Inside

Inside is a puzzle platformer from 2016 that, on paper, should not stress modern hardware. Yet, the measured data for the Intel Core i7-14700KF and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB combination reveals a surprisingly wide performance envelope, ranging from 386 FPS at 1080p Low to 83 FPS at 4K Ultra. This dataset provides a clear window into how a high-end 20-core CPU paired with a mid-range 8 GB GPU behaves across different rendering loads, and the results show a system that is unequivocally CPU-bound at lower resolutions but shifts into a GPU-limited territory as pixel count climbs. The following analysis breaks down the measured FPS to understand where the bottleneck lies and what the data implies for gameplay.

Resolution Scaling

The most dramatic observation in the dataset is the impact of resolution on average frame rates. At the highest preset (Ultra), performance drops from 184 FPS at 1920x1080 to 132 FPS at 2560x1440, and finally to 83 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 28% performance hit from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 37% hit from 1440p to 4K. The cumulative drop from 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra is over 54%, which is a severe scaling curve that points directly at the graphics card as the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

However, the scaling pattern changes dramatically when examining the Low preset. At 1920x1080 Low, the system produces 386 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low drops that to 278 FPS, a reduction of 108 FPS or roughly 28%. Then moving to 4K Low yields 174 FPS, another 37% drop. The relative percentage drops are nearly identical between Low and Ultra settings as resolution increases, which is a curious data point. This suggests that while the absolute frame rates are vastly different, the rate at which performance degrades with resolution is consistent. This consistency implies that the rendering pipeline's resolution scaling is behaving predictably, but the absolute headroom available at lower resolutions is so vast that the CPU's role becomes more pronounced.

The data further indicates that the gap between 1080p and 1440p is smaller than the gap between 1440p and 4K for most settings. For example, on Medium settings, 1080p yields 309 FPS, 1440p yields 222 FPS, and 4K yields 140 FPS. The delta between 1080p and 1440p is 87 FPS, while the delta between 1440p and 4K is 82 FPS. This near-linear drop in absolute terms, despite the 2.25x increase in pixel count from 1440p to 4K, indicates that the GPU is becoming saturated and that other factors, such as memory bandwidth or VRAM capacity, are starting to influence the results. The 8 GB VRAM buffer is likely a constraint at 4K, even for a game as old as Inside, which would explain the sharp decline.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700KF is a 20-core, 28-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Its benchmark scores are stellar, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44167 and a single-core score of 6235. The data shows this CPU is far from being a bottleneck at 1080p, where the system achieves 386 FPS on Low settings. A frame time of roughly 2.6 milliseconds at that speed suggests the CPU is delivering frames faster than most displays can even refresh, indicating significant headroom.

The CPU's dominance is further evidenced by its percentile ranking of 94th among all CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, which it edges out by 0.9% in average benchmark score. This processing power is overkill for a title like Inside, which is a 2D side-scroller at heart. The 33 MB of shared L3 cache and the high boost clock are likely what allow the game's physics and logic threads to run at such high rates, enabling the massive frame counts seen at 1080p Low.

Yet, the CPU's role becomes more complex when looking at the scaling data. The fact that 4K Low (174 FPS) is significantly lower than 1080p Ultra (184 FPS) is telling. If the CPU were the sole bottleneck, we would expect similar frame rates regardless of resolution, as long as the settings are identical in terms of CPU load. The data shows that lowering settings from Ultra to Low at the same resolution (e.g., 1440p) yields a massive FPS increase (132 to 278 FPS), which indicates the GPU is the primary limiter even at 1440p. The CPU is providing more than enough data for the GPU to process; the GPU simply cannot keep up at higher quality settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB is a mid-range card with a 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2913 places it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs, which is surprisingly low, but its nearest rivals include the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB, which is only 0.2% faster. This suggests the 8 GB version is not far off the pace of its larger VRAM sibling in this particular test, but the data for Inside tells a different story regarding memory capacity.

The GPU's clock speeds are listed at 2310 MHz base and 2535 MHz boost, with memory running at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). These are respectable numbers, but the core limitation appears to be the 8 GB VRAM. At 4K Ultra, the system drops to 83 FPS, which is the lowest average in the entire dataset. While this is still playable, the drop from 4K High (87 FPS) to 4K Ultra (83 FPS) is only 4 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset is either not much more demanding than High, or that the VRAM buffer is saturated and the card is swapping or throttling.

Interestingly, the GPU's performance at 1080p Ultra (184 FPS) is nearly identical to its performance at 4K Low (174 FPS). This is a significant data point. It implies that the GPU is capable of rendering the game at a certain complexity level, and that complexity is driven by a combination of resolution and settings. At 1080p Ultra, the pixel count is low, but the shading and texture work are high. At 4K Low, the pixel count is high, but the shading work is low. The fact that both scenarios produce similar FPS suggests that the GPU is balancing these factors, but its total throughput is the limiting factor, not just raw pixel fill rate.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of the benchmark database, this specific combination of the Intel Core i7-14700KF and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB ranks 1186 out of 3716 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the 68th percentile of all tested systems, which is a solid position but not elite. The data shows that while the CPU is a top-tier performer (94th percentile), the GPU is holding the combo back significantly (19th percentile). This is a classic pairing of a high-end CPU with a mid-range GPU, and the benchmark results reflect that imbalance.

When examining the nearest rivals for the GPU, it is clear that the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB is competitive with other cards in its class. The delta between it and the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is a negligible 0.2%, meaning that the extra VRAM does not help in the 3DMark test. However, in a game like Inside, the 8 GB buffer might be the reason the 4K Ultra scores are so low, as the game's art assets could be exceeding the memory limit. The combo rank of 1186 suggests that there are 1185 other combinations that perform better in this game, which is expected given the GPU's low percentile ranking.

The CPU's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, is only 0.9% behind in average benchmark score, indicating that the Intel chip is at the top of its class. This means that if a user were to swap out the RTX 4060 Ti for a more powerful GPU, this combo's rank would likely climb dramatically, as the CPU would not be the limiting factor. The data implies that the CPU is providing a strong foundation, but the GPU is the weak link in this specific pairing for Inside.

FAQ

Q: Why is the frame rate so much higher at 1080p Low (386 FPS) compared to 4K Ultra (83 FPS)?

A: The difference is driven by the GPU's workload. At 1080p Low, the GPU is rendering a fraction of the pixels with minimal shading effects, allowing it to output frames rapidly. At 4K Ultra, the GPU must process over 8 million pixels with maximum quality settings, which saturates its processing capability and memory bandwidth, resulting in a 78% reduction in frame rate.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck in this system for Inside?

A: The data shows the GPU is the primary bottleneck. Evidence for this is the fact that lowering settings from Ultra to Low at a given resolution (e.g., 1440p, from 132 FPS to 278 FPS) yields a massive FPS increase, while keeping settings constant and changing resolution yields a smaller relative drop. The CPU's high benchmark scores and 94th percentile ranking indicate it has ample headroom.

Q: How does the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB compare to its 16 GB counterpart in this context?

A: In the 3DMark benchmark, the 8 GB model is only 0.2% slower than the 16 GB model, making them effectively equal in compute performance. However, the 8 GB VRAM buffer may cause performance drops in games that require more memory, which could explain the low FPS at 4K Ultra in Inside.

Q: What does the combo rank of 1186 out of 3716 indicate about this system?

A: It indicates that this specific CPU and GPU pairing performs better than roughly 68% of all tested combinations in Inside. This is a solid result, but it is heavily influenced by the GPU's lower percentile ranking (19th), which pulls the overall combo down despite the CPU's strong performance.

Q: Is the CPU's 20-core configuration useful for a game like Inside?

A: The data suggests that the high core count is not necessary for this game, as it is a lighter title. However, the CPU's high boost clock of 5.60 GHz and strong single-core performance (Cinebench R23 score of 6235) are more likely the factors that allow for the extremely high frame rates at lower resolutions.

Q: Why is the FPS at 4K Low (174 FPS) higher than at 1080p Ultra (184 FPS)?

A: This is a close result, with 4K Low being slightly lower. It indicates that the GPU is balancing a high pixel count with low graphical complexity, resulting in a similar workload to a lower pixel count with high complexity. The difference of 10 FPS shows that the GPU is slightly less efficient at 4K Low, likely due to memory bandwidth limitations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a comprehensive matrix of performance across three resolutions and four settings. At 1920x1080, the system achieves its highest frame rates. The Low preset produces an average of 386 FPS, which is the peak performance in the entire dataset. Medium settings yield 309 FPS, with a minimum of 263 FPS and a maximum of 355 FPS. High settings drop to 193 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 184 FPS. This shows a clear scaling curve where each step up in quality costs a significant number of frames, but even the lowest performer at 1080p is well above 144 Hz.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high but start to show the GPU's strain. Low settings produce 278 FPS, which is still exceptional. Medium settings yield 222 FPS (min 189, max 255), High settings drop to 139 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 132 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at this resolution is only 7 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset is not significantly more demanding than High, or that the GPU is hitting a performance ceiling. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings is 108 FPS, indicating the increased pixel count is taking a toll.

At 3840x2160, the system's performance falls significantly. Low settings produce 174 FPS, which is still playable but a far cry from the 386 FPS at 1080p. Medium settings yield 140 FPS (min 119, max 161), High settings produce 87 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 83 FPS. The minimum frame rate of 119 FPS on Medium at 4K is notable, as it shows the system can maintain a stable experience even at this high resolution. The data shows that 4K Ultra is the most demanding scenario, with the system barely maintaining a playable frame rate.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and refresh rate. For users with a 1080p 144Hz display, the High preset (193 FPS) is the best choice, as it provides a smooth experience well above the refresh rate while maintaining better visual fidelity than Medium. The Ultra preset (184 FPS) is also viable, but the 9 FPS difference between High and Ultra may not justify the potential extra load on the system. For those with a 1080p 240Hz display, the Medium preset (309 FPS) is the only option that comes close to saturating the refresh rate, while Low (386 FPS) would be the only way to reach that target consistently.

For 1440p displays, the situation is more nuanced. A 1440p 144Hz monitor would be best served by the Low preset (278 FPS), which is the only setting that exceeds 144 FPS. The Medium preset (222 FPS) also provides a comfortable margin, but High (139 FPS) and Ultra (132 FPS) fall just below the 144 Hz threshold, meaning they would not fully utilize the display's capabilities. If visual quality is a priority over maximum frame rate, High is a solid choice, but the data suggests that Medium offers the best balance of performance and quality at this resolution.

For 4K displays, the data shows that the system is struggling to maintain high frame rates. A 4K 60Hz display is the only realistic target, and the Low preset (174 FPS) is overkill, while Medium (140 FPS) is also sufficient. The High preset (87 FPS) and Ultra preset (83 FPS) are both above 60 FPS and would provide a playable experience, but the frame rates are close enough that the visual difference between High and Ultra may be minimal. Given that the drop from High to Ultra is only 4 FPS at 4K, the Ultra preset is the recommended choice for 4K users who want the best visuals, as the performance cost is negligible. However, for competitive play or if frame pacing is a concern, the High preset at 87 FPS offers a slightly more stable frame rate.