Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that is far more forgiving on hardware than its eerie, oppressive atmosphere suggests. For the configuration of an Intel Core i5-9400 paired with an AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT, the benchmark data shows a system that is dramatically overqualified for the task, delivering frame rates that far exceed the demands of the game’s genre. The measured results indicate that this combination is capable of running the game at maximum settings across all tested resolutions, with the primary bottleneck shifting from raw rendering power to the CPU’s single-thread performance at lower resolutions.

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

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. It lacks simultaneous multithreading, meaning it processes six threads across its six physical cores. For a game like Inside, which relies heavily on physics-based interactions and sequential logic rather than massive parallel workloads, this configuration is generally sufficient. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969 and single-core score of 1125 place it in the 50th percentile among all CPUs, indicating a mid-range standing in synthetic tests. However, the benchmark results from Inside suggest that this level of performance is more than adequate.

At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 222.1 FPS. This high frame rate is indicative of a CPU-bound scenario; the GPU is capable of rendering frames much faster than the CPU can issue draw calls. The data shows that as resolution increases, the FPS drops, which is the classic signature of the load shifting from the CPU to the GPU. The i5-9400’s performance is closely matched by its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i3-10305, which is only 0.2% faster in average benchmark score, and the Intel Core i7-8809G, which is 0.6% slower. This puts the i5-9400 in a performance envelope where small clock differences do not translate into meaningful gameplay differences in Inside, as the game’s engine does not appear to be heavily threaded.

The CPU’s 9 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth are adequate for the game’s data streaming needs. The benchmark results show that the CPU is not the limiting factor at higher resolutions; at 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 97.9 FPS, which is still well above playable thresholds. This indicates that the i5-9400 can keep up with the RX 9070 XT’s output even when the GPU is fully saturated. The data suggests that while the i5-9400 is not a high-end processor by modern standards, its 4.10 GHz boost clock provides sufficient single-threaded throughput to avoid becoming a bottleneck in a title like Inside, which is not demanding in terms of core count.

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

The measured FPS data across all settings and resolutions provides a clear picture of the performance scaling. At 1080p, the difference between Low (222.1 FPS) and Ultra (166.5 FPS) is 55.6 FPS, which is a significant drop but still leaves the game running at extremely high frame rates. The jump from Medium (204.5 FPS) to High (168.9 FPS) is 35.6 FPS, while High to Ultra is a smaller 2.4 FPS drop. This suggests that the visual fidelity gains from High to Ultra are relatively cheap in terms of performance at 1080p.

At 1440p, the pattern is similar. Low yields 197.7 FPS, Medium drops to 181.7 FPS, and High falls to 151 FPS. Ultra further reduces the average to 148.5 FPS. The delta between High and Ultra here is only 2.5 FPS, which is negligible. At 4K, the scaling becomes more pronounced. Low produces 169.6 FPS, Medium 159.2 FPS, High 101.1 FPS, and Ultra 97.9 FPS. The drop from Medium to High is a substantial 58.1 FPS, indicating that the High preset at 4K introduces a significant load on the GPU.

For the best experience, the data points to the High preset as the optimal choice. At 1080p, it delivers 168.9 FPS, which is 98.8% of the Ultra frame rate but with a 2.4 FPS difference that is imperceptible. At 1440p, High (151 FPS) is only 2.5 FPS behind Ultra, making it the rational pick. At 4K, High (101.1 FPS) is slightly ahead of Ultra (97.9 FPS), suggesting that the Ultra preset may be adding effects that are not worth the 3.2 FPS loss. The data indicates that the High preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, as it consistently provides frame rates above 100 FPS at all resolutions while avoiding the marginal cost of Ultra settings.

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

Analyzing the FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the nature of the bottleneck in this system. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 222.1 FPS at 1080p to 197.7 FPS at 1440p (an 11% decrease) and then to 169.6 FPS at 4K (a 14% decrease from 1440p). This relatively flat scaling curve suggests that at Low settings, the system is heavily CPU-bound. The GPU is not being fully utilized, so increasing the resolution does not proportionally increase the rendering load on the GPU, but rather exposes the CPU’s limitations in frame generation.

At High settings, the drop is more pronounced. The FPS falls from 168.9 at 1080p to 151 at 1440p (a 10.6% decrease) and then to 101.1 at 4K (a 33% decrease). This steeper drop at 4K indicates that the GPU is becoming the primary limiting factor. The RX 9070 XT’s 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth are being taxed more heavily at this resolution. At Ultra settings, the pattern is similar: 166.5 FPS at 1080p, 148.5 FPS at 1440p (a 10.8% decrease), and 97.9 FPS at 4K (a 34% decrease).

The data shows that the transition from 1440p to 4K is where the GPU load increases most dramatically, particularly at High and Ultra presets. This indicates that the RX 9070 XT is the limiting component at 4K, while the i5-9400 is the limiting factor at 1080p. The fact that the FPS at 1080p High (168.9) is higher than the FPS at 4K Low (169.6) is telling. It suggests that the CPU can push more frames at lower resolutions, but the GPU’s rendering capacity at 4K caps the output. The system’s overall rank of 912 out of 1671 combos in this game reinforces that this is a mid-to-high-tier pairing, but the data clearly shows that the CPU holds back the GPU at lower resolutions, while the GPU takes over as the bottleneck at 4K.

FAQ

Q: What is the maximum average frame rate achievable with this CPU and GPU combination in Inside?

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 222.1 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: How does the CPU’s performance compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2305, which is 0.2% lower than the Intel Core i3-10305 and 0.2% lower than the Intel Core i3-1125G4. It is 0.4% faster than the Intel Xeon E-2134 and 0.6% faster than the Intel Core i7-8809G.

Q: Is the RX 9070 XT’s memory capacity a factor in this game’s performance?

A: The GPU has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 256-bit bus and 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The benchmark data shows that frame rates drop significantly at 4K High and Ultra settings, suggesting that memory bandwidth and capacity are sufficient but the GPU’s compute load is the limiting factor.

Q: What is the FPS difference between the High and Ultra presets at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440 resolution, the High preset averages 151 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 148.5 FPS. The difference is 2.5 FPS, which is negligible in practice.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at 1080p?

A: The data indicates yes. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 222.1 FPS, while at 4K Low, it achieves 169.6 FPS. The relatively small drop from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings (222.1 to 197.7 FPS) suggests the CPU is limiting frame generation at lower resolutions.

Q: How does the GPU’s benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT has an average benchmark score of 39647, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD Radeon Pro 575 and 0.2% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile. It is 0.5% lower than the AMD Radeon Pro 575X and 0.6% lower than the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is a powerhouse built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a 4 nm process node from TSMC. It features 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 render output units. The GPU’s base clock is 1660 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz and a boost clock of 2970 MHz. This high clock speed, combined with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yields a memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s. The GPU’s compute performance is rated at 48.66 TFLOPS for FP32 operations.

In the context of Inside, the RX 9070 XT’s raw power is evident from the measured frame rates. At 4K Ultra, it still manages 97.9 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. The GPU’s 82nd percentile ranking among all GPUs and its average benchmark score of 39647 place it in the upper echelon of graphics cards. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 575, is only 0.1% faster in average score, while the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile is 0.2% slower. The RX 9070 XT’s 64 RT cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6 ensure it is future-proof, though Inside does not utilize ray tracing.

The GPU’s performance scaling in this game is interesting. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 222.1 FPS, but the GPU is not the limiting factor. It is only when the resolution increases to 4K with High or Ultra settings that the GPU’s rendering capabilities become the primary bottleneck. The drop from 1440p High (151 FPS) to 4K High (101.1 FPS) is 49.9 FPS, which is a 33% reduction. This indicates that the RX 9070 XT’s 16 GB of VRAM and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for the game’s textures and effects, but the sheer pixel throughput required at 4K strains the GPU’s compute units. The GPU’s 380.2 GPixel/s pixel rate and 760.3 GTexel/s texture rate are the key specifications driving this performance, and the data shows they are more than enough for a 2D side-scrolling puzzle game like Inside.