Inside

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 pairing delivers a playable experience in Inside, but the data reveals a system that is firmly balanced toward the CPU. The combination ranks near the bottom of the tested database, at position 2780 out of 2887 combos, placing it in the 4th percentile of all configurations. This is a low-ranking setup, yet the measured frame rates show that the game itself is highly accommodating to modest hardware, with the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and the Ultra 5 225's ten cores proving sufficient for the title's 2D puzzle-platforming demands.

FAQ

*Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this CPU and GPU combination in Inside?*

A: The combo ranks 2780 out of 2887 tested configurations. This places it in the bottom 4% of all tested combos, indicating that while it can run the game, most other systems in the database will outperform it.

Q: Can this system achieve 60 FPS at 1080p?

A: Yes, the data confirms this. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average frame rate is 134 FPS. Even at Medium settings, the average is 107 FPS, and at High settings it drops to 67 FPS. Only the Ultra preset falls below 60 FPS, with an average of 64 FPS.

Q: Is the GTX 1650's 4 GB of VRAM a limiting factor at 4K?

A: The data suggests that VRAM capacity is not the primary constraint. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the system achieves 61 FPS, which indicates the memory bus and capacity can handle the resolution. The performance drop at higher settings is more attributable to the GPU's shading power, as the average FPS falls to 49 at Medium and 30 at High.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in general benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36,938. This is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F, which scores 36,945 (a 0% delta). It is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-12900T. Its performance is statistically tied with these processors.

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking among all tested processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 sits in the 85th percentile of all CPUs in the database. This is a strong showing, indicating that the processor is a high-performing part relative to the full spectrum of CPUs, even though the overall system combo ranks low due to the GPU.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all tested graphics cards?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. This is a below-average ranking, confirming the GPU is the bottleneck in this pairing. Its average benchmark score of 7,472 is closely matched by the Intel UHD Graphics 750, which scores 7,441, a 0.4% difference.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a ten-core, ten-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture. It operates with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, providing substantial single-thread capability that is crucial for game logic and physics in a title like Inside. The processor’s L3 cache is 20 MB shared across all cores, which helps with data reuse during gameplay. Its general benchmark scores are strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25,891 and a single-core score of 3,655.

In the context of Inside, the CPU's role appears to be secondary but adequate. The game’s puzzle-platformer nature does not typically stress multi-core processors heavily, and the data supports this. The system's bottleneck is clearly the GPU, as evidenced by the frame rate scaling with resolution and settings. The CPU’s 85th percentile ranking among all processors means it is more than capable of feeding frames to the GTX 1650 without becoming the limiting factor. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,412 further indicates that the processor can handle the game's single-threaded tasks efficiently.

The processor's nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F, which scores 36,945. The delta is 0%, meaning the Ultra 5 225 and the Ryzen 5 5600F are functionally equivalent in general processing power. This is a relevant comparison because it shows that despite the Ultra 5 225's newer architecture and process node, its overall performance profile is similar to a previous-generation mid-range CPU. For Inside, this level of CPU performance is more than sufficient, as the game's requirements are modest.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU with 896 shading units. It has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The memory configuration is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. This is a modest specification by modern standards, and the GPU's 40th percentile ranking confirms its position as an entry-level part.

In Inside, the GTX 1650's performance is the primary factor determining frame rates. At 1080p, the GPU can push high frame rates on lower presets, hitting 134 FPS on Low. However, the scaling to higher resolutions shows its limits. At 4K, the average frame rate on Low settings is 61 FPS, which is still playable, but the GPU struggles with higher graphical presets due to its limited shading power and memory bandwidth. The data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck, as reducing resolution from 4K to 1080p results in a significant FPS increase across all settings, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce this view. Its PassMark G3D score is 7,880, and its DirectX 12 score is 35. These are low scores, and the GPU's nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310, has an average score of 7,550, which is 1% higher. This indicates that the GTX 1650 is at the very bottom of the discrete GPU performance ladder, making it the clear limiting factor in this combo for demanding titles, though Inside is light enough to still run acceptably.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2780 out of 2887 combos is a clear indicator of its position in the database. This places it in the 4th percentile, meaning 96% of tested systems are faster. This low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GTX 1650, as the CPU is a high-performing part. The CPU's 85th percentile ranking contrasts sharply with the GPU's 40th percentile, illustrating a significant performance imbalance.

This imbalance is visible in the measured FPS data. The system is capable of 134 FPS at 1080p Low, which is a very good result. However, this performance is not consistent with a high-ranking system, as more powerful GPUs would achieve much higher frame rates at the same settings. The ranking suggests that while the system is playable, it is not a competitive gaming rig. The data indicates that the CPU is not holding the system back, as the frame rates are entirely dependent on the GPU's capabilities. For a game like Inside, which is not graphically demanding, this rank is acceptable, but it highlights that the system is not future-proof for more demanding titles.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user's target resolution. At 1920x1080, the High preset provides an average of 67 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. This is the recommended preset for a balance of visual quality and performance. The Ultra preset averages 64 FPS, which is also playable, but the margin above 60 FPS is thinner. For users who prioritize a higher frame rate, the Medium preset offers 107 FPS, which is a significant jump and provides a very smooth experience.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset is the best choice, delivering an average of 77 FPS. The High preset drops to 48 FPS, which may be acceptable for a puzzle game, but it is below the 60 FPS standard. The Low preset at 1440p yields 97 FPS, but the visual quality reduction is substantial. At 3840x2160, the Low preset is the only option that provides a playable experience, with an average of 61 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K averages 49 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. Therefore, the recommendation is to use High settings at 1080p, Medium settings at 1440p, and Low settings at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system's performance across resolutions and settings.

At 1920x1080, the system achieves its highest frame rates. The Low preset averages 134 FPS. The Medium preset averages 107 FPS, with a minimum of 91 FPS and a maximum of 124 FPS. The High preset averages 67 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 64 FPS. This shows a clear scaling pattern where each increase in settings reduces the average frame rate, but even the Ultra preset remains above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, performance drops significantly. The Low preset averages 97 FPS. The Medium preset averages 77 FPS, with a minimum of 66 FPS and a maximum of 89 FPS. The High preset averages 48 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 46 FPS. This resolution is more demanding, and the GPU begins to struggle with the higher presets, falling below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the system is heavily GPU-bound. The Low preset averages 61 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS mark. The Medium preset averages 49 FPS, with a minimum of 41 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS. The High preset averages 30 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 29 FPS. These last two settings are not playable for a smooth experience, as they fall well below 60 FPS.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K clearly illustrates the GPU's role as the limiting component. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on the Low preset, the average frame rate drops from 134 FPS to 97 FPS, a 28% decrease. Moving further to 3840x2160, the frame rate drops to 61 FPS, a 37% decrease from the 1440p figure and a 54% decrease from the 1080p figure. This steep decline is indicative of a GPU that is overwhelmed by the pixel count.

The scaling on the Medium preset shows a similar trend. At 1080p, the average is 107 FPS. At 1440p, it drops to 77 FPS, a 28% decrease. At 4K, it drops to 49 FPS, a 36% decrease from 1440p. The consistent percentage drops across resolutions suggest that the GPU's memory bandwidth and shading units are the primary constraints. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would be more consistent across resolutions. The data shows that the GTX 1650 cannot keep up with the increasing pixel workload, making it the clear limiting factor in this system.