Inside

The combo of an Intel Core i5-14400F CPU and a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 GPU is a curious pairing: a modern 10-core CPU that sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, and a graphics card from the GeForce 10-series that is now end-of-life and ranks in the 40th percentile among all GPUs. Inside, a 2D puzzle-platformer released in 2016, is not the most demanding game on the market, yet the measured frame rates reveal exactly where this combination lands. Across all resolutions and settings, the data shows a consistent pattern: the GPU pressures the experience, while the CPU provides ample headroom. The entire dataset is purely measured, with no overclocking or frame-limits included.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS at 1920×1080, 2560×1440, and 3840×2160 make the scaling behavior plain. At the lowest preset, the average FPS drops from 134 at 1080p to 97 at 1440p, then to 61 at 4K. The same precipitous fall appears on the High preset: 67 at 1080p, 48 at 1440p, and 30 at 4K. Even the rarest measured combination, the Ultra preset, drops from 64 to 46 to 29 across those three resolutions. The reduction is not linear—the difference from 1080p to 1440p is smaller than the subsequent drop to 4K, a hallmark of a GPU that is overwhelmed by pixel count.

The pattern points to the limiting component. The i5-14400F, with its 10 cores and 16 threads running at a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, can easily supply the draw calls. The GPU, with only a 128‑bit memory bus and 512 shading units, is clearly the bottleneck. When the resolution is cut by half (from 4K to 1080p), FPS more than doubles for every settings row—from 30 to 67 on High, from 61 to 134 on Low, from 49 to 107 on Medium. The fact that the proportional increases are nearly uniform across all presets indicates that the GPU's raw pixel‑pushing capability is the dominant factor, not complex shader or geometry loads.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data offers a clear prescriptive answer for players who want a certain frame‑rate territory. If the target is 60 FPS or higher, at 1920×1080 every preset (Low 134, Medium 107, High 67, Ultra 63) comfortably exceeds that threshold. At 2560×1440, the Low preset delivers 97 FPS and the Medium preset delivers 77 FPS, which are both smooth. At 4K, only the Low preset hits 61 FPS, which is right at the edge of playability; the Medium preset drops to 49 FPS, and High and Ultra sit at 30 and 29 respectively.

The Medium preset is particularly noteworthy because it is the only row where the dataset includes minimum and maximum frame times—the only mini‑row with actual range data. Across all resolutions, the Medium preset records a minimum and maximum: at 1080p, min 91, max 124, and an average of 107; at 1440p, min 66, max 89, average 77; at 4K, min 41, max 56, average 49. The spread between min and max is about 15-20% of the average, which suggests a fairly stable frame pacing when the scene has no complex effects. For a puzzle platformer, this stability is likely more valuable than the extra shadows offered by High or Ultra.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5‑14400F is a 10‑core, 16‑thread desktop processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Its cache includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. These specifications place it in a clear mid‑range tier, but its benchmark scores confirm it is not a weakling. In Cinebench R23, it scored 21,645 multicore and 3,055 single‑core. In Geekbench, the multicore is 11,268 and single‑core 2,058. PassMark multithread reads 25,470 and singlethread 3,701.

Looking at the rivals, the i5‑14400F sits within 1% of its nearest competitors. It is 0.1% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, 0.2% faster than the Intel Core i9‑11900, and 0.5% faster than the Intel Core i7‑12700H. One direct rivalry is where it drops: the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS is 0.2% faster (since the delta is negative -0.2%). But these numbers are all tiny, meaning the CPU is at the edge of a performance plateau; it is neither a super high‑end chip nor a budget part.

In Inside, the difference between 1080p Low and 1080p Ultra is only 70 FPS (134 to 65), whereas the difference from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 73 FPS (134 to 61). That shows the CPU can handle the game’s logic and the only mechanical change in preset is the shading detail, not CPU‑bound AI physics (in a 2D puzzle game, physics is simple). The i5‑14400F has more than enough single‑thread capability, as seen by its Passmark singlethread score of 3,701 and its Cinebench single score of 3,055. This explains why the game’s frame rate scales almost purely with resolution, not CPU load.

FAQ

Q: At which resolution and preset does the combo achieve the highest average FPS?

A: At 1920×1080 with the Low preset, the average FPS is 134, the fastest measured value in the entire dataset.

Q: What are the measured minimum and maximum FPS on the Medium preset?

A: At 3840×2160 the range is 41 to 56, at 2560×1440 it is 66 to 89, and at 1920×1080 it is 91 to 124. The average for these three rows are 49, 77, and 107 respectively.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming?

A: Only barely. The Low preset at 4K runs at an average of 61 FPS, which is the only 4K row that reaches a typical 60 FPS threshold. All other 4K presets (Medium 49, High 30, Ultra 29) fall below 60 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5‑14400F is within 0.2% of the i9‑11900 and within 1% of all four listed rivals. Its average benchmark score is 32,279, a figure in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the GPU’s VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128‑bit bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s.

Q: What is this combination’s overall rank among all combos tested for Inside?

A: It ranks 3,575 out of 3,716 combos, placing it near the very bottom in performance.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a dual‑slot, 75 W part with a TU‑117 chip, 12 nm process, and 4,700 million transistors. Its base clock is 1485 MHz, boost to 1665 MHz, and the memory runs at 2001 MHz effective (8 Gbps). With 896 shading units, 56 texture units, and 32 rops, it offers 2,984 TFLOPS of FP32 and 5,967 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1). The memory bus is 128‑bit, which yields 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its combined fecube is a classic of low‑cost Turing.

The graph from the measured FPS database indicates that scaling from 1080p to 4K is hugely dependent on this GPU’s fill rate. At every resolution, the difference between Low and Ultra is roughly 50%: at 1080p, 134 vs 61 (an area of ~75% reduction), at 1440p, 97 vs 46, and at 4K, 61 vs 29. The combination of 4 GB VRAM and GDDR5 is sufficient for a game that does not require large textures, but the chip's raw shader throughput constrains the pixel push.

The GPU's closest rivals are all thin—the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% slower), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% slower), AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% slower), and Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster. This places the GTX 1650 near the bottom of the current GPUs tested, yet Inside’s simple graphics make it workable at 1080p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset includes 12 combinations of resolution and preset. Below is the exact average FPS, with min-max where available:

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------:|---------:|--------:|--------:|--------:|

| 3840×2160 (4K) | Low | 61 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 (4K) | Medium | 49 | 41 | 56 |

| 3840×2160 (4K) | High | 30 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 (4K) | Ultra | 29 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 (1440p) | Low | 97 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 (1440p) | Medium | 77 | 66 | 89 |

| 2560×1440 (1440p) | High | 48 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 (1440p) | Ultra | 46 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 (1080p) | Low | 134 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 (1080p) | Medium | 107 | 91 | 124 |

| 1920×1080 (1080p) | High | 67 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 (1080p) | Ultra | 64 | – | – |

The only variance data we have is the Medium preset? that gives 91‐124 at 1080p, 56‐66‐ one for 1440p, and 41–56 at 4K. The timings show the game is generally stable at 1080p and 1440p, with a tighter range at lower resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of the 3,716 combinations tested for Inside, this CPU/GPU pair resides at rank 3,575. That is the 96th percentile from the bottom, meaning only 141 combos performed worse than this one. This is a very low placement, which is exactly what one would expect given the GTX 1650's performance class.

The fact that a 10‑core processor with a top‑1% single‑thread score is paired with a GPU that falls in the 40th percentile of all GPUs is the reason for the ranking. The CPU does all it can, but the GPU simply cannot push enough raw frames at high resolutions. The data from other combos is not provided, but the rank alone perfectly shows that in Inside, the bar for smooth play is relatively low and this combination delivers passable performance only at lower settings and resolutions.

This CPU, launched with an MSRP of $196, and this GPU, launched at 149 USD, are near the entry‑level price point. Their combination delivers a best‑case experience of ~134 FPS at 1080p Low, but that number drops rapidly with resolution. For anyone considering this pair, the measured numbers make it clear that the GPU is the component to upgrade first if higher resolution or better presets are desired.