Inside

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT pairing delivers exceptionally high frame rates in Inside, a 2016 Puzzle Platformer. Benchmark results show this combination ranks 670th out of 2887 tested combos, placing it in the top 23.2% of all systems evaluated for this title. The measured data reveals that this hardware configuration transforms a modestly demanding game into a showcase for high-refresh-rate displays, with the lowest average frame rate recorded at 89 FPS in the most demanding scenario. The following analysis breaks down how the CPU and GPU contribute to these results, how resolution affects performance, and which settings provide the optimal experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 670 out of 2887 tested configurations indicates a strong overall standing, but the percentile differences among individual components tell a more nuanced story. The CPU sits in the 90th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 48995. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, -0.4%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, -0.5%), the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, +0.6%), and the Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, +0.8%). These tiny deltas—all within 0.8%—show that the Core Ultra 5 245 is positioned squarely in a competitive cluster of high-end desktop CPUs, where performance differences are negligible in real-world gaming.

The GPU, however, presents a striking contrast. The RX 7800 XT sits in the 51st percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 11627. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11680, -0.5%), the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11528, +0.9%), the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (11479, +1.3%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11842, -1.8%). This places the RX 7800 XT in a peculiar position: despite being a modern RDNA 3.0 architecture card with 16 GB of VRAM, its average benchmark score is statistically indistinguishable from much older or lower-tier GPUs. The delta percentages range from -1.8% to +1.3%, meaning the RX 7800 XT performs nearly identically to a GTX 1660 in general GPU benchmarks—a surprising result given the massive architectural and memory advantages.

Yet in Inside, the combo achieves 94 FPS at 4K High settings and 415 FPS at 1080p Low, which suggests the game is far more CPU-bound or engine-limited than GPU-bound. The high rank of 670 out of 2887 likely stems from the CPU’s strong single-thread performance (R15 single-core score of 468, R23 single-core of 4648) combined with the GPU’s raw fill rate, which matters for a 2D side-scrolling puzzle platformer. The data implies that the RX 7800 XT’s benchmark percentile does not reflect its gaming capability in this specific title, where the 60 ray accelerators and 96 ROPs (233.3 GPixel/s pixel rate) are more than sufficient for the visual complexity of Inside.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is built on the Navi 32 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, featuring 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth. Its boost clock reaches 2430 MHz, with a game clock of 2124 MHz and a base clock of 1295 MHz. The memory operates at 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective). These specifications are substantial for a modern GPU, yet the measured FPS in Inside suggests that the card is rarely stressed to its limits.

At 4K Ultra settings, the card produces 89 FPS average, while dropping to High settings yields 94 FPS—a mere 5 FPS difference. This narrow gap indicates that the GPU’s compute resources (37.32 TFLOPS FP32) are not the limiting factor; instead, the game’s rendering engine likely caps performance based on draw calls or other CPU-mediated workloads. The 16 GB VRAM is far more than Inside requires, as the game’s art style uses simple textures and limited geometry. The 256-bit bus and 624.1 GB/s bandwidth are similarly overkill for a title from 2016.

The GPU’s 60 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support are irrelevant for Inside, which does not use ray tracing. However, the card’s high pixel rate (233.3 GPixel/s) and texture rate (583.2 GTexel/s) help maintain consistent frame times even at 4K, where the pixel fill requirement is highest. The fact that 4K Ultra (89 FPS) is only 5 FPS slower than 4K High (94 FPS) suggests that the GPU has headroom to spare, and the bottleneck lies elsewhere—likely in the CPU’s ability to feed the render pipeline. The GPU’s passmark G3D score of 24176 and DirectX 11 score of 249 indicate strong raw performance, but in Inside, the measured data shows that even a fraction of that power is sufficient for high frame rates.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data across resolutions reveals a clear pattern: performance scales almost linearly with pixel count, but the scaling is far gentler than typical GPU-bound scenarios. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 208. Moving to 1440p High drops this to 149 FPS, a 28.4% reduction. At 4K High, the average falls to 94 FPS, another 36.9% drop from 1440p. This steep decline from 1440p to 4K (a 2.25x increase in pixels) suggests that the GPU begins to play a larger role at higher resolutions, even though the absolute numbers remain high.

For Low settings, the pattern is similar but shifted upward: 1080p Low averages 415 FPS, 1440p Low averages 299 FPS (a 27.9% drop), and 4K Low averages 188 FPS (a 37.1% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings—around 28% for the 1080p to 1440p step and 37% for the 1440p to 4K step—indicates that the scaling is driven by pixel fill rate rather than shader complexity. This is expected for a 2D platformer where the GPU’s ROPs and memory bandwidth handle the framebuffer updates.

The Medium settings row provides the only min/max FPS data in the entire dataset: at 1080p Medium, the average is 332 FPS with a minimum of 282 and maximum of 382. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 239 FPS with min/max of 203/275. At 4K Medium, the average is 150 FPS with min/max of 128/173. The frame time consistency, as measured by the min-to-max spread, remains tight across all resolutions—the spread is roughly 30% of the average FPS in each case. This suggests that frame pacing is stable, and the limiting component changes smoothly with resolution.

The fact that 4K Low (188 FPS) is still well above 1440p High (149 FPS) indicates that the GPU is not the primary bottleneck at any resolution. If the GPU were the bottleneck, lowering settings at 4K would produce a much larger jump than the observed 94 FPS (High) to 188 FPS (Low)—a 100% improvement. This doubling of performance from High to Low at 4K, compared to a 99.5% improvement at 1080p (208 to 415 FPS), suggests that the CPU’s single-thread performance is the dominant constraint, and the GPU has ample reserve capacity.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the Medium preset provides the best balance of visual fidelity and performance across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS of 332 (with a minimum of 282) ensures smooth gameplay on any high-refresh-rate monitor, while the visual upgrade over Low is meaningful for a game with atmospheric lighting and shadow effects. At 1440p Medium, the 239 FPS average (minimum 203) still exceeds 1440p High’s 149 FPS, meaning players can enjoy higher resolution without sacrificing frame rate. Even at 4K Medium, the 150 FPS average (minimum 128) remains above the 1440p High result, making Medium the clear sweet spot.

The Ultra preset offers only marginal gains over High: 1080p Ultra averages 198 FPS versus 208 FPS for High—a 4.8% reduction. At 1440p, Ultra averages 142 FPS versus 149 FPS for High (4.7% slower). At 4K, Ultra averages 89 FPS versus 94 FPS for High (5.3% slower). This consistent ~5% penalty for Ultra settings suggests that the additional visual features (likely ambient occlusion or shadow quality) are not worth the frame rate cost, especially when Medium provides a 60-70% performance boost over High with only subtle visual differences.

For players with 120 Hz or 144 Hz displays, the Medium preset at 1440p is the recommended configuration, as the 239 FPS average provides a comfortable margin above the refresh rate. At 4K, Medium’s 150 FPS average is still high enough for 120 Hz panels, making it the best choice for 4K users who prioritize smoothness over the last few visual details. Low settings, while delivering 415 FPS at 1080p, sacrifice too much visual quality for a frame rate that exceeds the capabilities of most displays. The data clearly shows that Medium is the optimal preset for this game and hardware combination.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the performance envelope is as follows: Low settings produce an average of 415 FPS, which is the highest measured value in the entire dataset. Medium settings yield 332 FPS average, with a minimum of 282 and maximum of 382. High settings drop to 208 FPS average, and Ultra settings bring the average down to 198 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra represents a 52.3% reduction in average FPS (415 to 198), but even the lowest value remains far above any display refresh rate.

At 2560x1440, the results scale down proportionally: Low averages 299 FPS, Medium averages 239 FPS (min 203, max 275), High averages 149 FPS, and Ultra averages 142 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 7 FPS (4.7%), while the gap between Low and Medium is 60 FPS (20.1%). This suggests that the settings hierarchy is not linear—Medium captures most of the visual benefits while retaining high performance.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates remain playable: Low averages 188 FPS, Medium averages 150 FPS (min 128, max 173), High averages 94 FPS, and Ultra averages 89 FPS. The 4K Medium result (150 FPS) is noteworthy because it exceeds the 1080p High result (208 FPS) by a significant margin—indicating that resolution has less impact than settings on this hardware. The 4K Ultra result of 89 FPS is the only measured value below 100 FPS, but it still provides a smooth experience on standard 60 Hz displays.

The Medium settings rows are the only ones with complete min/max data, providing insight into frame time consistency: at 1080p, the spread is 100 FPS (282 to 382); at 1440p, the spread is 72 FPS (203 to 275); at 4K, the spread is 45 FPS (128 to 173). The relative spread (max minus min divided by average) is 30.1% at 1080p, 30.1% at 1440p, and 30.0% at 4K—remarkably consistent, indicating that the game’s frame pacing is stable regardless of resolution.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock is 3.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, and it supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus delivering 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The CPU’s benchmark scores are strong: Cinebench R23 multi-core reaches 32924, single-core 4648, and PassMark multi-thread scores 38706 with a single-thread score of 4394. These numbers place it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs.

In Inside, the CPU’s role is likely dominant, given the game’s age and simple graphics. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (415 FPS) is more than double the 4K High result (94 FPS), but the scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings (415 to 188 FPS, a 54.7% drop) is steeper than what a purely CPU-bound scenario would produce. This suggests that both components share the load, with the CPU setting an upper ceiling around 415 FPS and the GPU gradually taking over as resolution increases.

The Core Ultra 5 245’s 14 cores and 14 threads (no hyperthreading) are more than sufficient for a game that likely uses only 1-2 threads. Its high single-core performance, evidenced by the R15 single-core score of 468 and R23 single-core of 4648, is what enables the extreme frame rates seen at lower resolutions. The 24 MB shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache reduce memory latency, which is critical for maintaining high FPS in games with many draw calls. The CPU’s nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-14600K, scores 0.8% higher on average, yet the measured FPS in Inside shows no visible difference—both processors are likely capable of exceeding the game’s engine limits.

The PassMark data compression score of 400942 and integer math score of 91187 indicate strong computational throughput, but these are irrelevant for gaming. What matters is the single-thread performance, and the Core Ultra 5 245’s 5.10 GHz boost clock ensures that the game’s main thread is never the bottleneck. The CPU’s 65W TDP and ECC memory support are notable for a desktop part, but they do not directly influence gaming performance. The data suggests that this CPU is overkill for Inside, providing headroom that allows the GPU to become the limiting factor only at 4K Ultra settings.

FAQ

*Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested systems for Inside?*

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT combination ranks 670th out of 2887 tested combos, placing it in the top 23.2% of all configurations for this game.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 scores 48995 on average, which is within 0.8% of its closest rivals: the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, -0.4%), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, -0.5%), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, +0.6%), and Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, +0.8%).

Q: What is the highest average FPS measured in the dataset?

A: The highest average FPS is 415, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is more than double the 4K High result of 94 FPS.

Q: Which setting preset offers the best frame rate at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Medium preset averages 239 FPS (min 203, max 275), which is significantly higher than High (149 FPS) or Ultra (142 FPS) while providing better visuals than Low (299 FPS).

Q: How does the GPU’s benchmark percentile compare to its gaming performance?

A: The RX 7800 XT sits in the 51st percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 11627, yet in Inside it delivers over 188 FPS at 4K Low, indicating that its gaming performance far exceeds what its general benchmark percentile suggests.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 4K Medium settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the minimum FPS is 128, with an average of 150 FPS and a maximum of 173 FPS. This is the only 4K row with complete min/max data.

*Q: Does the CPU’s 14 cores provide any advantage in Inside?*

A: The 14 cores and 14 threads are far more than the game requires, but the CPU’s high single-thread performance (R23 single-core score of 4648) is what enables the extreme frame rates, as Inside likely uses only one or two threads.