Inside

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a stark example of a modern, high-core-count CPU bottlenecked by an older, entry-level GPU. In Inside, a 2D puzzle platformer with a restrained visual palette, the data reveals that the graphics card is the primary constraint at every measurable setting, while the processor's capabilities go largely untapped. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, contextualizes the combo's rank, and examines the specific roles of the GPU and CPU in this title.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for this combo shows a clear and predictable pattern: performance scales inversely with resolution, but the magnitude of the drop is the key indicator of the system's bottleneck. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 109. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same settings drops the average to 78 FPS, a reduction of 28.4%. Pushing further to 3840x2160 at Low settings yields an average of 49 FPS, which is a 55% decrease from the 1080p figure. This steep decline is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering workload at higher pixel counts overwhelms the GTX 1050 Ti's capabilities.

The pattern continues across all settings, but the frame rate ceiling at 1080p is telling. At High settings, the average at 1080p is 54 FPS, which falls to 39 at 1440p and then to 25 at 4K. The drop from 1440p to 4K is a 35.9% reduction in performance. This consistent, steep scaling suggests that even if the CPU were significantly weaker, the results would be nearly identical, as the GPU is the component doing the heavy lifting for pixel output. The data indicates that the limiting component is unequivocally the graphics card; the CPU is not a factor in these frame rate drops.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the benchmark database, this specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and the GTX 1050 Ti ranks at 2837 out of 2887 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the bottom 2% of all tested systems, a position that is almost entirely attributable to the GPU's low performance percentile of 25. The CPU, in contrast, holds a 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, but this strength does not translate to a high combo rank in this game.

The deltaPct values from the GPU's nearest rivals confirm that the GTX 1050 Ti is performing as expected, but that expected performance is low. It is 0.6% faster than the AMD Radeon R5 M330, 1% faster than the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, but 1.1% slower than the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and 1.8% slower than the AMD Radeon Vega 3. These are all similarly low-powered parts, meaning the combo's rank is not a result of a faulty or underperforming unit, but rather the inherent limits of the graphics processor. The CPU's nearest rivals—the AMD EPYC 4464P, Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, AMD EPYC 7343, and AMD EPYC 9124—are all within 0.7% of its average benchmark score, but their performance is irrelevant here, as the game's frame rate is not CPU-limited.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend entirely on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 109 FPS, which is the only setting that provides a clear margin above 60 FPS. The Medium preset achieves 87 FPS, which is also highly playable and offers a better visual experience than Low. High and Ultra settings at 1080p yield 54 FPS and 52 FPS, respectively, which are below the 60 FPS threshold and may feel less smooth on a high-refresh display. For the best balance of visual fidelity and performance at 1080p, the Medium preset is the recommended choice, as it provides a 61% improvement in FPS over High while still offering a substantial upgrade from Low.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more constrained. The Low preset averages 78 FPS, which is the only setting that exceeds 60 FPS. Medium drops to 62 FPS, which is just at the cusp of playability but may experience dips in more demanding scenes. High and Ultra settings at 1440p fall to 39 FPS and 37 FPS, respectively, making them less ideal for a smooth experience. For 1440p, the Low preset is the only recommendation that guarantees a solid frame rate. At 3840x2160, all measured settings fail to reach 60 FPS. Low averages 49 FPS, Medium averages 39 FPS, and High and Ultra average 25 FPS and 23 FPS, respectively. The 4K resolution is not viable for a consistently smooth experience with this GPU, and even the Low preset will feel noticeably less fluid.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full dataset provides a detailed view of the combo's performance. At 1920x1080, the average FPS values are as follows: Low is 109, Medium is 87 (with a minimum of 74 and maximum of 100), High is 54, and Ultra is 52. The difference between High and Ultra is minimal at only 2 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset imposes an additional load that the GPU cannot handle, making the visual upgrade not worth the performance cost.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low is 78, Medium is 62 (with a minimum of 53 and maximum of 72), High is 39, and Ultra is 37. The frame rate at Medium shows a wide variance of 19 FPS between its minimum and maximum, indicating that the GPU is struggling to maintain consistency as the scene complexity changes. At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low is 49, Medium is 39 (with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 45), High is 25, and Ultra is 23. The 4K data points are all below 50 FPS, reinforcing the conclusion that this resolution is unsuitable for this hardware. Across all resolutions, the step from Low to Medium incurs a significant performance penalty (e.g., from 109 to 87 at 1080p), while the step from High to Ultra is negligible, which implies that the Ultra preset's additional features are not the primary cost—the High preset itself is already too demanding for this GPU to produce high frame rates.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the decisive factor in this combo's performance. It is a 14 nm Pascal architecture chip with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s. Its base clock is 1291 MHz with a boost clock of 1392 MHz, and it has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. These specifications, while modest, are what determine the FPS figures seen in the measured data.

The GPU's benchmark scores are low, with a Passmark G3D score of 6340 and a percentile ranking of 25 against all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 4193, which is comparable to its nearest rivals like the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151). The 4 GB VRAM is a potential limitation for high-resolution textures, but in Inside, which is a puzzle platformer with a simpler art style, the data shows the bottleneck is more about raw compute and fill rate rather than memory capacity. The GPU's pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s and texture rate of 66.82 GTexel/s are simply insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering, as evidenced by the sub-30 FPS results at that resolution. The data indicates that the GPU is maxed out even at 1080p High, where it can only manage 54 FPS.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Inside at 1080p with a smooth 60+ FPS?*

A: Yes, but only at lower settings. The measured data shows an average of 109 FPS at Low and 87 FPS at Medium for 1920x1080. High and Ultra settings produce averages of 54 FPS and 52 FPS, respectively, which fall below the 60 FPS target.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware?

A: According to the data, 1920x1080 is the most viable resolution. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset reaches above 60 FPS (78 FPS), while at 3840x2160, all presets yield averages below 50 FPS, with High and Ultra dropping to 25 FPS and 23 FPS.

*Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 helping the performance in Inside?*

A: The data suggests it is not a limiting factor, but it is also not contributing to higher frame rates. The CPU has a 93rd percentile ranking and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216, but the game is clearly GPU-bound, as shown by the significant FPS drops at higher resolutions.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare to its closest rivals in terms of benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti's average benchmark score is 4193. It is 0.6% faster than the AMD Radeon R5 M330 and 1% faster than the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M. It is 1.1% slower than the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and 1.8% slower than the AMD Radeon Vega 3.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Ultra and High presets?

A: The difference is minimal. At 1920x1080, the average FPS is 54 for High and 52 for Ultra, a difference of just 2 FPS. At 2560x1440, it is 39 FPS versus 37 FPS, and at 3840x2160, it is 25 FPS versus 23 FPS. The performance cost of the Ultra preset is nearly identical to High.

*Q: Is the 4 GB VRAM a problem for Inside?*

A: The measured data does not directly indicate a VRAM capacity issue. The consistent FPS scaling with resolution points more toward the GPU's compute and fill rate limits being the primary constraint, rather than a memory capacity bottleneck.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 30 MB shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores are impressive, with a Passmark multi-thread score of 49682 and a single-thread score of 4689, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. It has a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and a single-core score of 5960.

In the context of Inside, however, this processing power is largely dormant. The game's measured FPS is dictated almost entirely by the GPU, as evidenced by the steep performance gradient across resolutions. The CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic, but the GTX 1050 Ti's rendering capabilities are so limited that it cannot take advantage of the CPU's high throughput. The combo ranks at 2837 out of 2887, a poor result that is not a reflection of the CPU's capabilities, but rather the severe imbalance of the pairing. The data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck in this title; it is the GTX 1050 Ti that holds the system back, making the Ultra 7 265's high core count and clock speeds irrelevant to the final frame rate in this specific game. The CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads provide no tangible benefit here, as Inside does not appear to be a multi-threaded workload that can stress this processor.