Inside

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 combination ranks 2,915th out of 3,716 tested combos for Inside, placing it in the 22nd percentile of all systems evaluated. This is a modest standing, reflecting a pairing where the CPU is a top-tier performer but the GPU is a previous-generation mid-range part. The ranking suggests that while the system handles this puzzle platformer very well on paper, many other tested configurations deliver higher raw frame rates, particularly at lower resolutions where the graphics card is the limiting factor.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 2,915 out of 3,716 places it in the lower half of all tested pairings for Inside. This position is heavily influenced by the GPU’s age; the RTX 2060 sits at the 58th percentile among all GPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 265 is at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The asymmetric performance profile—a top-decile processor paired with a mid-pack graphics card—means the system’s overall standing is dragged down by the GPU’s capabilities.

In practical terms, this rank indicates that the combo is far from the top of the charts, but it is not at the bottom either. The data shows a system that can run Inside smoothly at most settings, but it will not compete with high-end rigs featuring newer graphics cards. The CPU’s strong benchmark scores—such as 42,216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5,960 in single-core—are largely irrelevant to this game’s performance, which is overwhelmingly GPU-bound. The ranking reflects that reality: the CPU is overqualified for the task, while the GPU determines the final frame rates.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is the primary driver of Inside's performance. It features 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU’s clocks are 1365 MHz base and 1680 MHz boost, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). These specs are modest by modern standards, but they are sufficient for a game like Inside, which is a puzzle platformer with relatively simple geometry and lighting.

The GPU’s benchmark scores confirm its mid-range status. It scores 14,111 in Passmark G3D and 6,451 TFLOPS in FP32 compute. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (deltaPct 0), the AMD Radeon 680M (deltaPct 0.1), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (deltaPct 0.6). This clustering shows that the RTX 2060 is essentially on par with a 2010-era flagship and a modern integrated GPU, underscoring its age. However, for Inside, this is not a problem; the game’s modest demands mean the GPU can still deliver high frame rates, especially at 1080p.

The 6 GB VRAM is a potential bottleneck at higher resolutions, but the measured data shows it is not an issue here. At 4K Ultra, the system still averages 55 FPS, indicating that the VRAM capacity is sufficient for the game’s textures and effects. The GPU’s Turing architecture, with 30 RT cores and 240 tensor cores, provides features that Inside does not utilize, but the raw rasterization performance is what matters most.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling across resolutions reveals a clear GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p Low, the system hits 256 FPS, which drops to 184 FPS at 1440p and 116 FPS at 4K. This scaling is consistent with a GPU that is being pushed harder as pixel count increases. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 28% (256 to 184 FPS), and from 1440p to 4K is 37% (184 to 116 FPS), showing that the GPU’s fill rate and bandwidth are the limiting factors.

At High settings, the scaling is even more pronounced: 128 FPS at 1080p, 92 FPS at 1440p, and 58 FPS at 4K. This represents a 28% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 37% drop from 1440p to 4K, mirroring the Low settings pattern. The consistency of these percentages indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck across all settings, with the CPU having ample headroom. The Core Ultra 7 265’s 20 cores and 20 threads are barely utilized in this game, which likely runs on a single or few threads, so the CPU’s performance is not a factor.

The data shows that the system is capable of 4K gaming, but frame rates become marginal at Ultra settings (55 FPS). For a smooth experience, dropping to High or Medium at 4K is advisable. At 1080p, the system is essentially overkill, with even Ultra settings hitting 122 FPS, well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of the system’s performance across resolutions and settings.

At 1920x1080, the system performs exceptionally well. Low settings produce 256 FPS, Medium yields 205 FPS (with min/max of 174/236), High achieves 128 FPS, and Ultra delivers 122 FPS. All settings are well above 60 FPS, making 1080p a resolution where the system has significant headroom. The difference between Medium and High is 77 FPS (205 to 128), indicating that Medium is a sweet spot for high refresh rate monitors, while Ultra still offers excellent playability.

At 2560x1440, performance remains strong but drops noticeably. Low settings produce 184 FPS, Medium yields 147 FPS (with min/max of 125/169), High achieves 92 FPS, and Ultra delivers 88 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 55 FPS (147 to 92), which is significant. Medium is the best choice for 1440p gaming, as it maintains frame rates above 120 FPS, while High and Ultra still offer smooth gameplay above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system starts to struggle at higher settings. Low settings produce 116 FPS, Medium yields 93 FPS (with min/max of 79/106), High achieves 58 FPS, and Ultra delivers 55 FPS. The drop from Medium to High is 35 FPS (93 to 58), which is a steep cliff. At 4K, only Low and Medium settings provide frame rates above 60 FPS, while High and Ultra hover near 55-58 FPS, which may be acceptable for a puzzle platformer but is not ideal for competitive play.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the system is capable of high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K, it is limited to Medium settings for a 60+ FPS experience. The min FPS values at Medium (79 at 4K, 125 at 1440p, 174 at 1080p) indicate good frame pacing, with no severe stutters.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with 30 MB of L3 cache. This is a high-end desktop CPU, scoring 42,216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5,960 in single-core, placing it at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs.

Despite its power, the CPU’s role in Inside is minimal. The game is a puzzle platformer that does not utilize multi-threaded performance heavily. The measured FPS data shows no CPU bottleneck: even at 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the system still hits 256 FPS, indicating that the CPU can feed the GPU without issue. The CPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P (deltaPct -0.3) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (deltaPct 0.3), but these differences are irrelevant to Inside.

The CPU does provide a solid foundation, ensuring that the GPU is always the limiting factor. This is evident from the scaling pattern, which is consistent across all settings. The CPU’s high single-core performance (5,960 in Cinebench R23) is likely the key metric for Inside, as the game probably runs on a single thread. The 5.30 GHz boost clock ensures that this thread is processed quickly, but the GPU’s output determines the final frame rate.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and frame rate.

At 1080p, the system is overkill. Ultra settings deliver 122 FPS, which is excellent for a 144Hz monitor. If the user has a 240Hz display, Medium settings at 205 FPS are the best choice, providing a significant frame rate boost over High (128 FPS) while maintaining visual quality. Low settings at 256 FPS are unnecessary, as the visual downgrade is not worth the extra frames.

At 1440p, Medium is the clear winner. It delivers 147 FPS, which is well above 120 FPS, providing a smooth experience on high refresh rate monitors. High settings at 92 FPS are also playable, but the drop from Medium is noticeable. Ultra at 88 FPS is marginally worse than High, so it is not recommended. Low at 184 FPS is unnecessary, as the visual quality is significantly reduced.

At 4K, the system is limited. Medium settings at 93 FPS are the best option, providing a smooth experience above 60 FPS. Low settings at 116 FPS offer even more headroom, but the visual downgrade is substantial. High at 58 FPS and Ultra at 55 FPS are playable for a puzzle platformer, but they are below the 60 FPS threshold and may feel less responsive. For the best experience at 4K, Medium is recommended.

In summary, the system’s sweet spot is 1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, with 4K Medium being a viable option for those prioritizing resolution over frame rate. The data shows that the CPU is never a bottleneck, so users should focus on GPU settings to achieve their desired performance.