Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that, on paper, should be trivial for a modern flagship laptop combo like the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090. The measured frames per second tell a more nuanced story, however, revealing how even a lightweight title can expose the boundaries between CPU and GPU limits at extreme resolutions. This analysis breaks down the measured data to understand where the bottleneck lies and what settings offer the most sensible experience.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a dramatic and consistent drop as resolution increases. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 432 FPS. Moving to 1440p drops that to 347 FPS, and at 4K it falls further to 218 FPS. This pattern is consistent across all settings presets. For High settings, the progression is 241 FPS at 1080p, 174 FPS at 1440p, and 109 FPS at 4K. The scaling from 1080p to 4K represents a reduction to roughly half the frame rate in every case. For instance, Ultra settings go from 230 FPS at 1080p to 104 FPS at 4K.

This steep decline is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. The render resolution quadruples from 1080p to 4K, and the GPU must process four times the pixel data. The fact that the frame rate nearly halves, rather than dropping by a quarter, suggests that the GPU is the primary limiting component even at 1080p, though not to an extreme degree. The RTX 5090 has a 512-bit memory bus and 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth, along with 32 GB of GDDR7 memory. This massive memory subsystem is likely why the drop from 1440p to 4K is not even steeper, as it can feed the shader units efficiently at higher resolutions.

The data implies that the CPU, with its 14 cores and 14 threads, is capable of feeding the GPU frames faster than the GPU can render them, even at 1080p. The 432 FPS at Low settings is likely near the practical ceiling for this game’s engine logic, but the GPU is still the one doing the heavy lifting. The difference between 1080p and 1440p Low (432 vs 347 FPS) is a 24% reduction, while the difference between 1440p and 4K Low (347 vs 218 FPS) is a 37% reduction. This widening gap suggests that as resolution climbs, the GPU’s fill-rate and shading demands grow super-linearly relative to the CPU’s workload, confirming that the RTX 5090 is the decisive factor in this pairing.

FAQ

Q: What is the maximum average frame rate achievable with this combo?

A: The highest measured average is 432 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How much slower is 4K compared to 1080p at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 241 FPS at 1080p to 109 FPS at 4K, representing a 55% reduction in performance.

Q: Is the RTX 5090 the bottleneck in this game?

A: Yes. The consistent frame rate drops across all resolutions indicate a GPU-bound scenario, as the CPU’s performance headroom is not fully utilized at lower resolutions.

Q: Does the CPU’s single-thread performance matter here?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235HX has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4903. This high single-thread capability likely prevents CPU-related frame drops, but the data shows the GPU is still the limiting factor.

Q: What is the lowest average frame rate recorded?

A: The lowest measured average is 104 FPS, which occurs at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings.

Q: Are there any frame rate inconsistencies?

A: The only settings with recorded minimum and maximum FPS are Medium. At 1080p Medium, the range is 328 to 444 FPS. At 1440p Medium, it ranges from 236 to 319 FPS. At 4K Medium, it ranges from 148 to 201 FPS. These ranges show a stable frame pacing with no severe stutters.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data offers a clear view of the performance cost of each preset. At 4K, the jump from Medium to High is minimal in terms of average FPS, but the jump from High to Ultra is significant. At 4K, Medium averages 175 FPS, High averages 109 FPS, and Ultra averages 104 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is only 5 FPS, suggesting that Ultra is not well-optimized or that High already captures most of the visual fidelity.

For a 60 Hz display, any setting above Medium at 4K is overkill, as all presets exceed 100 FPS. However, for high-refresh-rate 1440p monitors, the choice becomes more interesting. At 1440p, Low delivers 347 FPS, Medium delivers 278 FPS, High delivers 174 FPS, and Ultra delivers 165 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is again small, but the gap between Medium and High is a substantial 104 FPS. This implies that High is the sweet spot for 1440p if you want a visual upgrade without sacrificing the high frame rates that a 144 Hz or 165 Hz panel can display.

At 1080p, all settings exceed 230 FPS. The step from Medium to High costs 145 FPS (386 to 241), while the step from High to Ultra costs only 11 FPS (241 to 230). This suggests that High is a more efficient preset than Ultra, as it provides a near-identical frame rate with a likely lower visual overhead. Based on this data, the Medium preset offers the best balance of performance and quality across all resolutions, as it maintains high averages while the data shows it has the most stable frame pacing with recorded minimums and maximums.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 292nd out of 2887 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the top 11% of all tested configurations. This is a strong showing, but it is notable that this rank is not higher given the top-tier nature of the GPU. The RTX 5090 alone ranks in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, and the CPU ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The combined rank suggests that the game’s engine or the specific CPU-GPU pairing has some limitations that prevent it from reaching the absolute top tier.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score are the AMD EPYC 8124P, AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, Intel Core i7-14700, and Intel Core i9-13900F. These all have average scores within 0.7% of the Core Ultra 5 235HX, indicating that the CPU is performing exactly as expected for its class. The GPU’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla P100 variants and AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT, which are all within 1.4% of the RTX 5090’s average score. This shows that the GPU is also performing at its expected level.

The fact that this combo ranks 292nd out of 2887, rather than higher, likely reflects the game’s age and its engine’s inability to fully utilize the RTX 5090’s raw compute power. The GPU’s 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is immense, but Inside was released in 2016 and may not scale perfectly with such modern hardware. The rank is still excellent, but it indicates that other combinations with slightly different CPU or GPU pairings may squeeze out a few more frames in this specific title.

GPU Role

The RTX 5090 is the dominant component in this system, and its specifications explain the measured performance. It has 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, providing 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. This is critical for high-resolution gaming, as it allows the GPU to quickly access textures and frame buffers. The 21760 shading units and 176 ROPs handle the pixel processing, while the 680 TMUs manage texture filtering.

The GPU’s base clock is 2017 MHz with a boost clock of 2407 MHz. These clocks, combined with the massive core count, produce a pixel rate of 423.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 1,636.8 GTexel/s. These figures are far beyond what a 2016 puzzle platformer requires, even at 4K. The data reflects this, with all settings at 4K exceeding 100 FPS.

The GPU’s role as the limiter is evident in the FPS scaling. At Low settings, the GPU has less work to do, so the CPU can push the frame rate to 432 FPS at 1080p. As settings increase, the GPU’s shader workload grows, and the frame rate drops. The RTX 5090’s 92nd percentile ranking among all GPUs confirms its high-end status, and the measured data shows it is not being held back by the CPU in this game. The GPU’s memory bandwidth is the key enabler, allowing it to maintain playable frame rates even at 4K Ultra, where it still averages 104 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full set of measured data provides a complete picture of performance scaling.

At 1920x1080:

• Low: 432 FPS average
• Medium: 386 FPS average, with a minimum of 328 and maximum of 444
• High: 241 FPS average
• Ultra: 230 FPS average

At 2560x1440:

• Low: 347 FPS average
• Medium: 278 FPS average, with a minimum of 236 and maximum of 319
• High: 174 FPS average
• Ultra: 165 FPS average

At 3840x2160:

• Low: 218 FPS average
• Medium: 175 FPS average, with a minimum of 148 and maximum of 201
• High: 109 FPS average
• Ultra: 104 FPS average

The Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values, which allows for a closer look at frame pacing. At 1080p Medium, the range is 328 to 444, which is a 116 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the spread is 83 FPS (236 to 319). At 4K Medium, the spread narrows to 53 FPS (148 to 201). This narrowing spread at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is becoming more consistently saturated, reducing variance.

The data shows that the step from High to Ultra is consistently small. At 1080p, the difference is 11 FPS. At 1440p, it is 9 FPS. At 4K, it is 5 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset adds very little over High in terms of GPU load, or that the game’s engine does not significantly change the rendering workload between these two settings. Conversely, the step from Medium to High is large, with a 145 FPS drop at 1080p, a 104 FPS drop at 1440p, and a 66 FPS drop at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample capacity for game data. The CPU supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, offering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

In this game, the CPU’s role is secondary but not insignificant. The high boost clock of 5.10 GHz is crucial for maintaining high frame rates in a game that may have single-threaded engine logic. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4903 indicates strong per-thread performance. The multicore score of 34731 shows the CPU’s capability for heavily threaded workloads, but Inside likely does not utilize all 14 cores effectively.

The data suggests the CPU is not the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the frame rate is 432 FPS. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the frame rate to remain constant regardless of resolution. Instead, it drops to 218 FPS at 4K Low, proving the GPU is the constraint. The CPU’s performance relative to its rivals is tightly clustered, with a 0.1% difference from the AMD EPYC 8124P and a 0.2% difference from the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X. This shows it is performing exactly as expected.

The CPU’s 91st percentile ranking and its average benchmark score of 52073 place it in the top tier of mobile processors. However, in this specific game, its 14 cores are largely underutilized. The game’s 2016 release date means it was designed for older, lower-core-count CPUs. The high single-thread performance ensures smooth gameplay, but the multicore capability provides no additional benefit in this title. The CPU’s role is to provide a stable platform for the GPU, which it does effectively, as shown by the consistent frame rates across all measured settings.