Inside

The _Inside_ benchmark data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 presents a fascinating case study in system bottlenecking. This combination, ranking 2780th out of 2887 tested combos for this game, places it in the bottom 4% of all systems. The data reveals a configuration where a modern, high-core-count CPU is paired with an older, entry-level GPU, resulting in performance that is almost entirely dictated by the graphics card. The measured FPS across resolutions and settings tells a clear story of a system that can handle the game's logic easily but struggles with the rendering load.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 4K provides the clearest evidence of the GPU being the primary limiting factor. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 134 FPS, but this drops to 97 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 61 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 54% reduction in frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. The scaling is even more dramatic at High settings, where the 67 FPS at 1080p falls to 48 FPS at 1440p and finally to 30 FPS at 4K—a 55% drop from the starting point.

The pattern strongly suggests that the GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit memory bus are being saturated as resolution increases. The frame rate decreases are roughly proportional to the increase in pixel count, which is the classic signature of a fill-rate or memory-bandwidth-limited scenario. The CPU, with its 14 cores and 24 MB of L3 cache, is unlikely to be the constraint here, as the workload of a puzzle platformer like _Inside_ is not particularly demanding on processor resources.

Interestingly, the scaling between Medium and High settings at each resolution shows a consistent step-down. At 4K, Medium produces 49 FPS while High produces 30 FPS, a difference of 39%. At 1440p, the gap is 48 FPS versus 77 FPS, a 38% difference. This consistency across resolutions indicates that the performance penalty for increasing graphical fidelity is relatively uniform, further pointing to the GPU's shading units and texture units as the bottleneck rather than any specific memory capacity issue that would manifest differently at various resolutions.

The data implies that for this specific combo, resolution is the single most important factor in determining playability. The jump from 1440p to 4K at any setting level results in a roughly 37-38% performance hit, which is substantial. This suggests that users aiming for higher resolutions will need to make significant compromises in visual quality to maintain a playable frame rate, as the GPU simply does not have the raw throughput to handle 4K rendering efficiently.

How This Combo Ranks

With a combo rank of 2780 out of 2887, this system sits in the bottom 3.7% of all tested combinations for _Inside_. This low ranking is somewhat surprising given the CPU's capabilities, but it becomes understandable when examining the GPU's position in the broader market. The GTX 1650 holds a 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 245 sits in the 90th percentile among all CPUs. This massive disparity in relative performance between the two components is the root cause of the poor overall ranking.

The GPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% faster), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% faster), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% faster). Interestingly, the Intel Arc A310 is 1% slower. This grouping of scores around the 7440-7550 range indicates that the GTX 1650 is performing exactly as expected for its class, but that class is simply too low to drive _Inside_ at high settings and resolutions with this particular CPU.

The CPU's nearest rivals tell a different story. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G is 0.4% faster, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 is 0.5% faster, and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H is 0.6% faster. The Intel Core i5-14600K is 0.8% slower. These very small delta percentages (all under 1%) confirm that the CPU is performing at a level consistent with other high-end processors. The bottleneck is unequivocally the GPU, which is dragging down the entire system's ranking despite the CPU's strong showing.

This ranking data suggests a fundamental mismatch in the system's capabilities. While the CPU could easily handle much more demanding games, the GPU limits the entire experience. For _Inside_, a game that is not particularly demanding by modern standards, this combo still ranks near the bottom, which indicates that the GTX 1650 is simply not sufficient for anything beyond the lowest settings, even at 1080p.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on which settings offer the best balance of visual quality and performance for this combo. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 134 FPS, which is far beyond what is necessary for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 107 FPS still offers a substantial margin above the 60 FPS threshold, making it an excellent choice. The High preset at 67 FPS is also playable, but the drop from Medium to High (a 27% reduction) may not justify the visual improvement in a game with _Inside_'s minimalist art style.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more constrained. The Low preset at 97 FPS is very smooth, and Medium at 77 FPS remains excellent. However, High at 48 FPS falls below the ideal 60 FPS target, and Ultra at 46 FPS is even more marginal. For 1440p gaming, the Medium preset appears to be the sweet spot, offering a 77 FPS average with a minimum of 66 FPS, ensuring no significant frame drops.

The 4K resolution is where this combo struggles most. Only the Low preset at 61 FPS achieves a playable frame rate. Medium at 49 FPS is borderline, with a minimum of 41 FPS that could cause noticeable stuttering. High at 30 FPS and Ultra at 29 FPS are not recommended for a smooth experience. The data suggests that 4K gaming with this hardware is only feasible at the lowest settings, and even then, the performance is barely adequate.

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience appears to be at 2560x1440 with Medium settings. This configuration provides a 77 FPS average, which is smooth, while the 66 FPS minimum ensures that even demanding scenes remain fluid. For users prioritizing 1080p, the Medium preset at 107 FPS offers a similar balance, providing a comfortable margin above 60 FPS while still delivering improved visual fidelity over the Low preset.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run _Inside_ at 4K resolution?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, where it achieves 61 FPS. At Medium settings, the frame rate drops to 49 FPS with a minimum of 41 FPS, and at High or Ultra settings, it falls to 30 FPS or below, which is not ideal for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this hardware?

A: The data indicates that 2560x1440 with Medium settings offers the best experience, providing a 77 FPS average with a minimum of 66 FPS. This combination balances visual quality with a frame rate that remains well above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 7472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447 (0.3% slower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (0.4% slower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (0.6% slower). The Intel Arc A310 at 7550 is 1% faster.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the limiting factor for this game?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The Core Ultra 5 245 scores in the 90th percentile among all CPUs, while the GTX 1650 scores in the 40th percentile among all GPUs. The frame rates scale almost entirely with resolution and settings, indicating that the GPU's rendering capabilities are the constraint.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 134 FPS, while the Ultra preset achieves 64 FPS. This represents a 52% reduction in frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest settings at this resolution.

Q: Does the system maintain a minimum frame rate above 60 FPS at any setting?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the minimum frame rate is 91 FPS, and at 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the minimum is 66 FPS. At 4K with Medium settings, the minimum drops to 41 FPS.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the definitive performance limiter in this configuration. With 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, the card's specifications are modest by modern standards. Its 896 shading units and 32 ROPs are responsible for the pixel and texture processing that becomes increasingly demanding at higher resolutions. The card's 1485 MHz base clock and 1665 MHz boost clock are relatively low, contributing to its 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance.

The measured FPS data directly reflects these hardware limitations. The card's performance percentile of 40 places it in the lower half of all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 7472 is closely matched by its nearest rivals. The fact that the Intel UHD Graphics 750, an integrated solution, is only 0.4% slower in benchmark scores underscores how entry-level the GTX 1650 is in the current landscape.

The GPU's 4 GB of VRAM is likely a significant constraint at higher resolutions and settings. While _Inside_ is not a VRAM-intensive game, the combination of 4K resolution and High/Ultra settings could push memory usage to its limits. The frame rate data supports this theory: at 4K, the difference between Low (61 FPS) and Medium (49 FPS) is substantial, and the further drop to High (30 FPS) suggests that the card is struggling to maintain the necessary memory bandwidth for higher-quality textures and effects.

The GTX 1650's DirectX 12 support (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 capabilities show that it is not obsolete in terms of API support, but its raw computational power is insufficient for demanding scenarios. The card's 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate that it is designed for basic, low-power systems, which aligns with its performance class. For _Inside_, the GPU can handle the game at low-to-medium settings at 1080p and 1440p, but it is clearly out of its depth at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 plays a minimal role in limiting frame rates for _Inside_ based on the measured data. With 14 cores and 14 threads, this processor has far more computational resources than a puzzle platformer requires. Its base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz provide substantial single-thread performance, which is typically what matters most for game logic and physics calculations. The CPU's 24 MB of shared L3 cache ensures that frequently accessed data is readily available.

The CPU's benchmark results confirm its high-end positioning. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and single-core score of 4648 place it in the 90th percentile among all CPUs. The PassMark multithread score of 38706 and single-thread score of 4394 further reinforce its capabilities. These numbers are far in excess of what _Inside_ requires, meaning the CPU is never the bottleneck in this system.

The CPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.5% faster) and the Intel Core i5-14600K (0.8% slower), which are both considered high-performance processors. This comparison shows that the Core Ultra 5 245 is performing at the expected level for its class. The fact that the combo rank is so low (2780 out of 2887) despite the CPU's strong performance confirms how severely the GPU is holding the system back.

The CPU's 65 W TDP and 3 nm process node from TSMC make it an efficient processor, but this efficiency is irrelevant when the GPU is the limiting factor. The 14 cores and 14 threads are more than sufficient for the game's physics and AI calculations, and the 5.10 GHz boost clock ensures that any single-threaded tasks are handled with ease. In this configuration, the CPU is essentially a passenger, waiting for the GPU to catch up.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset of measured FPS reveals a systematic pattern of performance degradation as resolution and settings increase. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 134 FPS at Low, 107 FPS at Medium (with a minimum of 91 FPS and maximum of 124 FPS), 67 FPS at High, and 64 FPS at Ultra. The transition from Low to Ultra at 1080p results in a 52% reduction in frame rate, but even the lowest figure remains comfortably playable.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates drop substantially. Low settings produce 97 FPS, while Medium produces 77 FPS (minimum 66 FPS, maximum 89 FPS). High settings yield 48 FPS, and Ultra drops to 46 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is minimal (only 2 FPS), suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional visual features have diminishing returns on this hardware. The Medium preset at 1440p is the most balanced option, offering a 77 FPS average with a minimum that stays above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system's limitations become severe. Low settings achieve 61 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS target. Medium settings produce 49 FPS (minimum 41 FPS, maximum 56 FPS), which is borderline playable but may exhibit noticeable stuttering in demanding scenes. High settings drop to 30 FPS, and Ultra to 29 FPS, both of which are well below acceptable levels for smooth gameplay. The 4K data shows a 52% reduction from Low to Ultra (61 FPS to 29 FPS), mirroring the 1080p scaling pattern but from a much lower starting point.

The consistency of the performance drops across resolutions is notable. The ratio of frame rates between Low and Medium is similar at each resolution (approximately 1.25x), and the ratio between Medium and High is also consistent (approximately 1.6x). This uniformity indicates that the GPU's performance scaling is predictable and primarily driven by pixel count and texture complexity, rather than any specific bottleneck that would cause non-linear behavior. The data provides a complete picture of what this combo can and cannot do, with 1080p Medium and 1440p Medium being the only settings that offer a minimum frame rate above 60 FPS.