Inside

# Inside — Intel Core i5-14600K + AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT

The Intel Core i5-14600K and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination delivers exceptional performance in Inside, a 2016 puzzle platformer that is far more demanding than its minimalist art style suggests. The data shows this combo ranks 625th out of 3,716 tested combinations, placing it in the top 17% of all configs evaluated for this title. Across all tested resolutions and settings, average frame rates never drop below 99 FPS, meaning this pairing sustains smooth gameplay even at 4K Ultra. The measured results reveal a system that is dramatically overqualified for the game's visual demands, yet the scaling patterns between settings and resolutions tell a nuanced story about where the performance ceiling actually lies.

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

The Intel Core i5-14600K is a 14-core, 20-thread processor built on Intel's Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This is a desktop-class chip from the Core 14th Gen series, released in October 2023, and it carries a launch MSRP of $319. The processor features a hybrid design with performance and efficiency cores, though the FACT PACK does not distinguish between them—what matters for Inside is the sheer single-thread capability and the headroom provided by 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

In the context of a 2016 puzzle platformer, the CPU's role is primarily about maintaining consistent frame pacing and avoiding bottleneck scenarios at high frame rates. The benchmark results show the i5-14600K achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24,491 and a single-core score of 2,064, with Geekbench scores of 16,673 multi-core and 2,491 single-core. These figures place the CPU at the 90th percentile among all tested processors, indicating it sits well above the median in raw compute capability.

The processor's nearest rivals in the average benchmark score rankings include the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (0.2% behind), AMD EPYC 4345P (0.3% ahead), Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX (0.7% ahead), and Intel Core Ultra 5 245 (0.8% behind). The extremely narrow delta percentages—all within 1%—suggest that the i5-14600K is positioned in a tightly contested performance band where no single CPU has a decisive advantage. For a game like Inside, which relies heavily on physics interactions and puzzle logic, the strong single-thread score (2,064 in Cinebench R23) is particularly relevant, as it ensures the game's simulation thread has ample headroom even when frame rates climb toward 400 FPS at 1080p Low.

The PassMark single-thread score of 4,270 reinforces this picture, while the multi-thread score of 38,682 shows that the 14-core configuration provides substantial parallel throughput for any background tasks or engine threads that scale beyond the primary simulation. The 125W TDP and Intel Socket 1700 compatibility are standard for this class, and the processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, though the FACT PACK does not specify which memory type was used in the measured FPS results.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combined Intel Core i5-14600K and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT configuration ranks 625th out of 3,716 tested combos for Inside, which places it in the 83rd percentile of all tested systems. This is a strong showing, but the rank reveals something interesting: despite the hardware being far more powerful than the game requires, there are still over 600 combinations that achieve better measured performance. This suggests that Inside may have engine-level frame rate caps or optimization quirks that prevent the absolute top-end hardware from fully flexing its muscles.

The rank distribution implies that the limiting factor is not raw compute but rather the game's own rendering pipeline. With the RX 9070 XT delivering 48.66 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, the GPU is capable of far more than what Inside demands at any resolution. The CPU, likewise, is nowhere near a bottleneck given its 90th percentile ranking among all processors. The fact that this combo sits at 625th rather than, say, 100th, points to the possibility that other combinations with higher single-thread CPU performance or different GPU architectures achieve slightly better frame pacing in this specific title.

The delta between this combo and the top performers is not quantified in the FACT PACK, so we can only infer from the rank that the gap is not enormous—625th out of 3,716 still represents a top-quartile result. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo hits 391 FPS average, which is likely near or at the game's practical frame rate ceiling. The fact that no tested settings combination exceeds 415 FPS (the max FPS recorded for 1080p Medium) suggests that the game engine itself imposes a soft cap around 400 FPS, which would explain why even the most powerful combos cannot separate themselves by large margins.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and consistent scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 391 FPS at 1080p to 330 FPS at 1440p (a 15.6% decrease) and then to 207 FPS at 4K (a 37.3% decrease from 1080p). This scaling behavior is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions, where the number of pixels being rendered doubles and quadruples respectively.

At Medium settings, the pattern is similar: 361 FPS at 1080p, 264 FPS at 1440p (a 26.9% drop), and 166 FPS at 4K (a 54.0% drop from 1080p). The High settings show 230 FPS at 1080p, 165 FPS at 1440p (a 28.3% drop), and 104 FPS at 4K (a 54.8% drop). Ultra settings follow with 219 FPS at 1080p, 157 FPS at 1440p (a 28.3% drop), and 99 FPS at 4K (a 54.8% drop).

The nearly identical percentage drops between Medium, High, and Ultra settings as resolution increases strongly indicate that the GPU is the primary limiting factor at 1440p and 4K. However, the fact that even at 4K Ultra the combo maintains 99 FPS average demonstrates that the RX 9070 XT has ample headroom for this game. The CPU's influence becomes more apparent at 1080p, where the frame rates are extremely high and the gap between Low (391 FPS) and Medium (361 FPS) is relatively small—only 7.7%—suggesting that the CPU can keep up with the GPU's output even at these elevated rates.

The data implies that at 1080p, the system is balanced, with neither component creating a significant bottleneck. At 4K, the GPU workload increases substantially, but the RX 9070 XT still delivers playable or better performance across all settings. The scaling from 1440p to 4K shows a consistent ~37% frame rate reduction across Medium, High, and Ultra, which aligns with the 2.25x pixel count increase (2560x1440 = 3.69M pixels, 3840x2160 = 8.29M pixels), confirming that pixel throughput is the dominant factor at these resolutions.

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

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its highest frame rates across all settings. Low settings yield an average of 391 FPS, which is the highest average recorded in the entire dataset. Medium settings produce 361 FPS average, with a minimum of 307 FPS and a maximum of 415 FPS. High settings drop to 230 FPS average, while Ultra settings achieve 219 FPS average. The narrow gap between High (230 FPS) and Ultra (219 FPS)—a difference of only 4.8%—suggests that the visual fidelity improvements from High to Ultra are relatively inexpensive in terms of GPU workload at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain very high. Low settings average 330 FPS, Medium averages 264 FPS with a minimum of 224 FPS and maximum of 304 FPS, High averages 165 FPS, and Ultra averages 157 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is most pronounced at Low settings (391 to 330 FPS, a 15.6% decrease) and least pronounced at Ultra (219 to 157 FPS, a 28.3% decrease—wait, this is actually the largest percentage drop). Correcting: Low drops 15.6%, Medium drops 26.9%, High drops 28.3%, Ultra drops 28.3%. The Low setting's smaller relative drop indicates that at Low, the CPU or engine limits are more likely to constrain performance, while at higher settings, the GPU becomes the binding constraint.

At 3840x2160, the combo still maintains excellent performance. Low settings average 207 FPS, Medium averages 166 FPS with a minimum of 141 FPS and maximum of 191 FPS, High averages 104 FPS, and Ultra averages 99 FPS. The 4K results show that even at the most demanding settings, the system never drops below 99 FPS average, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The minimum FPS recorded at 4K Medium is 141 FPS, indicating that frame pacing remains consistent even under load.

Comparing across resolutions, the 4K Ultra result (99 FPS) is 54.8% lower than the 1080p Ultra result (219 FPS), while 4K High (104 FPS) is 54.8% lower than 1080p High (230 FPS). The consistency of these percentages across High and Ultra strengthens the conclusion that the GPU is the scaling bottleneck. At Medium settings, the 4K result (166 FPS) is 54.0% lower than 1080p (361 FPS), and at Low, it is 47.1% lower (207 vs 391 FPS). The Low setting's smaller drop again points to CPU or engine constraints becoming relatively more significant at lower GPU loads.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 48 chip, manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The GPU has a base clock of 1660 MHz, a boost clock of 2970 MHz, and a game clock of 2400 MHz. Memory runs at 2518 MHz, effectively 20.1 Gbps. The card also includes 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, 128 raster operation units, and 64 ray tracing cores.

For a game like Inside, the GPU's massive compute capability—48.66 TFLOPS of FP32 performance—is far beyond what the title requires. The game's simple art style and limited geometric complexity mean that even at 4K Ultra, the rendering workload is modest compared to modern AAA titles. The 16 GB VRAM is completely unnecessary for this game; Inside would likely fit comfortably within a small fraction of that memory, though the FACT PACK does not provide specific VRAM usage data.

The measured FPS results confirm that the GPU is not a limiting factor at 1080p, where frame rates exceed 200 FPS even at Ultra settings. At 4K, the GPU workload increases, but the RX 9070 XT still delivers 99 FPS at Ultra and 104 FPS at High. The scaling from High to Ultra at 4K (104 to 99 FPS, a 4.8% drop) suggests that Ultra settings impose only a modest additional GPU load. The GPU's benchmark scores reflect its position: a PassMark G3D score of 26,795 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 7,260. However, the GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs is only 55th, and its nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (0.1% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (0.2% ahead), NVIDIA P106-090 (0.5% ahead), and AMD Radeon Pro 555 (1% ahead). These rivals are all significantly older and less powerful, which suggests that the average benchmark score metric may be skewed by the specific tests used, or that the RX 9070 XT's performance is not fully captured by those particular benchmarks.

The GPU's 304W TDP and dual-slot design with 2x 8-pin power connectors indicate it draws substantial power, with a suggested 700W PSU. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides ample bandwidth, though Inside is unlikely to be constrained by bus throughput given its modest data requirements. The display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a) support high refresh rate monitors, which is relevant given the frame rates this combo can produce at 1080p and 1440p.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves in Inside?*

A: The highest average frame rate is 391 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Does this system maintain 60 FPS at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes, the average frame rate at 3840x2160 Ultra is 99 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold.

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

A: The Intel Core i5-14600K has an average benchmark score of 48,618, which is 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, 0.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4345P, 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX, and 0.8% behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 245.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between High and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, High settings average 165 FPS while Ultra averages 157 FPS, a difference of 8 FPS or approximately 4.8%.

Q: Is the game engine frame-rate capped?

A: The maximum FPS recorded in any test is 415 FPS (at 1080p Medium), and the highest average is 391 FPS (at 1080p Low), suggesting the game may have a soft cap around 400 FPS, though this is not explicitly confirmed in the data.

Q: How much does performance drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 230 FPS at 1920x1080 to 104 FPS at 3840x2160, a decrease of 54.8%.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's display resolution and refresh rate. At 1920x1080, Ultra settings provide 219 FPS average, which is more than sufficient for any high-refresh-rate monitor. The jump from High (230 FPS) to Ultra (219 FPS) costs only 11 FPS, so Ultra is the clear choice for maximum visual quality without sacrificing smoothness. Even at lower settings, the frame rates exceed 360 FPS, but these offer no practical benefit unless the display supports refresh rates above 240 Hz.

At 2560x1440, Ultra settings deliver 157 FPS average, which is still excellent for most gaming monitors. High settings provide 165 FPS, a marginal 8 FPS improvement, so Ultra is recommended for the best visual experience. Medium settings at 264 FPS would only be preferable for users with 240 Hz or faster displays, but the visual downgrade from Ultra is significant enough that most players will prefer the higher fidelity.

At 3840x2160, the situation reverses. Ultra settings produce 99 FPS average, which is playable but may not saturate a 120 Hz or higher refresh rate display. High settings at 104 FPS offer a minimal improvement of 5 FPS, so Ultra remains the better choice unless the user prioritizes a few additional frames. Medium settings at 166 FPS provide a substantial frame rate boost—66.3% higher than Ultra—and would be the recommended setting for 4K users with high-refresh-rate displays who want to maintain frame rates above 144 FPS. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium is 141, ensuring that even the slowest frame remains smooth.

For the best overall experience, the data suggests that Ultra settings at 1080p or 1440p provide the ideal balance of visual quality and performance, while Medium settings at 4K are the sweet spot for users who prioritize high frame rates at that resolution. The combination of this CPU and GPU ensures that no settings preset will result in unplayable frame rates, making the choice purely a matter of personal preference for fidelity versus frame rate.