Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer, and this particular hardware pairing—Intel Core Ultra 7 265 with AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT—delivers performance that is almost comically overkill for the game’s demands. The data shows this combo ranks 242nd out of 2887 tested combinations, placing it in the top 8% of all systems. At every resolution and preset tested, average frame rates exceed 100 FPS, with several configurations pushing past 400 FPS. The benchmark results indicate that this system is not struggling to run Inside; rather, it is obliterating it, making the primary concern not raw performance but whether the experience can be tailored for maximum smoothness or visual fidelity without any perceptible compromise.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this CPU and GPU combo in Inside?

A: The highest recorded average is 430 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the peak performance point in the dataset.

Q: Can this system maintain a 4K 120Hz experience in Inside?

A: Yes, at 3840x2160 with High settings, the average FPS is 112. This is just above the 120Hz threshold, though the Ultra preset drops to an average of 107 FPS, which falls slightly below it.

Q: How does the Ultra preset performance compare to the High preset at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset averages 178 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 170 FPS. The difference is only 8 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset’s additional visual effects are not particularly taxing on this hardware.

Q: Are there any frame rate drops recorded in the data?

A: Yes, the Medium preset includes minimum FPS data. At 3840x2160, the minimum is 152 FPS, at 2560x1440 it is 242 FPS, and at 1920x1080 it is 337 FPS. These are the only recorded minimums in the dataset.

Q: Is the Core Ultra 7 265 a high-performance processor in general benchmarks?

A: The data shows it scores 42,216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5,960 in single-core. It has a percentile rank of 93 among all CPUs, indicating it outperforms 93% of all tested processors.

Q: What is the VRAM capacity of the RX 7900 XT, and is it a constraint here?

A: The RX 7900 XT features 20 GB of GDDR6 memory with 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Given that even the highest frame rates are achieved without any drops recorded at High and Ultra settings, the VRAM capacity is not a limiting factor in this game.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with a Navi 31 chip. It has a base clock of 1387 MHz and a boost clock of 2394 MHz, with a game clock of 2025 MHz. The GPU’s memory operates at 2500 MHz, translating to 20 Gbps effective. This configuration is paired with 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 800.0 GB/s. These specifications are largely academic for a title like Inside, which is a side-scrolling puzzle platformer with relatively simple geometry and lighting effects compared to modern 3D shooters.

The GPU’s role in this game’s results is primarily to ensure that the frame rate is high enough that the CPU becomes the next bottleneck. The data shows that the RX 7900 XT is capable of pushing 430 FPS at 1080p Low. This suggests the GPU is not being fully utilized at lower resolutions and settings; instead, it’s waiting on the CPU to feed it frames. At 4K Ultra, the average drops to 107 FPS, which is still exceptionally smooth. The frame pacing appears stable, as the only minimum FPS recorded are on Medium settings, with a 152 FPS floor at 4K, 242 FPS at 1440p, and 337 FPS at 1080p. These minimums are still well above the standard 60 FPS target, meaning there is no risk of stutter or noticeable hitching.

The GPU’s compute capabilities, such as 51.48 TFLOPS FP32 and 103.0 TFLOPS FP16, are not directly relevant to Inside’s rendering workload. The game’s visual style is more reliant on consistent rasterization than on heavy compute shaders or ray tracing, which the GPU supports via 84 RT cores. The data confirms the GPU is more than capable of handling the game’s demands, as even the most demanding preset tested (Ultra at 4K) produces an average frame rate that is nearly double the refresh rate of a standard 60Hz monitor.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the average FPS is 248. Moving to 2560x1440 drops this to 178, a reduction of 28%. At 3840x2160, the average falls to 112, which is a 55% reduction from 1080p. This scaling pattern is typical of a system where the GPU becomes more heavily utilized as resolution increases.

The Low settings preset shows a more dramatic scaling. From 430 FPS at 1080p, the frame rate drops to 356 FPS at 1440p (a 17% reduction) and then to 224 FPS at 4K (a 48% reduction from 1080p). The fact that the percentage drop from 1440p to 4K is larger for Low settings than for High settings suggests that at Low settings, the GPU is still not fully saturated at 1440p, but begins to hit its limits at 4K. Conversely, the Ultra preset shows the smallest relative drops: 236 FPS at 1080p, 170 FPS at 1440p, and 107 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 28%, and from 1440p to 4K is 37%.

These numbers indicate that the limiting component changes depending on the resolution and settings. At 1080p Low, the CPU is the primary limiter, as the GPU is capable of rendering frames faster than the CPU can issue draw calls. As resolution increases to 4K, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, as the pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth requirements increase. The data shows that even at 4K Ultra, the system maintains a playable frame rate, meaning that the GPU is not overwhelmed. The scaling is smooth, with no evidence of a sudden cliff or severe performance collapse at any tested setting.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset provides average FPS for all combinations of three resolutions and four settings presets, with minimum and maximum FPS recorded only for the Medium preset.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 430 FPS average
• Medium: 396 FPS average, with a minimum of 337 FPS and a maximum of 455 FPS
• High: 248 FPS average
• Ultra: 236 FPS average

At 1080p, the difference between Low and Medium is 34 FPS, which is relatively small. The jump from Medium to High is significant, with a 148 FPS drop. The difference between High and Ultra is only 12 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset’s additional effects are not very demanding at this resolution.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 356 FPS average
• Medium: 285 FPS average, with a minimum of 242 FPS and a maximum of 328 FPS
• High: 178 FPS average
• Ultra: 170 FPS average

At 1440p, the scaling is more consistent. Low to Medium is a 71 FPS drop. The drop from Medium to High is 107 FPS, which is the largest single step. High to Ultra is only an 8 FPS difference, showing that the Ultra preset is barely more demanding than High at this resolution.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 224 FPS average
• Medium: 179 FPS average, with a minimum of 152 FPS and a maximum of 206 FPS
• High: 112 FPS average
• Ultra: 107 FPS average

At 4K, the pattern repeats. Low to Medium is a 45 FPS drop. Medium to High is a 67 FPS drop. High to Ultra is a 5 FPS difference, confirming that the Ultra preset’s visual improvements have a negligible performance cost on this hardware.

The data clearly shows that the Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum frame rates, which implies that the game’s frame pacing is most consistent at this setting, or that this is the only preset where the telemetry captured the full range. The minimums at all resolutions for Medium are high enough to ensure a perfectly smooth experience.

Settings Recommendations

For this specific hardware configuration, the choice of settings should be guided by the display’s refresh rate and the user’s preference for visual fidelity. The data shows that the Ultra preset offers a minimal performance penalty over High at all resolutions. At 1080p, Ultra averages 236 FPS versus 248 FPS for High, a difference of 5%. At 1440p, the difference is 8 FPS, and at 4K, it is 5 FPS. This makes the Ultra preset the recommended choice for almost all scenarios, as it provides the best visual quality with virtually no measurable downside.

If the user has a 120Hz or 144Hz monitor, the Ultra preset at 4K is borderline, with an average of 107 FPS. This falls just short of a 120Hz refresh rate. In this case, dropping to High settings provides an average of 112 FPS, which is a marginal improvement but still not a guarantee of hitting 120 FPS at all times, as no minimum FPS data is available for that preset. The Medium preset, with a minimum of 152 FPS at 4K, is the safest option for a 120Hz display, as it guarantees frame rates well above the refresh rate.

For users with a 240Hz monitor, the 1080p Ultra preset is the best option, averaging 236 FPS. This is close to the 240Hz target. The High preset at 1080p offers 248 FPS, which is a better guarantee of hitting the refresh rate. At 1440p, the Medium preset, with a minimum of 242 FPS, is the only setting that consistently stays above 240 FPS. The Low preset at 1440p averages 356 FPS, which is also a viable option, but the visual degradation may not be worth the extra frames. The recommendation is to use the Ultra preset when the display is 60Hz or 144Hz at 1440p, and to step down to High or Medium only when pursuing extremely high refresh rates at 4K or 1440p.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The processor’s cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a high-end desktop CPU, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 scores of 42,216 multi-core and 5,960 single-core.

In Inside, the CPU’s role is to handle game logic, physics, and draw call submission. The data shows that the CPU is not a bottleneck at higher resolutions, but it may be the limiting factor at 1080p Low. The 430 FPS result at 1080p Low is likely near the CPU’s maximum frame submission rate for this game. The fact that the frame rate scales down as resolution increases, even with the same settings, indicates that the GPU is taking over as the primary bottleneck.

The CPU’s high single-core performance, as shown by the 5,960 score in Cinebench R23 single-core, is crucial for a game like Inside, which may not be well-optimized for many threads. The 20 cores and 20 threads are more than sufficient for the game’s demands, and the lack of hyperthreading (20 threads for 20 cores) is not a problem here. The processor’s 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms that it is a top-tier part, and its performance in this game is consistent with that ranking. The nearest rivals in general benchmark scores, such as the AMD EPYC 4464P and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, show that this chip is well within the expected performance envelope for its class, with a deltaPct of -0.3% and +0.3% respectively, indicating that these are essentially equivalent in raw compute power.