Inside

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, and its 30 MB of shared L3 cache helps feed the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT. The GPU, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip, features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For _Inside_, a puzzle platformer from 2016, this combination is massively overqualified, as the data shows frame rates ranging from 83 FPS at 4K Ultra to 387 FPS at 1080p Low, indicating that even at the highest settings, the game is far from taxing this hardware.

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

The Core Ultra 7 265's specifications are far beyond what _Inside_ requires. The game was released in 2016, and its puzzle-platformer genre does not typically demand high thread counts or extreme clock speeds. The CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads, paired with a 5.30 GHz boost clock, provide a massive amount of headroom. Benchmark results place this processor in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64,640. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P (average score 64,823, 0.3% lower) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (average score 64,438, 0.3% higher), showing that it sits in a tightly contested performance band.

In the context of _Inside_, the CPU's role is mostly to stay out of the way. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 387 FPS average, which is a scenario where the CPU's single-thread performance (a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,960) ensures that the game's logic and physics calculations are processed quickly. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,689 further confirms its strength in lightly-threaded tasks. However, the game's simplicity means that even a much weaker CPU would likely not bottleneck this GPU. The data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in any of the measured configurations, as the frame rates scale consistently with resolution and settings changes, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

The 65 W TDP of the CPU is modest for its core count, but this is irrelevant to the game's performance. What matters is that the processor can deliver the data to the GPU without delays. With a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5, the system has ample throughput for a game of this era. The CPU's PassMark multithread score of 49,682 indicates it can handle much more complex workloads, but for _Inside_, it is effectively idle during most frames. The benchmark results show no signs of CPU-induced frame pacing issues or minimum frame rate drops, as even the lowest recorded minimum FPS (119 FPS at 4K Medium) is exceptionally high.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution to play _Inside_ with this combo for the highest frame rate?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 offers the highest frame rates across all settings. At Low settings, the average FPS is 387, while at Ultra it drops to 184 FPS. This is the resolution where the hardware is least stressed.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT bottleneck the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 in this game?

A: The benchmark results indicate the opposite. The frame rates scale predictably with resolution and settings, dropping from 387 FPS at 1080p Low to 175 FPS at 4K Low. This pattern shows the GPU is the primary performance limiter at higher resolutions, not the CPU.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RX 7700 XT has an average benchmark score of 22,549, placing it in the 67th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile, scores 22,435, which is 0.5% lower, while the RTX 4060 Mobile scores 22,729, which is 0.8% higher.

Q: Is the combo's rank in _Inside_ indicative of its overall performance?

A: The combo ranks 864th out of 2,887 tested combinations for this game. Given that the game is not demanding, this mid-tier rank reflects that many other combos also achieve high frame rates, rather than a weakness in this specific pairing.

Q: What is the difference in frame rate between Medium and High settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Medium settings yield an average of 222 FPS (with a minimum of 189 FPS), while High settings produce an average of 139 FPS. This is a significant drop of 83 FPS, suggesting High settings introduce a substantial graphical load increase.

Q: Can this combo maintain a stable 60 FPS at 4K with maximum settings?

A: Yes, at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 83, which is above 60. Even at High settings, the average is 87 FPS, ensuring a smooth experience at 4K.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data for _Inside_ shows a clear scaling pattern across resolutions. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 387 FPS at 1080p to 278 FPS at 1440p, and then to 175 FPS at 4K. This is a reduction of 109 FPS going from 1080p to 1440p (a 28% drop) and another 103 FPS from 1440p to 4K (a 37% drop). This consistent decline indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor as resolution increases, because the CPU's workload remains relatively constant while the GPU must render more pixels.

The scaling is less pronounced at High settings. At 1080p High, the average is 193 FPS, which drops to 139 FPS at 1440p (a 54 FPS or 28% drop) and then to 87 FPS at 4K (a 52 FPS or 37% drop). The percentage drops are nearly identical to Low settings, which is interesting because it suggests that the relative load increase from resolution is similar regardless of the quality preset. This is typical for a game where the pixel count is the dominant factor, not the complexity of effects.

Ultra settings show a similar pattern, with 184 FPS at 1080p, 132 FPS at 1440p, and 83 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K is 101 FPS, or 55%. The frame rates at 4K Ultra (83 FPS) and 4K High (87 FPS) are very close, differing by only 4 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset at 4K is not adding much additional load over High, or that the game is hitting a performance ceiling where the GPU is fully utilized. The data points to the RX 7700 XT being the bottleneck at 4K, as the CPU has ample headroom to push higher frame rates if the GPU could keep up.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT ranks 864th out of 2,887 tested combos for _Inside_. This places it in the top 30% of all configurations tested for this specific game. Given the game's age and low system requirements, this ranking is more about the sheer number of high-end combos tested rather than any deficiency in this pairing. The rank indicates that there are 2,023 other combos that perform better, likely featuring more powerful GPUs or CPUs, but the absolute frame rates here are already so high that the ranking is somewhat academic.

The CPU's percentile rank of 93rd among all CPUs and the GPU's 67th percentile show that this is a high-end pairing, but not the absolute top tier. The GPU's rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080, which scores 22,895 (1.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 5700, which scores 22,170 (1.7% lower). These small deltas suggest that the RX 7700 XT is competitive with previous-generation high-end cards. For _Inside_, the combo's rank of 864 suggests that while many other combos achieve higher frame rates (likely beyond 400 FPS at 1080p), the experience here is still exceptionally smooth. The rank should be viewed in context: the game is not demanding, so the difference between rank 864 and rank 100 is often just a few extra frames per second that are imperceptible on most displays.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

When looking at the measured rows, the choice of settings depends on the target refresh rate and resolution. At 1080p, even the Ultra preset delivers 184 FPS average, which exceeds the refresh rate of most high-end monitors (typically 144 Hz or 240 Hz). Therefore, at 1080p, the Ultra preset is recommended to get the best visual quality without sacrificing smoothness. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 309 FPS, which is only useful for extreme refresh rate displays (e.g., 360 Hz), but the visual fidelity loss from Medium to Ultra is likely noticeable in the game's atmospheric lighting and shadows.

At 1440p, the Ultra preset produces 132 FPS, which is ideal for a 120 Hz or 144 Hz monitor. The High preset at 139 FPS is nearly identical in performance, but Ultra likely offers better visual effects. The data shows a larger gap between Medium (222 FPS) and High (139 FPS), which is a 83 FPS difference. This suggests that High settings introduce effects that are significantly more demanding. For 1440p, the Ultra preset is the best choice because it maintains a high frame rate while maximizing quality. If you prefer higher frame rates, Medium offers 222 FPS, but the jump to High is so large that it might be better to stick with Ultra if you have a 144 Hz monitor.

At 4K, the Ultra preset averages 83 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth play but below the 120 FPS mark. The High preset at 87 FPS is only slightly faster, so the extra visual fidelity of Ultra is worth the 4 FPS cost. The Medium preset at 140 FPS (with a minimum of 119 FPS) is the best option for 4K if you have a 120 Hz display, as it provides a significant frame rate boost over Ultra while still looking good. The Low preset at 175 FPS is unnecessary unless you have a 165 Hz 4K monitor, which is rare. For the best balance of visual quality and performance at 4K, Medium is the recommended preset, as it delivers 140 FPS average with a minimum of 119 FPS, ensuring a consistent experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across all combinations of resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are exceptionally high. The Low preset averages 387 FPS, while Medium averages 309 FPS with a minimum of 263 FPS and a maximum of 356 FPS. High settings drop the average to 193 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 184 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 9 FPS, which is minimal compared to the 116 FPS drop from Low to Medium. This indicates that the Medium preset is where the GPU starts to work harder, but the CPU remains untaxed.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down as expected. The Low preset averages 278 FPS, which is still very high. Medium averages 222 FPS with a minimum of 189 FPS and a maximum of 256 FPS. High settings average 139 FPS, and Ultra settings average 132 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 83 FPS, which is the largest jump in the entire dataset. This suggests that the High preset enables effects that significantly increase the GPU load, such as higher-quality shadows or post-processing. The minimum FPS for Medium at 1440p (189 FPS) is still above the typical 144 Hz refresh rate, making it a safe choice for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates drop further but remain playable. The Low preset averages 175 FPS, which is impressive for 4K. Medium averages 140 FPS with a minimum of 119 FPS and a maximum of 161 FPS. High settings average 87 FPS, and Ultra settings average 83 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 4 FPS, which is negligible. The minimum FPS for Medium at 4K (119 FPS) is above 60 FPS, ensuring a smooth experience even during demanding scenes. The data shows that the RX 7700 XT is the limiting factor at 4K, as the frame rates are significantly lower than at 1440p, but the CPU continues to provide enough headroom to avoid becoming a bottleneck.