Inside

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti combination delivers a surprisingly strong showing in Inside, a 2016 puzzle platformer that is far more demanding on raw frame rates than its minimalist art style suggests. The measured data places this pairing at rank 799 out of 2,887 tested combos, which puts it comfortably in the top third of all systems benchmarked for this title. That ranking is notable because Inside is an older game with a relatively modest visual footprint, yet the combination still manages to outperform a large majority of the field, indicating that both the CPU and GPU are contributing meaningful performance headroom rather than being held back by engine limitations or driver overhead.

The 2,887 combos tested include a wide range of hardware generations, from legacy parts to current flagships, so a rank of 799 means this system sits ahead of roughly 72 percent of all configurations. The nearest rivals for the CPU in aggregate benchmark scores are the AMD EPYC 4464P, which scores 64,823 against the Core Ultra 7 265’s 64,640 average, a delta of just -0.3 percent, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, which scores 64,438 for a +0.3 percent difference. In practical terms, the 265 and its F-suffix sibling are nearly interchangeable in synthetic workloads, though the 265 carries integrated graphics while the 265F does not. The AMD EPYC 7343 and EPYC 9124 sit close as well, with deltas of +0.7 and -0.7 percent respectively, meaning the 265 is bracketed by server-class silicon that costs considerably more and draws far more power. For a desktop part with a 65 W TDP, this level of parity is impressive, though Inside is not a title that stresses many cores, so the CPU’s 20 cores and 20 threads are only partially utilized in this context.

On the GPU side, the RTX 3070 Ti sits at the 75th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29,945. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile at 29,928 (a +0.1 percent delta), the AMD Radeon RX 6800 at 30,095 (-0.5 percent), the RTX 2080 Ti at 29,783 (+0.5 percent), and the RX 6700 at 30,433 (-1.6 percent). This means the 3070 Ti is essentially a peer of the RX 6800 and slightly ahead of the previous-generation flagship RTX 2080 Ti in aggregate compute, which is a useful reference point for understanding its behavior in Inside. The 3070 Ti’s 8 GB of GDDR6X memory and 608.3 GB/s of bandwidth are more than sufficient for a game of this era, and the 256-bit bus width ensures that memory bandwidth is rarely a limiting factor at the resolutions tested.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 799 out of 2,887 puts this system in the upper 27.7 percent of all configurations tested for Inside. That is a strong result for a mid-range GPU paired with a high-end desktop CPU, and it indicates that the system is not bottlenecked in a way that would drag it down the rankings. Many combos with faster GPUs but weaker CPUs fall behind because Inside can be CPU-sensitive at very high frame rates, especially at 1080p where the GPU has less work to do. The Core Ultra 7 265’s single-thread performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,960 and PassMark single-thread score of 4,689, is high enough to keep up with the RTX 3070 Ti’s output even when frame rates exceed 300 FPS. The CPU’s boost clock of 5.30 GHz is the key enabler here, as it allows the 265 to maintain high instruction throughput in lightly threaded workloads, which is exactly what Inside presents.

Compared to the aggregate benchmark field, the 265’s 93rd percentile standing among all CPUs reinforces that this is a top-tier processor for gaming, even though its 20 cores are mostly idle in this title. The nearest CPU rivals, the EPYC 4464P and EPYC 7343, are server parts with higher average scores, but those scores come from multi-threaded workloads that do not translate to Inside performance. In this game, the 265’s high single-core clock and modern Arrow Lake architecture are what matter, and the measured FPS numbers reflect that. The combo rank is also helped by the fact that Inside does not require ray tracing or heavy geometry, so the RTX 3070 Ti’s 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores are largely unused, allowing the GPU to focus purely on rasterization and pixel throughput.

GPU Role

The RTX 3070 Ti is built on the GA104 chip using Samsung’s 8 nm process, with 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die. Its base clock is 1,575 MHz and boost clock is 1,770 MHz, which are modest figures by modern standards, but the Ampere architecture’s efficiency allows it to deliver strong raster performance. The 8 GB of GDDR6X memory runs at 1,188 MHz with 19 Gbps effective speed, producing 608.3 GB/s of bandwidth across a 256-bit bus. For Inside, this memory configuration is overkill; the game’s textures and geometry are simple enough that even 4 GB would suffice, but the headroom means there are no hitches or stutters from memory swapping at any resolution. The GPU’s 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs give it a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 339.8 GTexel/s, which are directly relevant to how many pixels it can fill per second in a 2D-heavy platformer.

The FP32 throughput of 21.75 TFLOPS is the same as the FP16 figure, indicating a 1:1 ratio that is typical of Ampere cards without dedicated FP16 acceleration. In Inside, this compute power is barely tapped, as the game does not use compute shaders for physics or post-processing to any significant degree. Instead, the GPU’s role is to push frames as fast as possible, and the data shows it doing so effectively. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 397 FPS average, which is near the practical limit for many displays and suggests that the GPU is not the limiting factor at that resolution; the CPU and game engine are. At 4K Ultra, the average drops to 85 FPS, which is still smooth but indicates that the GPU is now the primary constraint as pixel count quadruples. The 3070 Ti’s 8 GB VRAM is never a concern here, as Inside’s memory footprint is small, and the measured FPS values show no anomalies that would suggest VRAM capacity or bandwidth bottlenecks.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a clear division of labor between the CPU and GPU. At 1080p Low, the system hits 397 FPS, which is an extremely high frame rate that no current display can fully utilize, but it demonstrates that the CPU can feed the GPU fast enough to avoid any bottleneck. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 317 FPS, a 20.2 percent reduction from Low, which is a larger drop than what would be expected from the settings change alone, indicating that the GPU is starting to take on more work. At 1080p High, the average is 198 FPS, a further 37.5 percent drop from Medium, and at 1080p Ultra, it falls to 189 FPS, only 4.5 percent below High. This pattern suggests that the jump from Low to Medium adds significant shading and texture work, while the jump from High to Ultra is relatively minor in terms of GPU load.

Moving to 1440p, the numbers scale as expected with the increased pixel count. At 1440p Low, the average is 285 FPS, which is 28.2 percent lower than 1080p Low, roughly matching the 1.78x pixel increase (though not exactly, due to other factors). At 1440p Medium, the average is 228 FPS, a 20 percent drop from Low, and at 1440p High, it is 143 FPS, a 37.3 percent drop from Medium. At 1440p Ultra, the average is 136 FPS, 4.9 percent below High, mirroring the 1080p pattern. At 4K, the scaling becomes more pronounced. At 4K Low, the average is 179 FPS, which is 37.2 percent lower than 1440p Low, and at 4K Medium, it is 143 FPS, a 20.1 percent drop from Low. At 4K High, the average is 90 FPS, a 37.1 percent drop from Medium, and at 4K Ultra, it is 85 FPS, 5.6 percent below High.

The consistency of these percentage drops across resolutions is striking. From Low to Medium, the drop is consistently around 20 percent regardless of resolution. From Medium to High, it is consistently around 37 percent. From High to Ultra, it is consistently around 4-6 percent. This indicates that the settings presets affect GPU load in a linear fashion, independent of resolution, and that the limiting component shifts from CPU at 1080p Low to GPU at 4K Ultra. At 1080p Low, the CPU is the bottleneck because the GPU can render frames faster than the CPU can issue draw calls. At 4K Ultra, the GPU is the bottleneck because pixel fill rate becomes the dominant cost, and the CPU has ample headroom. The measured data supports this interpretation: the FPS at 1080p Low (397) is more than double the FPS at 4K Low (179), which is a larger ratio than the pixel count difference (4x) would suggest, meaning the CPU is holding back the GPU at 1080p. Conversely, the FPS at 4K Ultra (85) is only slightly below 4K High (90), indicating that the GPU is already near its limits at High and the additional Ultra settings add little extra cost.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates. With Low settings, the average FPS is 397, with no minimum or maximum recorded, which is typical for very high frame rates where frame time variance is low. With Medium settings, the average drops to 317 FPS, with a minimum of 270 and a maximum of 365, showing a frame time spread of about 30 percent. With High settings, the average is 198 FPS, and with Ultra, it is 189 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is only 9 FPS, or 4.5 percent, which is surprisingly small given that Ultra typically enables more demanding effects. This suggests that in Inside, the Ultra preset adds only marginal visual improvements over High, such as slightly better shadows or ambient occlusion, at a negligible performance cost.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high but begin to show the GPU’s influence. Low settings yield an average of 285 FPS, which is still above the refresh rate of most 1440p monitors. Medium settings produce 228 FPS average, with a minimum of 194 and maximum of 263, indicating a tighter frame time distribution than at 1080p Medium. High settings average 143 FPS, and Ultra averages 136 FPS, again showing a small 4.9 percent gap between High and Ultra. At this resolution, the system is well-suited for high-refresh-rate gaming, as even Ultra settings exceed 130 FPS, which is smooth on 144Hz displays.

At 3840x2160, the system still performs admirably for a game of Inside’s age. Low settings average 179 FPS, which is more than enough for 4K60 gaming. Medium settings average 143 FPS, with a minimum of 122 and maximum of 165, providing a solid experience for 144Hz 4K displays that support it. High settings average 90 FPS, which is exactly at the threshold for 4K90 gaming, and Ultra averages 85 FPS, which is still above 60 FPS but close to the point where frame pacing could become noticeable. The data shows that even at 4K Ultra, the system never drops below 60 FPS, which is the key metric for most users. The minimum FPS values are only recorded for Medium settings, where they are 122 at 4K, 194 at 1440p, and 270 at 1080p, but these figures indicate that the system maintains consistent frame delivery without major spikes.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and refresh rate. For 1080p displays with a 144Hz or 240Hz refresh rate, the High preset at 198 FPS average is the best choice because it offers a significant visual upgrade over Medium while still exceeding 144 FPS. The Ultra preset at 189 FPS is only 9 FPS slower, so if the display can handle 189 FPS, Ultra is also viable, but the visual difference is minimal per the frame rate gap. For 1080p 60Hz displays, even Ultra at 189 FPS is overkill, and players could use Medium at 317 FPS to reduce GPU load and fan noise, though the game is not demanding enough to cause thermal issues.

For 1440p, the High preset at 143 FPS is ideal for 144Hz displays, as it provides a smooth experience with good visual quality. The Ultra preset at 136 FPS is also playable on 144Hz displays, but the 4.9 percent frame rate drop may not be worth the marginal visual enhancements. For 1440p 60Hz displays, Medium at 228 FPS is more than sufficient, and Low at 285 FPS could be used to maximize frame rate consistency, though the visual downgrade is noticeable. The Medium preset at 1440p shows a minimum FPS of 194, which is well above 60, so there is no risk of stutter.

For 4K, the Medium preset at 143 FPS average is the standout recommendation for high-refresh-rate displays, as it delivers a smooth experience with a minimum of 122 FPS, ensuring no drops below 60. The High preset at 90 FPS is suitable for 4K90 or 4K120 displays, but for standard 4K60 displays, the Ultra preset at 85 FPS is also acceptable, though the frame rate is closer to the 60 FPS threshold. The Low preset at 179 FPS is unnecessary for most users, as the visual quality suffers greatly for a frame rate that exceeds the display’s capability. Overall, the data suggests that Medium settings provide the best balance of visual fidelity and performance across all resolutions, with High being the choice for users who prioritize image quality over frame rate headroom.

FAQ

*Q: What is the combo rank for this system in Inside?*

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and RTX 3070 Ti combination is ranked 799 out of 2,887 tested combos, placing it in the top 27.7 percent of all configurations.

Q: How does the RTX 3070 Ti compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RTX 3070 Ti has an average benchmark score of 29,945, which is 0.1 percent higher than the RTX 5070 Mobile, 0.5 percent lower than the RX 6800, 0.5 percent higher than the RTX 2080 Ti, and 1.6 percent lower than the RX 6700.

Q: What is the highest average FPS achieved at 1080p?

A: At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 397 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate across all resolutions and settings.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K Ultra?

A: At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 85, which is only 5.6 percent lower than 4K High at 90 FPS, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiting factor at this resolution and settings level.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 1440p Medium?

A: At 1440p Medium, the minimum FPS is 194, with a maximum of 263 and an average of 228, showing consistent frame delivery.

*Q: How does the CPU’s single-thread performance influence Inside?*

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,960 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,689, which are high enough to support frame rates above 300 FPS at 1080p Low, confirming that the CPU is not a bottleneck at lower resolutions.