Inside

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 combination delivers exceptional performance in Inside, a Puzzle Platformer from 2016. The measured frame rates are extraordinarily high across all tested configurations, with the lowest average result still hitting 95 FPS at 4K Ultra settings. This analysis breaks down the specific roles of the CPU and GPU, examines how the combo ranks against other tested systems, and provides detailed guidance on the measured performance envelope.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture. Its core configuration combines 20 physical cores without hyper-threading, which is a distinctive trait for a modern desktop chip. The base clock runs at 2.40 GHz, while the boost clock reaches 5.30 GHz. This wide frequency range allows the processor to scale its performance dynamically based on workload demands, from power-efficient low-intensity tasks to maximum single-threaded throughput.

In synthetic benchmarks, the processor demonstrates substantial multi-threaded capability. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 points places it in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, indicating that it outperforms the vast majority of installed processors. The single-core Cinebench R23 result of 5,960 points reinforces its strength in lightly-threaded workloads. PassMark multi-thread scoring reaches 49,682 points, while single-thread performance sits at 4,689 points. The processor's average benchmark score of 64,640 places it in a tight competitive cluster with several server-class AMD EPYC parts.

The nearest rivals in the database highlight the CPU's positioning. The AMD EPYC 4464P scores 64,823, which is 0.3 percent higher than the Core Ultra 7 265. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is essentially a match, with a score of 64,438 (0.3 percent lower). The AMD EPYC 7343 and AMD EPYC 9124 round out the comparison group, scoring 64,202 and 65,104 respectively. These deltas are minuscule, indicating that the Core Ultra 7 265 sits in a performance tier where architectural differences between top-tier chips are nearly imperceptible.

For a game like Inside, which is a 2D puzzle platformer with relatively modest CPU demands, the Core Ultra 7 265 is overwhelmingly sufficient. The game does not require the massive multi-threaded throughput that the CPU's 20 cores provide. Instead, the high boost clock of 5.30 GHz is the more relevant specification, as it ensures that any single-threaded game logic runs with minimal latency. The L3 cache of 30 MB shared across the cores further reduces memory access penalties, which can benefit frame pacing in scenarios where the CPU must rapidly feed draw calls to the GPU.

The data strongly suggests that the CPU is not a limiting factor in this configuration. At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 430 FPS average, which is a frame rate that would stress even the most capable processors in older titles. The fact that the CPU maintains these frame rates while the GPU handles rendering indicates a well-balanced pairing. The processor's 65 W TDP also means it runs efficiently, though this is not directly reflected in the gaming metrics.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is built on the Ampere architecture using the GA102 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process from Samsung. The GPU features 8,704 shading units, 272 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. It also includes 68 ray tracing cores and 272 tensor cores, though neither of these specialized units is likely to be heavily utilized in a puzzle platformer from 2016. The boost clock runs at 1710 MHz, with a base clock of 1440 MHz.

Memory configuration consists of 10 GB of GDDR6X running at an effective 19 Gbps. The 320-bit memory bus delivers a peak bandwidth of 760.3 GB/s, which is exceptionally high and more than adequate for the texture and framebuffer demands of Inside. The GPU's compute capabilities are substantial, with FP32 performance rated at 29.77 TFLOPS. The pixel rate of 164.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 465.1 GTexel/s provide the raw throughput needed to sustain high frame rates at elevated resolutions.

The RTX 3080's benchmark scores reflect its position in the market. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4,407 and PassMark G3D score of 25,086 place it in the 68th percentile among all GPUs. The average benchmark score is 23,172. Interestingly, the nearest rivals in the database are not modern high-end cards; they include the NVIDIA P106-100, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, AMD Radeon RX 6600M, and AMD Radeon R9 M290X. All of these score within 0.4 percent of the RTX 3080 in the aggregate benchmark metric. This clustering is unusual and suggests that the aggregate scoring methodology compresses the performance differences between very different GPU generations and tiers.

For Inside, the RTX 3080's performance is overwhelming. The game's art style, which features dark silhouettes and atmospheric lighting, does not require the massive pixel throughput that the GPU provides. The measured frame rates confirm that the GPU has significant headroom even at 4K resolution. At 4K Ultra, the system averages 95 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. At 4K Low, the average jumps to 199 FPS, demonstrating that the GPU scales effectively when graphical load is reduced.

The 10 GB VRAM capacity is more than sufficient for Inside, which does not require large texture sets or high-resolution assets. The GPU's bandwidth of 760.3 GB/s ensures that any memory access patterns the game generates are handled without bottleneck. The RTX 3080 is an end-of-life product as of its production status, but its capabilities remain robust for this title.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

*Q: What is the combo's overall rank among tested systems for Inside?*

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 with the RTX 3080 ranks 519th out of 2,887 tested combinations. This places it in the top 18 percent of all tested systems for this game.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark scores?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64,640. The AMD EPYC 4464P scores 64,823 (0.3 percent higher), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 64,438 (0.3 percent lower), and the AMD EPYC 7343 scores 64,202 (0.7 percent lower). The performance differences are minimal.

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved in the measured data?

A: The highest average frame rate is 430 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The next highest is 352 FPS at 1080p Medium, followed by 317 FPS at 1440p Low.

Q: What is the lowest average frame rate recorded?

A: The lowest average frame rate is 95 FPS, recorded at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings. Even at this most demanding configuration, the game remains highly playable.

Q: Does the GPU's aggregate benchmark score place it near any modern high-end competitors?

A: No. The GPU's nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA P106-100, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, AMD Radeon RX 6600M, and AMD Radeon R9 M290X. All of these cards score within 0.4 percent of the RTX 3080's average of 23,172, which is an unusual clustering across generations.

Q: How much performance is gained by dropping from Ultra to Low settings at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the average frame rate increases from 95 FPS at Ultra to 199 FPS at Low, representing more than a doubling of performance. The Medium setting sits between these, at 159 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 achieves a rank of 519 out of 2,887 tested combinations for Inside. This rank places the system in the upper 18 percent of all configurations that have been benchmarked for this game. The rank considers the entire system's performance, reflecting the combined capabilities of both the CPU and GPU in the context of this specific title.

The rank of 519 means that there are 518 tested combinations that perform better in Inside, while 2,368 combinations perform worse. This is a strong result, but it may seem surprising given the extremely high frame rates recorded. The explanation lies in the nature of the game and the wide variety of systems tested. Inside is not a demanding title, so even mid-range systems can achieve high frame rates. The top-ranked combinations likely feature the most powerful CPUs and GPUs available, which can push frame rates even higher than the already impressive numbers recorded here.

In the context of the combo's own components, the CPU's 93rd percentile ranking and the GPU's 68th percentile ranking suggest that the processor is relatively stronger than the graphics card within the overall hardware landscape. However, for Inside, the GPU's performance is the more critical factor for the measured frame rates, as the game's visual presentation is primarily GPU-bound. The CPU's high single-thread performance ensures that it does not introduce a bottleneck, allowing the GPU to operate at its full potential.

The rank of 519 is particularly notable because it is achieved with a GPU that is marked as end-of-life and has a percentile ranking of only 68. This indicates that the RTX 3080, while not the newest card, still provides ample performance for this game. The combination's rank in the top 18 percent of all tested systems reflects the balanced nature of the pairing, where neither component significantly holds back the other in this specific workload.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured frame rates show a clear pattern of performance scaling across resolutions, which provides insight into the system's limiting component. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system averages 430 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low settings, the average drops to 317 FPS, a decrease of 26.3 percent. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 199 FPS, which is a 53.7 percent drop from the 1080p figure.

The scaling pattern at Medium settings is similar. At 1080p Medium, the average is 352 FPS. At 1440p Medium, it drops to 253 FPS (28.1 percent decrease), and at 4K Medium, it falls to 159 FPS (54.8 percent decrease from 1080p). The High settings show the same trend: 220 FPS at 1080p, 158 FPS at 1440p, and 99 FPS at 4K. The Ultra settings follow suit, with 210 FPS at 1080p, 151 FPS at 1440p, and 95 FPS at 4K.

The consistency of the percentage drops across different settings levels is informative. When moving from 1080p to 1440p, the frame rate drops by roughly 26-28 percent across all settings. Moving from 1080p to 4K results in a drop of approximately 54-55 percent. This consistent scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rate would remain more constant as resolution increases, because the CPU workload would not change significantly. Instead, the frame rate drops in proportion to the increase in pixel count, which indicates that the GPU is the primary constraint on performance.

The 4K to 1440p comparison also reveals this trend. At Low settings, the 4K frame rate of 199 FPS is 37.2 percent lower than the 1440p frame rate of 317 FPS. The pixel count increase from 1440p to 4K is 2.25 times, so the frame rate drop is not perfectly proportional, but it is substantial. This suggests that the GPU is being pushed harder as resolution increases, and its compute and memory resources become the limiting factor.

The CPU's role in this scaling is to keep up with the GPU's demands at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the 430 FPS average indicates that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at very high rates. The fact that the frame rate drops as resolution increases, rather than remaining flat, confirms that the GPU is the limiting component across all tested resolutions and settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured frame rates provide a complete picture of the system's performance across three resolutions and four settings levels. At 1920x1080, the Low setting produces an average of 430 FPS. The Medium setting averages 352 FPS, with a minimum of 299 FPS and a maximum of 405 FPS. High settings average 220 FPS, and Ultra settings average 210 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 10 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset does not add a significant rendering burden at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the Low setting averages 317 FPS. Medium settings average 253 FPS, with a minimum of 215 FPS and a maximum of 291 FPS. High settings average 158 FPS, and Ultra settings average 151 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at 1440p is 7 FPS, which is even smaller than at 1080p. This narrowing gap suggests that as resolution increases, the performance difference between High and Ultra presets diminishes in absolute terms, though the percentage difference remains similar.

At 3840x2160, the Low setting averages 199 FPS. The Medium setting averages 159 FPS, with a minimum of 135 FPS and a maximum of 183 FPS. High settings average 99 FPS, and Ultra settings average 95 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 4 FPS, which is the smallest absolute difference across all resolutions. This indicates that the Ultra preset's additional effects have minimal impact on performance at this resolution, likely because the GPU is already heavily loaded by the pixel count.

The Medium settings are the only ones for which minimum and maximum frame rates are provided. At 1080p Medium, the system ranges from 299 to 405 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 215 to 291 FPS. At 4K Medium, the range is 135 to 183 FPS. The minimum frame rates are all well above the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that the system maintains smooth gameplay even in the most demanding scenes captured in the data.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured data allows for a clear recommendation on settings based on the frame rate headroom at each resolution. For the best visual quality without sacrificing smoothness, the Ultra preset is viable at all resolutions. At 1080p Ultra, the system averages 210 FPS, which is far above any display's refresh rate. At 1440p Ultra, the average is 151 FPS, still exceptionally high. Even at 4K Ultra, the 95 FPS average provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

However, the data also shows that the High preset offers a better balance for players who prioritize maximum frame rates over the marginal visual differences between High and Ultra. At 4K, the difference between High (99 FPS) and Ultra (95 FPS) is only 4 FPS on average. This 4.2 percent performance gain from dropping to High is negligible, and the visual difference between the two presets is likely minimal for a game with Inside's art style. Therefore, at 4K, the Ultra preset is recommended because the performance cost is so small.

At 1440p, the High preset averages 158 FPS compared to 151 FPS for Ultra. The 7 FPS difference is also small, so Ultra is again the recommended choice. At 1080p, the High preset averages 220 FPS versus 210 FPS for Ultra. The 10 FPS difference represents a 4.8 percent performance gain, but both frame rates are so high that the difference is imperceptible on standard displays. The Ultra preset is recommended for the best visual experience.

For players using high-refresh-rate displays, the Medium preset is the most compelling option. At 1080p Medium, the system averages 352 FPS, which is sufficient to drive a 360 Hz monitor. At 1440p Medium, the 253 FPS average can saturate a 240 Hz display. Even at 4K Medium, the 159 FPS average exceeds the refresh rate of most high-end 4K monitors. The Medium preset provides the highest frame rates that still offer a substantial visual upgrade over Low settings.

The Low preset is only recommended for players seeking the absolute maximum frame rate, such as competitive scenarios. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 430 FPS, which is the highest measured average. At 1440p Low, the 317 FPS average is also extremely high. However, for a puzzle platformer like Inside, the visual atmosphere is a core part of the experience, and the Low preset likely diminishes the game's intended aesthetic. The measured data supports the Ultra preset as the default recommendation, with Medium as the choice for high-refresh-rate displays.