Inside

The Intel Core i5-14600KF paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is an extreme mismatch in Inside, a 2016 Puzzle Platformer. The data shows a processor that sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs paired with a graphics card in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. This combination produces playable frame rates at lower resolutions and settings, but the benchmark results clearly indicate that the GTX 1650 is the component that dictates performance in this title. The CPU's immense headroom goes largely unused, while the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and modest compute capabilities become the primary constraints.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Inside shows a dramatic and predictable decline as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 134.2 FPS. This is the highest frame rate recorded across any configuration. However, the drop is steep when moving to higher resolutions. At 1440p Low, the average FPS falls to 98.6, and at 4K Low, it plummets to 59.7 FPS. This scaling pattern indicates that even at the lowest graphical preset, the GPU is struggling to fill the increasing number of pixels.

The situation becomes more pronounced at higher settings. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 62.1. At 1440p Ultra, that number drops to 47.5, and at 4K Ultra, it collapses to 28.7 FPS. The difference between 1080p Low and 4K Ultra is a staggering 105.5 FPS, representing a 78.6% performance loss. This is not a case of a CPU bottleneck; if the processor were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions. Instead, the data shows a clear and consistent penalty for every pixel added, which points directly to the GTX 1650 as the limiting component.

Looking at the High settings preset, the scaling is equally telling. The combo produces 64.8 FPS at 1080p, 45.5 FPS at 1440p, and 27.9 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is 19.3 FPS, while the gap between 1440p and 4K is 17.6 FPS. This nearly linear degradation suggests that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are being saturated. The GTX 1650's 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is simply insufficient to handle the data throughput required at 4K, regardless of the preset. The game becomes progressively less fluid, making 4K a viable option only for static scenes or screenshots, not for actual gameplay.

FAQ

*Q: Can this PC run Inside at 4K resolution?*

A: It can technically run the game at 4K, but the experience is not recommended. The data shows 59.7 FPS at 4K Low, but this drops to 27.9 FPS at High and 28.7 FPS at Ultra. These lower frame rates are below the standard for smooth, responsive gameplay.

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this hardware?

A: The data suggests that 1080p is the sweet spot. At 1080p Medium, the combo achieves 104.8 FPS, and at High, it manages 64.8 FPS. For a consistent 60+ FPS experience, 1080p Medium is the highest quality setting that maintains a comfortable frame rate, while 1080p Low offers a much higher 134.2 FPS for maximum fluidity.

Q: How much of a performance drop is there between Medium and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: The difference is substantial. At 1440p Medium, the average FPS is 76. When switching to Ultra, the average FPS drops to 47.5. This represents a 28.5 FPS loss, or a 37.5% reduction in performance, indicating that the Ultra preset is too demanding for this GPU at this resolution.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-14600KF the reason for low frame rates in this game?

A: No. The benchmark results show that the frame rate scales heavily with resolution and settings, which is a sign of a GPU bottleneck. The i5-14600KF is a high-end processor with a strong multi-core score of 13813 in Cinebench R20, and it is not the limiting factor in this specific game.

Q: How does the GTX 1650's performance compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8746, which is 0.4% higher. The AMD Radeon 550X scores 8749, also 0.4% higher. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is 0.5% lower at 8671, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is 0.5% higher at 8761. The performance differences are minimal, placing this GPU in a tight performance bracket.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear performance ceiling in this configuration. Its role in Inside is defined by its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The benchmark data suggests that this memory configuration is a major bottleneck at higher resolutions. The 4K Ultra score of 28.7 FPS is a direct consequence of the GPU being unable to manage the texture data and frame buffer requirements efficiently.

The GPU's compute capabilities are modest, with 896 shading units and an FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS. This raw processing power is enough for 1080p gaming, as evidenced by the 134.2 FPS at Low settings, but it is insufficient for the demands of 4K. The core clocks are set at a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz. These clocks are relatively low compared to modern standards, and they limit the card's ability to push through the heavy pixel shader workloads present in Inside at higher resolutions.

The GTX 1650's age is also a factor. It was released in 2019 and is now marked as end-of-life. Its DirectX 12 score of 35 in Passmark reflects its limited modern API performance. In a puzzle platformer like Inside, which has a distinct art style, the GPU must handle both the 3D geometry and the post-processing effects. The data shows that it can do so effectively at 1080p, but the performance collapses when the render target size increases. The 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors highlight its intended role as a low-power entry-level card, which is a design philosophy that does not align with high-resolution gaming.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-14600KF and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1631 out of 1671 tested combos in Inside. This places it in the bottom 2.4% of all configurations, which is a very poor result for a system with such a powerful CPU. This low rank is almost entirely attributable to the GPU. The data indicates that the i5-14600KF is not contributing to the performance ceiling in this game; its high benchmark scores, such as 32889 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, are irrelevant when the GPU cannot keep up.

This ranking is a clear warning for anyone considering a similar pairing. The CPU has a percentile rank of 93 among all CPUs, while the GPU has a percentile rank of 43 among all GPUs. The massive discrepancy in their respective performance tiers is a major source of system imbalance. The combo's rank suggests that for a game like Inside, a much weaker CPU paired with a stronger GPU would have yielded a significantly higher frame rate and a better overall ranking.

The fact that this combo is in the bottom 2.4% is not a reflection of the CPU's quality, but rather proof of the GPU's limitations. The benchmark results show that the system's performance is capped by the graphics card at every resolution and setting. The CPU is effectively "waiting" for the GPU at all times, which is a textbook example of a bottleneck. This data serves as a practical lesson that pairing a high-end processor with a low-end graphics card is a poor strategy for gaming, even in less demanding titles.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600KF plays a minimal role in the measured FPS for Inside. This is a 14-core, 20-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its benchmark scores are exceptional, including a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 13813 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2778. However, these metrics are not relevant to the performance in this game because the GPU fails to utilize the CPU's capabilities.

The data shows that the frame rates are consistently limited by the GPU. For example, at 1080p Low, the system produces 134.2 FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see this frame rate remain constant regardless of resolution. Instead, we see a drop to 98.6 FPS at 1440p and 59.7 FPS at 4K. This indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor, and the CPU has significant headroom that is never used.

The i5-14600KF's 24 MB of shared L3 cache and support for high-speed DDR5 memory are features that benefit CPU-intensive games, but Inside is not one of them. The game's puzzle platformer genre does not require complex physics simulations or large-scale AI calculations that would stress the processor. The CPU's performance is more than sufficient to handle the game's logic at any resolution; it is the graphics rendering that is holding the system back. This is a case where the CPU's role is to simply feed the GPU with data, a job it does with ease, while the GPU struggles to render the frames.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system's capabilities across all settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the performance is mostly playable. Low settings yield an average of 134.2 FPS, which is excellent. Medium settings provide a strong 104.8 FPS, and High settings give a solid 64.8 FPS. Ultra settings are the only problematic preset at this resolution, producing 62.1 FPS, which is still technically playable but shows a significant drop from the Medium preset.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance becomes more variable. Low settings still offer a good experience at 98.6 FPS. Medium settings drop to 76 FPS, which is acceptable. High settings fall to 45.5 FPS, which is below the ideal threshold for smooth gameplay. Ultra settings are the weakest, averaging just 47.5 FPS, which is inconsistent with the High preset and suggests a poorly optimized preset for this GPU.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles across the board. Low settings are the only option that provides a playable frame rate, with an average of 59.7 FPS. Medium settings drop to 50.6 FPS, which is borderline. High settings fall to 27.9 FPS, and Ultra settings are nearly unplayable at 28.7 FPS. The data clearly shows that 4K resolution is not a viable option for this hardware, as even the lowest settings barely achieve 60 FPS, and any increase in quality results in a significant performance penalty.