Inside

Inside, a puzzle platformer released in mid-2016, is the kind of lightweight, atmospheric title that modern laptop hardware dispatches without effort. This page analyzes measured frame-rate data for a pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H, a Meteor Lake mobile processor, with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile, a Blackwell 2.0 discrete GPU. All figures below come from the recorded benchmark dataset.

How This Combo Ranks

Across the database, this CPU/GPU pairing ranks 1008th out of 3716 tested combinations in Inside. That places it in roughly the top quartile of tested hardware pairings for this specific game — a sensible outcome given the components involved, but notably not elite, because Inside is a title where extreme hardware yields sharply diminishing returns.

The ranking context matters. Inside launched in 2016 and belongs to a genre — puzzle platformer — that prioritizes art direction, lighting, and animation polish over raw geometric complexity. Games of this type tend to compress the spread between mid-range and flagship configurations: a modest GPU can already render them at high frame rates, so a premium mobile GPU like the RTX 5080 Mobile cannot fully separate itself from cheaper pairings the way it would in a modern AAA release. Rank 1008 of 3716 therefore reflects a fast combo in a game whose ceiling is set more by the engine than by the silicon.

It is also worth noting the unusual composition of this combo: a 28 W TDP ultraportable-class CPU paired with an 80 W TDP discrete mobile GPU. The CPU sits in the 79th percentile versus all CPUs in the database, while the GPU sits in the 81st percentile versus all GPUs. Both parts are strong for the mobile segment, and the measured results below confirm the pairing is far more than sufficient for this game.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile is built on the GB203 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process, packing 45,600 million transistors onto a 378 mm² die — a density of 120.6 million transistors per square millimeter. It carries 7680 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, 96 render output units, 60 RT cores, and 240 tensor cores, with a rated FP32 throughput of 23.04 TFLOPS.

Clock behavior: the GPU runs a 975 MHz base and a 1500 MHz boost clock. Memory is 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, running at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective), delivering 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth — an enormous pool for a 2016 puzzle platformer. Pixel fill rate is rated at 144.0 GPixel/s and texture fill rate at 360.0 GTexel/s.

In synthetic terms the card scores 4952 in 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12), 166986 in Geekbench OpenCL, 169754 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 27711 in PassMark G3D, with a database average of 38349. Its nearest rivals by aggregate score are the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 (38299, a 0.1% gap), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (38135, 0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A (38691, -0.9%), and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (38706, -0.9%). Those deltas are tiny, which tells you the aggregate score is not what matters here — for Inside, what matters is that the GPU's 16 GB VRAM buffer and near-900 GB/s of memory bandwidth are dramatically oversized relative to the game's demands.

The measured results bear this out. Even at 3840x2160 on Ultra, the average is 97 FPS — comfortably playable. The GPU is never the constraint in this title at any tested resolution; the API-level scores (PassMark DirectX 9 through 12 results of 314, 171, 253, and 116 respectively) and the overall throughput figures all point to a card loafing through this workload.

Resolution Scaling

The data shows the expected monotonic decline in frame rate as resolution rises, but the magnitude of that decline is the interesting part.

At Low settings: 307 FPS at 1920x1080, 275 FPS at 2560x1440, and 204 FPS at 3840x2160. Moving from 1080p to 4K — a 4x increase in pixel count — costs only about a third of the frame rate. That is a classic signature of a CPU/engine-limited scenario rather than a GPU-limited one: when the GPU has massive headroom, quadrupling the pixel workload produces a much smaller than proportional drop because the bottleneck sits upstream.

The same pattern holds at Medium: 283 FPS at 1080p, 254 FPS at 1440p, 163 FPS at 4K. At High: 226, 163, 102. At Ultra: 215, 155, 97.

Note the High and Ultra numbers at 1080p: 226 and 215 FPS. The gap between Ultra and High at 1080p is barely 11 FPS, and the Ultra average at 1080p (215) is lower than the High average (226) by a small margin. Frame rates clustering in the low-to-mid 200s at 1080p regardless of preset, with min/max spreads around the Medium 1080p row spanning 241 to 326, strongly suggest the engine or CPU is placing the ceiling — the Core Ultra 5 125H and the game's logic thread can only push this title so fast. Meanwhile, the 4K Medium row shows a minimum of 139 and maximum of 188, a tighter and lower band consistent with the GPU finally doing meaningful rasterization work at that resolution.

In short: at 1080p and 1440p the platform is limited by something other than the RTX 5080 Mobile's rendering throughput. At 4K the GPU begins to matter, and even then it stays above 97 FPS at the most demanding preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All numbers below are measured averages from the dataset; the Medium rows also include recorded minimum and maximum values.

1920x1080:

• Low: 307 FPS average
• Medium: 283 FPS average (241 min, 326 max)
• High: 226 FPS average
• Ultra: 215 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 275 FPS average
• Medium: 254 FPS average (216 min, 292 max)
• High: 163 FPS average
• Ultra: 155 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 204 FPS average
• Medium: 163 FPS average (139 min, 188 max)
• High: 102 FPS average
• Ultra: 97 FPS average

Interpretation: the jump from Low to Ultra costs roughly a third of the frame rate at every resolution — 307 down to 215 at 1080p, 275 down to 155 at 1440p, 204 down to 97 at 4K. The Low-to-Medium step is small (307 to 283 at 1080p), while Medium-to-High is the largest single penalty (283 to 226 at 1080p; 163 to 102 at 4K, a drop of over 60 FPS at 4K alone). This indicates the High preset introduces the heaviest visual features — likely lighting and post-processing effects in this engine — and is where most of the GPU cost concentrates.

The min/max data available for Medium rows is instructive for smoothness: at 4K Medium the frame rate never dips below 139, meaning frame pacing stays within a narrow envelope even at the highest tested resolution. At 1080p Medium, the 241-to-326 spread is wide in absolute terms but irrelevant on any conventional laptop display, since even the minimum exceeds typical panel refresh rates.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Inside at 4K on the highest settings?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 on Ultra, the measured average is 97 FPS — just under a hundred frames per second at full 4K with everything maxed. Dropping to High at 4K raises the average to 102 FPS.

Q: What is the highest frame rate recorded for this pairing?

A: 307 FPS, at 1920x1080 on Low settings. The 1080p Medium row also recorded a maximum instantaneous value of 326 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance in Inside?

A: The data indicates the CPU/engine side is the limiter at lower resolutions. Frame rates at 1080p cluster in the low-to-mid 200s across High (226) and Ultra (215) presets, and the drop from 1080p to 4K is far smaller than the 4x pixel increase would imply if the GPU were the bottleneck. The RTX 5080 Mobile has substantial headroom throughout.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 125H compare to rival CPUs in the database?

A: Its average benchmark score of 27507 places it within a fraction of a percent of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (27535, -0.1%), Intel Core i5-12600K (27578, -0.3%), AMD Ryzen 7 5700X (27578, -0.3%), and ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G (27382, 0.5%). It sits in the 79th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Is there any measured minimum frame rate at 4K?

A: Yes, for the Medium preset: the 4K Medium row recorded a minimum of 139 FPS and a maximum of 188 FPS. Minimum/maximum values were not captured for the other 4K presets.

Q: Does the GPU have enough VRAM for this game at 4K?

A: Easily. The RTX 5080 Mobile carries 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus with 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth — vastly more than a 2016 puzzle platformer requires, which is reflected in the 204 FPS average even at 4K Low.

Settings Recommendations

For pure frame rate on a high-refresh display, 1080p Low delivers 307 FPS — but this is unnecessary. The smarter reading of the data:

• Best overall experience: 1440p Medium. At 2560x1440 the Medium preset averages 254 FPS with a minimum of 216, meaning the frame rate essentially never falls below a very high threshold while retaining the game's visual character. This row has the best balance of image quality, smoothness, and headroom in the entire dataset.
• For 4K play: 4K Medium is the sweet spot. The average of 163 FPS with a 139 minimum keeps pacing tight, while stepping up to High costs over 60 FPS (down to 102) and Ultra costs a bit more (97). If a locked 4K experience with maximum detail matters more than refresh, Ultra at 97 FPS average is still entirely fluid for a side-scrolling puzzle platformer, where input timing is forgiving relative to competitive shooters.
• Avoid unless chasing records: 1080p Ultra (215 FPS) offers no practical benefit over 1440p Medium (254 FPS) — the latter is both faster and sharper. The dataset suggests the Medium-to-High step is where most performance is lost, so staying at Medium at any resolution preserves a large frame-rate reserve.

Because the game caps out in the low-to-mid 200s even at Low settings at 1080p, spending GPU effort on resolution rather than settings is the correct trade: raise pixels first, presets second.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is a Meteor Lake mobile processor with 14 cores and 18 threads, a 3.60 GHz base clock, a 4.50 GHz boost clock, and a 28 W TDP, fabricated by Intel on a 7 nm process. Cache comprises 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 on a dual-channel bus delivering 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, and the chip includes Arc Xe-LPG 96EU integrated graphics and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity. Its launch MSRP was $375.

In synthetic CPU testing it scores 2021.5 in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 241 in single-core, 7161 in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 1010 in single-core, and 12804.5 in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 1647.5 in single-core. PassMark results include 21100 multithread, 3399 single-thread, 1439 physics, 69986 integer math, 51670 floating point math, 236209 data compression, 14251 encryption, 27435 string sorting, 88 find-prime, and 13749 extended instructions.

For Inside specifically, single-threaded responsiveness matters more than multi-core throughput — puzzle platformers of this era typically run their simulation on a primary thread. The 4.50 GHz boost clock and the 3399 PassMark single-thread score are the relevant figures, and they explain the observed ceiling: frame rates plateau in the 200s at 1080p regardless of preset, which is consistent with the game logic and CPU — not the GPU — setting the upper bound. Against rivals, the 125H's aggregate score of 27507 lands within half a percent of desktop parts like the Core i5-12600K and Ryzen 7 5700X, and its 79th-percentile standing versus all CPUs confirms it is comfortably above the threshold where Inside's simulation would become a constraint.

The verdict from the dataset is straightforward. This is a pairing where both components outrun the game: the CPU hits an engine-side ceiling in the low 200s at 1080p, and the GPU keeps every resolution and preset above 97 FPS. Rank 1008 of 3716 undersells the subjective experience — Inside runs flawlessly on this hardware at any setting the player chooses.