Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that is remarkably light on CPU demands, which makes the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H’s role in this specific benchmark more about maintaining a consistent baseline than pushing performance limits. The data for this combo represents a measured configuration, and the results show a system that is overwhelmingly GPU-limited at higher settings. The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H is a mobile processor featuring 16 cores and 22 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. This is a high-end mobile part, as evidenced by its 84th percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database, and its benchmark scores—such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14551 and a single-core score of 1759—place it in a competitive field. However, for a game like Inside, which does not feature complex physics simulations or massive AI workloads, the CPU’s job is relatively simple. The performance gap between this CPU and its nearest rivals is negligible, with the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X scoring only 0.5% higher on average, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H scoring 0.3% lower. This indicates that in any CPU-bound scenario, the choice between these processors would be imperceptible in terms of frame rate. The fact that this 16-core, 22-thread processor is not a bottleneck is further supported by the FPS data, which shows the frame rate scaling almost entirely with GPU load as settings and resolutions change.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H’s specifications are far beyond what Inside requires to run smoothly. This processor, built on Intel's 7 nm Meteor Lake architecture, has a 24 MB shared L3 cache and a dual-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. These are characteristics of a processor designed for demanding productivity tasks and modern multi-threaded games. Yet, Inside is a side-scrolling puzzle platformer with a minimalist art style and a fixed camera perspective. The game's logic, player character physics, and environmental interactions are simple enough that a modern CPU with even half the cores would likely see similar performance. The benchmark results confirm this: at 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 275 FPS, but this number is not limited by the CPU. Instead, it is a reflection of the GPU's ability to render the basic geometry and lighting at that setting. The CPU's high boost clock of 5.00 GHz ensures that even the single-threaded tasks involved in game logic are handled with minimal latency, preventing any frame-time spikes that could cause stutter. The Cinebench R15 single-core score of 257 and the Passmark single-thread score of 3509 indicate strong per-core performance, which is beneficial for maintaining high frame rates in any game, regardless of its thread count. However, the data strongly suggests that the CPU is never the limiting factor in this combination; it is perpetually waiting for the GPU to finish its work. The negligible deltas to its nearest rivals (0.3% to the Core Ultra 5 338H, -0.4% to the AMD EPYC 4244P, and -0.5% to the Ryzen 7 3700X) reinforce that in this game, CPU choice is a non-issue. The overall CPU average benchmark score is 34083, which is high, but the game's frame rates are dictated by the graphics pipeline, not this compute power.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon 8050S is the clear driver of performance in this benchmark pairing. This integrated GPU, based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture and built on a 4 nm process, is a significant piece of silicon. It operates with a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz, and it has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The GPU’s memory is system-shared, meaning its bandwidth and capacity are dependent on the system’s DDR5 RAM. In terms of raw compute, it offers 11.47 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which places it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The benchmark results show a clear hierarchy: as settings increase, the frame rate drops, indicating that the GPU is being tasked with more work. For instance, at 4K, the average FPS falls from 124 at Low settings to 59 at Ultra settings. This is a direct result of the GPU rendering more pixels and applying more complex shaders and lighting effects. The GPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (0.3% faster), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (2.5% slower), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (2.6% slower). These deltas show that the 8050S is positioned in a competitive mid-range performance tier. The Geekbench scores of 65818 for OpenCL and 58398 for Vulkan further quantify its compute and graphics capabilities. For a game like Inside, which has a stylized 2D presentation but supports high resolutions, the GPU is responsible for maintaining the frame rate. The data indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at all resolutions above the lowest settings, as the FPS scales nearly linearly with the rendering load.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H or the AMD Radeon 8050S the bottleneck in this game?

A: Benchmark results indicate the AMD Radeon 8050S is the limiting component. Evidence lies in the FPS scaling: at 1440p High, the system achieves 99 FPS, while at 1440p Low, it reaches 198 FPS. This doubling of performance shows the CPU is not holding the system back, as the frame rate changes are directly tied to GPU rendering load.

Q: How does this combo perform at 4K resolution?

A: The data shows playable frame rates at 4K. At High settings, the average FPS is 62, which is just above the 60 FPS target. At Medium settings, it averages 100 FPS with a minimum of 85 FPS. Low settings yield an average of 124 FPS. Ultra settings dip to 59 FPS, making High or Medium the sensible choices for a smooth experience.

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

A: The difference is substantial. The average frame rate at 1080p Low is 275 FPS, while at Ultra it drops to 131 FPS. This represents a performance reduction of roughly 52% when moving from the absolute lowest to the highest preset. This large gap is typical for a game where the GPU is the primary performance driver.

Q: How does the Radeon 8050S compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Radeon 8050S’s average benchmark score is 62108. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, scores 0.3% higher. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 scores 2.5% lower, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M scores 2.6% lower. This indicates the 8050S is competitive, sitting in the middle of a tight performance band.

Q: Does the CPU's core count matter for this game?

A: No. The Core Ultra 7 165H has 16 cores and 22 threads, but Inside’s engine does not appear to scale with such high core counts. The evidence is that the frame rates are entirely dependent on resolution and settings, which affect GPU load. The CPU’s high single-core performance is sufficient to feed the GPU without becoming a bottleneck.

Q: What is the best way to achieve over 100 FPS with this hardware?

A: The data shows multiple options. At 1080p, both High (138 FPS) and Medium (220 FPS) settings exceed 100 FPS. At 1440p, High (99 FPS) is just below the target, but Medium (158 FPS) easily surpasses it. At 4K, only Low (124 FPS) and Medium (100 FPS) settings manage to stay above 100 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and the AMD Radeon 8050S ranks 2712 out of 3716 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the lower half of the performance distribution. This ranking is somewhat surprising given the individual component strengths, but it is important to contextualize what this rank means. The database likely includes many high-end desktop systems with discrete graphics cards that are far more powerful than the integrated Radeon 8050S. The 8050S is an integrated GPU, and while it is fast for its class, it is not competing with high-end discrete solutions. The combo rank of 2712 reflects this reality: it is a mobile-centric solution that performs well but is outclassed by the sheer power of many desktop setups. The CPU, despite being in the 84th percentile, does not boost the combo’s rank because the GPU is the performance limiter. The data shows that the combo is capable of high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but the 4K Ultra preset is the only configuration where it fails to hit a playable 60 FPS average. This suggests that the system is well-balanced for high-refresh-rate gaming at standard resolutions, but it is not a top-tier 4K machine for this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how the system scales with resolution and settings. At 1080p, the frame rates are exceptionally high. With Low settings, the average FPS is 275. Moving to Medium, the average drops to 220 FPS, with a minimum of 187 FPS and a maximum of 253 FPS. High settings produce an average of 138 FPS, and Ultra settings yield an average of 131 FPS. The transition from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows a significant cost of visual fidelity. At 1440p, the performance remains strong but drops noticeably. Low settings average 198 FPS. Medium settings see an average of 158 FPS, with a minimum of 135 FPS and a maximum of 182 FPS. High settings average 99 FPS, and Ultra settings average 94 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra at 1440p is about 53%, which is a larger relative hit than at 1080p, indicating the GPU is working harder. At 4K, the frame rates become more modest. Low settings average 124 FPS, which is still very smooth. Medium settings average 100 FPS, with a minimum of 85 FPS and a maximum of 115 FPS. High settings drop to an average of 62 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 59 FPS. The 4K data shows a clear threshold: High and Ultra presets are on the edge of 60 FPS, while Medium and Low provide a comfortable margin.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal settings depend on the user's target resolution and frame rate preference. For 4K gaming, the Medium preset is the clear recommendation. It delivers an average of 100 FPS with a minimum of 85 FPS, providing a smooth and responsive experience. The High preset at 4K, averaging 62 FPS, is also viable for those who prioritize visual quality over a large FPS buffer, but it is close to the edge of playability. Ultra settings at 4K, with a 59 FPS average, are not recommended due to the risk of frame drops below 60. At 1440p, High settings (99 FPS) are a good balance, but Medium settings (158 FPS) are better suited for high-refresh-rate displays. The Low preset is unnecessary unless aiming for maximum frame rates. For 1080p, the High preset (138 FPS) is the best overall choice, offering a strong visual experience with frame rates that are more than sufficient for any display. The Ultra preset at 1080p (131 FPS) offers diminishing returns over High. The Medium preset at 1080p (220 FPS) is excessive for most monitors and offers little visual benefit over High. Therefore, the data suggests that for most users, the High preset at 1440p or the Medium preset at 4K provides the best experience, balancing visual fidelity with a stable, high frame rate.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data shows a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 138 at 1080p to 99 at 1440p, and finally to 62 at 4K. This represents a 55% drop in performance from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the drop is from 220 FPS at 1080p to 158 FPS at 1440p, down to 100 FPS at 4K. This is a 55% reduction as well. At Low settings, the frame rates drop from 275 FPS at 1080p to 198 FPS at 1440p, and 124 FPS at 4K, a 55% decline. This consistent pattern across all settings is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU is powerful enough to maintain a consistent frame delivery, so the performance loss is directly proportional to the increase in pixel count. The jump from 1080p to 1440p increases the pixel count by 78%, while the drop in FPS is around 28%. The jump from 1440p to 4K increases pixels by 125%, and the FPS drops by roughly 37%. This non-linear relationship indicates that while the GPU is the primary limiter, other factors such as memory bandwidth and fill rate begin to play a larger role at higher resolutions. The data definitively shows that the AMD Radeon 8050S is the component that dictates performance scaling in this title.