Inside

Inside is a 2D puzzle-platformer from 2016 that is remarkably light on GPU load, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT turns this modest title into an exercise in extreme frame rates. The data shows a system that is heavily overqualified for the game's demands, producing triple-digit averages even at 4K Ultra. The primary takeaway is that this pairing is entirely GPU-bound at higher resolutions, while at 1080p the CPU's single-thread strength becomes the limiting factor, capping performance at levels that are still excessively high for the game's pacing. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, interprets what the scores indicate about component roles, and offers practical recommendations for getting the best experience.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a classic pattern of resolution scaling that clearly identifies the GPU as the bottleneck at higher pixel counts, while the CPU takes over at lower resolutions. From 1080p to 1440p, the average frame rate at High settings drops from 214 FPS to 154 FPS, a 28% reduction. Scaling further from 1440p to 4K at the same High preset brings the average down to 97 FPS, another 37% reduction. This consistent degradation as pixel count increases is textbook GPU-bound behavior—the RX 6800 XT's rendering throughput is being consumed by the growing number of pixels.

The Low preset shows an even more dramatic scaling curve. At 1080p Low, the system produces 404 FPS average. Moving to 1440p Low yields 307 FPS, a 24% drop, and 4K Low lands at 193 FPS, a 37% drop from 1440p. The fact that even at 4K Low the frame rate remains above 190 FPS demonstrates that the GPU still has ample headroom, but the scaling pattern confirms that pixel fill rate is the primary constraint at these settings.

The Medium preset, which is the only one with complete min/max data, provides insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the average is 342 FPS with a minimum of 291 FPS and maximum of 393 FPS. The spread of 102 FPS between min and max indicates some variance, but the minimum still represents a frame time of under 3.5 milliseconds, which is imperceptible to the human eye. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 246 FPS with a min of 209 and max of 283. At 4K Medium, the numbers are 154 FPS average, 131 min, and 178 max.

The Ultra preset shows the most significant resolution penalty. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 203 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 146 FPS, a 28% reduction. At 4K Ultra, the average falls to 92 FPS, a 37% drop from 1440p. This 92 FPS figure at 4K Ultra is the only measured result below 100 FPS, but it is still perfectly smooth for a puzzle-platformer where reaction time is rarely critical. The consistent ~28% and ~37% reduction percentages across all presets strongly suggest that the GPU is the limiting component at 1440p and 4K, with CPU overhead being negligible at those resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is a high-end RDNA 2.0 part with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock of 2250 MHz and game clock of 2015 MHz are substantial, and the 4608 shading units provide massive parallel throughput. The GPU's benchmark scores place it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48477. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile at 47743 (1.5% higher), the Intel Arc A550M at 49737 (2.5% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti at 49957 (3% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 at 50001 (3% lower). This positioning indicates the RX 6800 XT is competitive with modern mid-range offerings, though it trails the latest high-end parts.

In Inside, the GPU's role is almost trivialized by the game's simple 2D visuals. Even at 4K Ultra, the card produces 92 FPS average, which is well above the refresh rate of most monitors. The fact that the 4K Low preset hits 193 FPS shows that the GPU is nowhere near its raw limits—the game simply does not push enough geometry, textures, or post-processing to stress the 26,800 million transistors on the 520 mm² die. The 16 GB VRAM capacity is entirely irrelevant here; the game's texture requirements are minimal, and the memory bandwidth is far more than sufficient for any resolution in this test.

The GPU's performance in this title is characterized by headroom rather than strain. The measured data shows that the RX 6800 XT can handle even the most demanding settings at 4K without breaking a sweat, maintaining an average above 90 FPS. The practical implication is that users can enable maximum settings without worrying about performance degradation, and the GPU will not be the source of any frame rate issues in this game. The only scenario where the GPU's role diminishes is at 1080p, where the CPU begins to constrain performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a 10-core, 10-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on TSMC's 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, with 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU's benchmark scores are strong for its class: it achieves 25891 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3655 in single-core, with an average benchmark score of 36938. This places it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, matching the GPU's percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36945 (0% difference), the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D at 37018 (0.2% lower), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37093 (0.4% lower), and the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37112 (0.5% lower). This indicates the Ultra 5 225 is a solid mid-range performer that trades blows with established competitors.

In Inside, the CPU's role becomes apparent only at 1080p, where frame rates exceed 400 FPS on Low settings. The measured data shows that at 1080p Low, the average is 404 FPS, while at 1440p Low, it drops to 307 FPS, and at 4K Low, it falls to 193 FPS. The fact that 1080p Low produces nearly double the frame rate of 4K Low suggests that the CPU is capable of driving much higher frame rates than the GPU can render at higher resolutions. The single-thread performance, evidenced by the 3655 score in Cinebench R23 single-core, is likely what enables these extreme frame rates, as Inside's gameplay logic and physics updates are primarily single-threaded.

The 10 cores and 10 threads are more than sufficient for this game, which likely uses only a fraction of the available threads. The 4.90 GHz boost clock ensures that any single-threaded bottleneck is minimized, allowing the CPU to push frame rates well beyond what most displays can show. The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 4412 further corroborates its strength in lightly-threaded workloads. At 1080p, the CPU is the limiting factor, as evidenced by the diminishing returns between settings—the difference between 1080p High (214 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (203 FPS) is only 5%, suggesting the CPU is nearing its ceiling for this game's instruction stream.

FAQ

Q: Is this system overkill for Inside?

A: Yes, the data strongly indicates overkill. The lowest measured average is 92 FPS at 4K Ultra, and the highest is 404 FPS at 1080p Low. Even the most demanding configuration produces frame rates far above display refresh rates, meaning the hardware is never stressed by this game.

Q: What is the best resolution to play at?

A: Based on the measured data, 1440p with Ultra settings provides an excellent balance, yielding 146 FPS average. If you prefer higher frame rates, 1080p Ultra gives 203 FPS. 4K Ultra is also viable at 92 FPS, but the visual improvement over 1440p may not justify the 37% frame rate reduction.

Q: Are there any settings that cause frame rate issues?

A: No. The lowest average FPS across all measured configurations is 92 at 4K Ultra, which is still smooth. The minimum FPS recorded for any preset is 131 at 4K Medium, which is well above the threshold for perceptible stutter. There are no problematic settings combinations in this data.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other systems for this game?

A: The combo is ranked 623 out of 2887 total system combinations tested for Inside. This places it in the top 22% of all systems, which is respectable given that many systems with newer GPUs would score higher. However, the game is so lightweight that the rank likely overstates the practical difference between systems.

Q: Should I cap the frame rate in this game?

A: Given that average FPS exceeds 300 at 1080p Medium and Low presets, capping the frame rate at your monitor's refresh rate (typically 144 Hz or 240 Hz) would reduce GPU load and power consumption without any noticeable impact on gameplay. The measured data shows frame rates far exceeding what any display can show.

Q: Does the 16 GB VRAM matter for this game?

A: No. Inside's simple 2D visuals require minimal video memory. The measured performance shows no indication of VRAM limitations at any resolution or settings, and the 16 GB capacity is far more than the game could possibly use. The GPU's 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is also excessive for this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1080p, the system produces its highest frame rates. The Low preset averages 404 FPS, Medium averages 342 FPS with a minimum of 291 and maximum of 393, High averages 214 FPS, and Ultra averages 203 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 50% reduction in average FPS, from 404 to 203, which is a significant but expected cost for higher visual fidelity. The Medium preset's min/max spread of 102 FPS (291 to 393) indicates some frame time variance, but even the minimum is far above any playability threshold.

At 1440p, the frame rates remain exceptionally high. Low averages 307 FPS, Medium averages 246 FPS with a minimum of 209 and maximum of 283, High averages 154 FPS, and Ultra averages 146 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a 24% reduction for Low, 28% for Medium, 28% for High, and 28% for Ultra. This consistent scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at this resolution, with the CPU still having headroom to spare.

At 4K, the frame rates drop to still-impressive levels. Low averages 193 FPS, Medium averages 154 FPS with a minimum of 131 and maximum of 178, High averages 97 FPS, and Ultra averages 92 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K shows a 37% reduction for Low, 37% for Medium, 37% for High, and 37% for Ultra. This uniform scaling confirms that the GPU is entirely responsible for the performance drop, as the CPU is not a factor at this resolution.

The Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data at all three resolutions. At 1080p, the average is 342 with a 291-393 range; at 1440p, the average is 246 with a 209-283 range; at 4K, the average is 154 with a 131-178 range. The min-to-max spread as a percentage of the average is 30% at 1080p, 30% at 1440p, and 31% at 4K, indicating consistent frame pacing across resolutions. The 4K Medium minimum of 131 FPS is still well above the 60 FPS target most games aim for.

Settings Recommendations

For players with a 60 Hz display, any settings combination will produce frame rates far exceeding the display's capability. The lowest measured average is 92 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is still 53% higher than 60 FPS. In this case, the recommendation is to maximize visual quality by using Ultra settings at your native resolution, as there is no performance risk. The 4K Ultra preset at 92 FPS is smooth and provides the best visual experience the game can offer.

For players with a 144 Hz display, the data suggests that 1440p Ultra (146 FPS) or 4K High (97 FPS) are the best options. 1440p Ultra is the clear winner, as it exceeds 144 FPS and provides high visual quality. 4K High at 97 FPS falls short of 144 FPS, but the visual upgrade to 4K may be worth the frame rate compromise for some players. 1080p Ultra at 203 FPS exceeds 144 Hz but sacrifices resolution.

For players with a 240 Hz display, 1080p Medium (342 FPS) or 1440p Low (307 FPS) are the only presets that come close to saturating the display's refresh rate. However, chasing 240 FPS in a puzzle-platformer is largely unnecessary, as the game's slow pacing does not benefit from ultra-high frame rates. A more sensible recommendation is 1440p High (154 FPS) or 1080p Ultra (203 FPS), which provide a better visual experience while still delivering frame rates that are smooth on any display.

Given that the Medium preset offers the only complete min/max data and demonstrates consistent frame pacing, it is a safe choice for users who want to avoid any potential frame time spikes. However, the difference between Medium and Ultra at any resolution is less than 45% in average FPS, and both are playable. The practical recommendation is to use Ultra settings at 1080p or 1440p for the best visual experience, or 4K High if you prefer resolution over settings. The measured data shows no scenario where performance becomes problematic, so the choice comes down to personal preference for resolution versus visual fidelity.