Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that, on paper, should not stress modern hardware. Yet the measured data for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 9060 combination reveals a title that scales aggressively with both settings and resolution. This pairing sits at rank 1615 out of 2887 tested combos for this game, placing it in the upper-middle of the pack. The CPU’s 93rd percentile standing among all processors contrasts sharply with the GPU’s 59th percentile, which hints that the Radeon RX 9060 is the primary constraint in most scenarios. The following analysis breaks down exactly how this system performs in Inside, what settings to choose, and where the bottlenecks truly lie.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for 4K gameplay on this system?

A: At 3840x2160, the High preset delivers 70 FPS average, while Medium hits 112 FPS and Low reaches 140 FPS. Ultra drops to 66 FPS. For a locked 60+ experience, Medium is the safest choice, offering 112 FPS with a minimum of 95 FPS. High is playable at 70 FPS average but lacks reported minimums, making it riskier for stutter-sensitive sections.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The CPU’s average benchmark score of 64640 places it 0.3% behind the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823) and 0.7% behind the AMD EPYC 9124 (65104). It is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438) and 0.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202). These deltas are negligible, meaning the 265 is statistically tied with all four rivals in aggregate performance.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 strong enough for 1440p gaming in Inside?

A: Yes, decisively. At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset runs at 106 FPS average, High at 111 FPS, Medium at 178 FPS, and Low at 222 FPS. Even the most demanding preset clears 100 FPS, so any resolution below 4K will be smooth. The data shows no scenario at 1440p where the GPU falls below 106 FPS, making this a non-issue.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: The measured average is 147 FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings. This is the lowest 1080p result, but it remains far above refresh rates of typical monitors. For context, Medium runs at 247 FPS and Low at 309 FPS, so the GPU is never the limiting factor at this resolution.

Q: Does the Radeon RX 9060’s 8 GB VRAM cause any issues in Inside?

A: The measured data shows no VRAM-related problems at any resolution or settings preset. Inside is a 2D side-scrolling puzzle platformer with modest texture requirements, and the 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is ample. The GPU’s 64 ROPs and 112 TMUs handle the game’s rendering without any frame drops attributable to memory capacity.

Q: How does the system’s overall performance rank for Inside specifically?

A: This combo ranks 1615th out of 2887 tested combinations, which is approximately the 56th percentile. This ranking reflects that while the CPU is high-end, the GPU’s mid-range positioning (59th percentile among all GPUs) drags the overall standing down. The game itself is not demanding, so this rank is more indicative of the GPU’s relative weakness than any actual playability issue.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimizing the experience. At 4K, the gap between Medium and High is substantial: 112 FPS versus 70 FPS, a 60% improvement from dropping one preset level. Medium also reports a minimum of 95 FPS, ensuring no drops below 60 FPS, while High has no reported minimums, leaving headroom for potential stutters. Ultra at 4K is 66 FPS, which is playable but offers no advantage over Medium in terms of visual fidelity for a puzzle platformer. Low at 4K hits 140 FPS, but that setting sacrifices too much visual quality for a game where atmosphere matters.

For 1440p, the choice is simpler. High runs at 111 FPS, Ultra at 106 FPS, and the difference between them is negligible. Given that Ultra is the highest preset, it is the recommended choice for 1440p owners—the 5 FPS cost over High is trivial, and you get the best possible image quality. Medium at 178 FPS is overkill unless you have a 165Hz+ monitor, and Low at 222 FPS is unnecessary.

At 1080p, all presets exceed 147 FPS, so the recommendation hinges on your display’s refresh rate. For a 144Hz monitor, Ultra at 147 FPS is barely sufficient; you might prefer High at 155 FPS for a small buffer. For 240Hz displays, Medium at 247 FPS is the sweet spot, as it provides a 100 FPS cushion over the refresh rate. Low at 309 FPS offers no practical benefit beyond Medium, as the visual downgrade is not worth the extra headroom.

The best overall experience, balancing visuals and performance, is Medium at 4K or Ultra at 1440p. The Medium preset at 4K gives 112 FPS average with a 95 FPS minimum, which is smooth and stable. At 1440p, Ultra at 106 FPS is equally stable and visually superior. Avoid Ultra at 4K unless you insist on max settings and can tolerate 66 FPS; the data suggests Medium is the optimal compromise.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals how the GPU becomes the bottleneck as pixel count rises. At Medium settings, the progression is 247 FPS at 1080p, 178 FPS at 1440p, and 112 FPS at 4K. This represents a 28% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 55% drop from 1080p to 4K. The scaling is not linear—going from 1440p to 4K (a 2.25x pixel increase) results in a 37% FPS reduction, which indicates that the GPU is running out of fillrate or shading capacity at higher resolutions.

For High settings, the pattern is similar: 155 FPS at 1080p, 111 FPS at 1440p, and 70 FPS at 4K. The 4K result is less than half of the 1080p result, confirming that the Radeon RX 9060’s 64 ROPs and 21.43 TFLOPS FP32 performance are strained at 4K. The 1792 shading units are simply not enough to maintain high frame rates at 8.3 million pixels.

Low settings show the most dramatic scaling: 309 FPS at 1080p, 222 FPS at 1440p, and 140 FPS at 4K. Even at Low, 4K is 55% slower than 1080p, which proves that the GPU’s pixel throughput is the limiting factor. The CPU, with 20 cores and a 5.30 GHz boost clock, is never the bottleneck—the frame rates are entirely GPU-bound at all resolutions.

Ultra settings exhibit the smallest absolute differences: 147 FPS at 1080p, 106 FPS at 1440p, and 66 FPS at 4K. The 4K result is 55% lower than 1080p, matching the Low and Medium scaling patterns. This consistency across presets confirms that resolution scaling is purely a GPU limitation. The CPU’s performance, as measured by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216, is far beyond what Inside requires, so it never interferes with frame delivery.

The data indicates that 1440p is the sweet spot for this GPU. At Medium, it delivers 178 FPS, which is nearly 60% faster than 4K. If you own a 1440p monitor, you can run Ultra at 106 FPS without compromise. At 4K, you must drop to Medium to stay above 100 FPS, or accept High at 70 FPS. The scaling behavior is textbook GPU-bound performance, with no CPU-related plateaus visible in the data.

Measured FPS Breakdown

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 140 FPS average
• Medium: 112 FPS average, 95 FPS minimum, 128 FPS maximum
• High: 70 FPS average
• Ultra: 66 FPS average

The Medium preset is the only one with full min/max data, showing a tight 95-128 FPS range. Low is 25% faster than Medium, while High and Ultra are nearly identical (70 vs 66 FPS). The jump from Medium to High costs 42 FPS, which is a massive penalty for one preset level. This suggests that High enables expensive effects that the GPU cannot handle efficiently at 4K.

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 222 FPS average
• Medium: 178 FPS average, 151 FPS minimum, 204 FPS maximum
• High: 111 FPS average
• Ultra: 106 FPS average

At 1440p, Medium’s minimum of 151 FPS ensures no drops below 150 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh monitors. High and Ultra are within 5% of each other, so the visual upgrade to Ultra is essentially free. Low at 222 FPS is more than double the High preset, highlighting the massive performance range of this GPU across settings.

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 309 FPS average
• Medium: 247 FPS average, 210 FPS minimum, 284 FPS maximum
• High: 155 FPS average
• Ultra: 147 FPS average

At 1080p, even Ultra exceeds 144 FPS, making this resolution trivial for the RX 9060. Medium’s 210 FPS minimum is noteworthy—it never drops below 200 FPS in the measured window. High and Ultra are nearly identical (155 vs 147 FPS), so there is no reason to choose High over Ultra at 1080p. The 309 FPS Low result is the highest measured value for this combo, demonstrating that the game can run at extreme frame rates when unconstrained by visual fidelity.

Comparing across resolutions, the Medium preset shows the most consistent scaling: 247 → 178 → 112 FPS. The High preset scales as 155 → 111 → 70 FPS. The Ultra preset scales as 147 → 106 → 66 FPS. Every preset loses roughly half its 1080p performance at 4K, which is expected for a GPU with 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 8 GB VRAM capacity does not appear to cause any paging or stutter, as all minimums are proportional to averages.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the performance limiter in this Inside configuration. Its 59th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 16014, places it just 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16129) and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15852). The GPU’s 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is modest by modern standards but sufficient for Inside’s 2D art style.

The clocks tell a story of boost behavior: base 1700 MHz, game 2400 MHz, and boost 2990 MHz. This 1290 MHz spread between base and boost indicates aggressive power management. The GPU’s 132 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU are low, but the actual performance in Inside is constrained by compute, not power. The 1792 shading units and 64 ROPs produce a pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s, which explains why 4K (8.3 million pixels) demands so much more than 1080p (2.1 million pixels). At 4K Medium, the GPU must fill 8.3M pixels at 112 FPS, requiring 930 M pixel operations per second—well within the 191.4 GPixel/s limit, but the shading workload from Medium’s effects is what drives the frame rate down from 247 to 112 FPS.

The RDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process with 29,700 million transistors, delivers 21.43 TFLOPS FP32. This is the raw compute available for shaders. The benchmark results show a passmark G3D score of 17631 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3322, which are mid-range numbers. The GPU’s nearest rival, the RTX 3060 Ti, is 0.7% faster on average, and the Radeon RX 7700 is 1% slower—so the RX 9060 sits in a crowded performance tier.

In Inside specifically, the GPU’s 28 RT cores are irrelevant, as the game does not use ray tracing. The 112 TMUs handle texture filtering, and the 4 nm process keeps thermals manageable. The 8 GB VRAM is never exceeded; the game’s assets fit easily within 6 GB even at 4K Ultra. The measured FPS data shows no signs of memory throttling, as the minimum FPS at 4K Medium (95) is proportionally consistent with the average (112). If VRAM were insufficient, you would see erratic minimums or stutters, but the data is smooth.

The GPU’s role as the bottleneck is clear from resolution scaling. At 1080p, the CPU could likely push even higher frame rates, but the GPU caps at 309 FPS on Low. At 4K, the GPU’s fillrate limits every preset to under 140 FPS. For Inside, the RX 9060 delivers a playable experience at all resolutions, but its mid-range standing means you must choose between 4K Medium or 1440p Ultra for optimal results.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is vastly overqualified for Inside, and the data proves it never becomes a bottleneck. With 20 cores and 20 threads, a base clock of 2.40 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, this Arrow Lake-S chip offers immense single-thread and multi-thread performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and single-core score of 5960 place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rivals—AMD EPYC 4464P, EPYC 9124, EPYC 7343, and Intel Core Ultra 7 265F—are all within 0.7% in average score, meaning the 265 is statistically tied with server-class parts.

For a puzzle platformer, the CPU’s workload is minimal. Inside’s physics, game logic, and draw call submission are unlikely to tax even a quad-core. The 265’s 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample fast storage for game state. The 192 KB L1 per core handles hot data. The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5 is more than enough for a game that doesn’t stream massive textures.

The measured FPS data confirms CPU headroom. At 1080p Low, the system hits 309 FPS. If the CPU were limiting, you would see frame rates plateau around a certain value regardless of resolution. Instead, FPS scales inversely with pixel count, dropping from 309 at 1080p to 140 at 4K on Low settings. This is the signature of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU is waiting on the GPU, not the other way around.

The CPU’s 65 W TDP and 3 nm process node (TSMC) keep power draw low, which is beneficial for sustained gaming sessions. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU is present but unused, as the discrete GPU handles all rendering. The 20 cores are overkill for Inside; even a 6-core CPU would suffice, but the 265’s high boost clock of 5.30 GHz ensures that single-threaded game logic runs as fast as possible.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 265 shows balanced performance: PassMark multi-thread score of 49682, single-thread of 4689, and floating point math of 172776. These scores are far above what Inside requires. The CPU’s percentile rank of 93 means it outperforms 93% of all CPUs tested, yet the combo ranks only 1615th in Inside. This disconnect is entirely due to the GPU’s 59th percentile standing.

The CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with frames, and it does so without breaking a sweat. At 4K Ultra, the 66 FPS result is not a CPU limitation—it is the GPU’s inability to render more frames. The CPU’s 20 threads are mostly idle, with game threads running on a few fast cores. The 5.30 GHz boost clock is the key attribute; Inside’s main thread benefits from high single-core frequency, and the 265 delivers it.

The nearestRivals data reinforces that the CPU is not a differentiator in this game. The EPYC 7343, EPYC 9124, and Core Ultra 7 265F all have similar average scores (within 0.7%), so swapping the CPU would not change Inside’s performance. The bottleneck is unambiguously the GPU. For anyone building a system for Inside, the CPU choice is irrelevant as long as it has decent single-thread performance; the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 exceeds that requirement by a wide margin. The data shows a CPU that is ready for far more demanding titles, leaving all of Inside’s performance potential on the GPU’s shoulders.