’s rendering capacity, rather than the CPU’s processing power, is the limiting factor.

The scaling pattern becomes even more pronounced when examining the lowest and highest settings. At the Low preset, the transition from 1080p to 4K sees average FPS drop from 218 to 95.3, a 122.7 FPS difference. In contrast, the Ultra preset shows a more modest absolute drop, from 100.5 FPS at 1080p to 44.7 FPS at 4K, a 55.8 FPS difference. This disparity suggests that while higher settings increase the GPU’s workload, the relative performance hit from resolution scaling is consistent, confirming that pixel throughput is the limiting factor across all quality levels.

The data implies that the i5-13400F, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, is more than capable of feeding the GTX 1660 SUPER at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 218 FPS, a figure that likely approaches the CPU’s frame generation limit for this title. However, the consistent drop at 4K across all presets points squarely at the GPU’s 6 GB of VRAM and its overall compute capabilities as the primary constraint. The benchmark results indicate that this is a classic case of a mid-range CPU pairing with an entry-level GPU, where the latter dictates the ceiling at higher resolutions.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, built on the Turing architecture with a 12 nm process, plays the decisive role in determining the FPS at higher settings and resolutions. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s, which appears sufficient for Inside at 4K, as the game still runs at playable frame rates. The GPU’s boost clock of 1785 MHz and base clock of 1530 MHz drive its 1408 shading units, producing a measured FP32 performance of 5.027 TFLOPS.

The performance gap between the Low and High presets at 4K is substantial, with average FPS jumping from 50.4 to 95.3 when switching from High to Low. This 44.9 FPS improvement indicates that the game’s higher settings impose a significant load on the GPU’s shading units and memory subsystem. The Ultra preset at 4K drops to 44.7 FPS, suggesting that the most demanding settings push the GTX 1660 SUPER to its limits, likely due to increased texture detail and post-processing effects that consume the available VRAM and compute throughput.

Interestingly, the GPU’s benchmark scores place it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14286. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 and Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics, show a negligible deltaPct of -0.2%, indicating that the GTX 1660 SUPER is positioned at a performance tier where small changes in workload can shift rankings. In Inside, this translates to a card that handles 1080p and 1440p with ease but begins to struggle at 4K Ultra, where the 44.7 FPS average falls below the smooth 60 FPS threshold.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

Within the benchmark database, this specific combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 1488 out of 1671 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the lower 11th percentile of all tested systems, which is a surprisingly low position given the playable frame rates measured. The ranking suggests that many other combinations, likely featuring more powerful GPUs, achieve higher average FPS in this title, even though the absolute performance here is adequate for most gaming scenarios.

The low combo rank is primarily a reflection of the GPU’s modest standing rather than the CPU’s capability. The i5-13400F itself ranks in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25236. Its nearest CPU rivals, including the Intel Core i7-13620H and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D, show deltaPct values of 0.1% and -0.5% respectively, indicating they are nearly identical in synthetic performance. However, the GTX 1660 SUPER’s 55th percentile GPU ranking drags down the overall combo position, as Inside appears to be a title where GPU performance is the dominant factor in achieving high frame rates.

This disparity between CPU and GPU rankings highlights an interesting dynamic. The data shows that while the processor is well above average, the graphics card is only slightly above the median. In a game like Inside, which is not particularly demanding on CPU resources, this pairing results in a system that is balanced at lower resolutions but unbalanced at 4K, where the GPU becomes the clear limiting factor. The 1488th rank out of 1671 combos serves as a reminder that raw CPU power does not translate directly to gaming performance when paired with a lower-tier GPU.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers exceptional performance across all settings: Low averages 218 FPS, Medium 174.2 FPS, High 105.7 FPS, and Ultra 100.5 FPS. These figures indicate that at 1080p, the combination is capable of driving high-refresh-rate monitors (144Hz or higher) even at the most demanding settings, with only the Ultra preset dipping below 120 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains strong but shows the expected decline. The Low preset averages 155.4 FPS, Medium 123.7 FPS, High 78.5 FPS, and Ultra 75.3 FPS. At this resolution, the High and Ultra presets still provide smooth gameplay for 60Hz displays, while the Low and Medium presets are suitable for 144Hz monitors. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is most pronounced at the Low setting, with a 62.6 FPS decrease, while the Ultra setting only loses 25.2 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns on GPU load at higher settings.

At 3840x2160, the system’s limitations become apparent. The Low preset averages 95.3 FPS, which is still playable, but the Medium preset drops to 79.1 FPS. The High preset averages 50.4 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls to 44.7 FPS. These numbers indicate that 4K gaming is only viable at Low or Medium settings for a smooth 60 FPS experience. The data reveals a clear hierarchy: 1080p is excellent for all settings, 1440p is good for all settings, and 4K requires significant compromises on quality to maintain playable frame rates.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1920x1080, the Ultra preset at 100.5 FPS offers the best visual experience without sacrificing smoothness, as it remains above the 100 FPS threshold. For users with 144Hz displays, the High preset at 105.7 FPS is nearly identical in performance and may offer better stability, but the Ultra preset provides the highest quality without a significant penalty compared to High.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 123.7 FPS strikes the best balance between visual fidelity and performance, offering a significant improvement over High (78.5 FPS) while maintaining a high refresh rate. For those prioritizing visual quality over frame rate, the High preset at 78.5 FPS is still well above the 60 FPS standard. The Ultra preset at 75.3 FPS is only marginally slower than High, making it a viable option for users who want maximum detail at 1440p.

For 3840x2160, the Medium preset at 79.1 FPS is the clear recommendation, as it provides a smooth experience while retaining a reasonable level of visual quality. The Low preset at 95.3 FPS is the best choice for users with 120Hz 4K displays, but the visual compromise may be significant. The High preset at 50.4 FPS and Ultra at 44.7 FPS are both below the 60 FPS threshold, making them less desirable for most users. The data suggests that for a consistent 60 FPS experience at 4K, Medium is the highest preset that should be used.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is optimal, with all presets exceeding 100 FPS. At 2560x1440, the Medium preset still delivers 123.7 FPS, while 3840x2160 requires Low or Medium settings for smooth gameplay.

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

A: Yes, but with limitations. At 4K, the Low preset averages 95.3 FPS, and the Medium preset averages 79.1 FPS. However, the High and Ultra presets drop to 50.4 FPS and 44.7 FPS respectively, which are below the 60 FPS standard.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GPU’s average benchmark score is 14286, with nearest rivals like the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 and Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics showing a deltaPct of -0.2%, indicating they are nearly equally matched in synthetic tests.

Q: What is the CPU’s performance percentile?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F ranks in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25236. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-13620H, shows a deltaPct of 0.1%, meaning they are virtually identical in average score.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The resolution scaling data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. As resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, FPS drops significantly, while the CPU’s strong benchmark scores suggest it is not the limiting factor.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested systems?

A: This combination ranks 1488 out of 1671 tested combos in Inside, placing it in the lower percentile of all systems tested.

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

The Intel Core i5-13400F provides a robust foundation for this gaming system, though its role in Inside is secondary to the GPU. With 10 cores and 16 threads, the processor offers substantial multi-threading capability, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21279. Its boost clock of 4.60 GHz and base clock of 2.50 GHz, combined with a 20 MB shared L3 cache, ensure that the CPU can handle game logic and physics without becoming a bottleneck.

The CPU’s benchmark scores paint a picture of a highly capable processor. Its Passmark multithread score of 25032 and Geekbench multicore score of 10971 place it well above average, with a percentile ranking of 82. The single-thread performance, as shown by a Passmark single-thread score of 3634 and a 3DMark single-thread score of 960, is also strong, which is important for games that rely on a few fast cores. In Inside, which is not a CPU-intensive title, this processor easily keeps up with the GPU’s output at all resolutions.

The data indicates that the CPU’s performance is not a limiting factor in this game. The fact that the system achieves 218 FPS at 1080p Low suggests that the CPU can generate frames well beyond what the GTX 1660 SUPER can render at higher settings. The i5-13400F’s 65 W TDP and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory further enhance its versatility, though these specifications do not directly impact the measured FPS. The processor’s performance relative to its rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D with a deltaPct of -0.5%, shows that it is firmly in the mid-range tier, providing ample headroom for this game and likely more demanding titles.