Inside

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is a mobile combination that sits near the top of the database for Inside, a puzzle platformer from 2016. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings are exceptional, with the lowest average recorded at 104 FPS in 4K Ultra. This combo ranks 305th out of 2887 tested combinations for this game, placing it in the top 11 percent of all systems in the database. The ranking reflects a system that is heavily overqualified for the title’s demands, yet the data reveals interesting scaling behavior that highlights where each component’s contribution begins and ends.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 305 out of 2887 tested combos for Inside places it firmly in the upper echelon, though not at the absolute pinnacle. This is notable because the GPU alone sits at the 92nd percentile among all tested graphics cards, and the CPU sits at the 93rd percentile among all tested processors. When combined, the system does not linearly inherit those percentiles; instead, the game’s relatively modest visual requirements mean that many combinations with slightly less powerful hardware achieve similar or better frame rates, particularly at lower resolutions where the CPU becomes a more significant factor.

The data shows that the RTX 5090’s average benchmark score of 79842 places it 0.3 percent ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB, 0.6 percent ahead of the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB, and 1.1 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT. It trails the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X by 1.4 percent. These are the closest rivals in raw GPU compute, yet in Inside, the frame rate differences between settings and resolutions are more pronounced than these small percentage gaps would suggest, indicating that the game’s engine responds strongly to raw fill rate and memory bandwidth rather than compute-heavy workloads.

On the CPU side, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX achieves an average benchmark score of 63173, which is 0.1 percent ahead of the Intel Core i7-13790F, 0.5 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185, and 0.7 percent ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX. It trails the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G by 0.2 percent. These rival comparisons are based on aggregate synthetic benchmarks, not game-specific results, but they establish that the 265HX is a high-end mobile processor with performance that is statistically indistinguishable from several desktop and mobile parts around it.

For Inside, the combination’s rank suggests that while the hardware is powerful, the game’s low system requirements mean that the 305th position is more a reflection of how many other high-end combos exist in the database rather than any deficiency in this pairing. The measured FPS data, which never drops below 104 FPS even at 4K Ultra, confirms that this system is effectively never the bottleneck in this title.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture using a 5 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 750 mm² and 92,200 million transistors. Its memory configuration is the standout feature: 32 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s. The memory clock runs at 1750 MHz, which translates to 28 Gbps effective. This massive memory subsystem is directly relevant to Inside, a game that, while not texture-heavy by modern standards, benefits from the sheer bandwidth when running at 4K with higher settings.

The GPU’s base clock is 2017 MHz, with a boost clock of 2407 MHz. The shading units number 21760, with 680 texture mapping units and 176 render output units. The pixel rate is 423.6 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 1,636.8 GTexel/s. These figures explain why the game runs at such high frame rates: Inside uses a primarily 2D side-scrolling perspective with limited geometry, so the GPU’s pixel fill rate becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions, while texture rate matters less given the game’s art style.

The RTX 5090’s FP32 performance is 104.8 TFLOPS, with FP16 at the same 104.8 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The GPU includes 170 ray tracing cores and 680 tensor cores, though neither feature is heavily utilized in Inside, which was released in 2016 and does not support ray tracing. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) is present but irrelevant for this title’s rendering pipeline.

The GPU’s percentile rank of 92 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79842, places it just above the Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (0.3 percent ahead) and below the Radeon Pro Vega 64X (1.4 percent behind). In Inside, the measured FPS at 4K High is 109 FPS, which is more than double what a 60 Hz display would need. At 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 104 FPS, a modest 4.6 percent reduction from High, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds minimal additional load on the GPU.

The 32 GB of VRAM is far beyond what Inside requires; the game’s textures are small by modern standards, and even at 4K Ultra, the memory footprint would not exceed a few gigabytes. However, the bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s is the key asset, as it ensures that the GPU never stalls on memory access, even when pushing 418 FPS at 1080p Low.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how settings affect performance. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are 418 FPS on Low, 386 FPS on Medium, 241 FPS on High, and 230 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is 32 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 145 FPS, and the gap between High and Ultra is only 11 FPS. This suggests that the High preset offers a significantly better visual experience than Medium for a relatively small additional performance hit, while Ultra provides only marginal gains over High at a 4.6 percent reduction in frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the pattern is similar: Low averages 347 FPS, Medium 278 FPS, High 174 FPS, and Ultra 165 FPS. The jump from Medium to High costs 104 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra costs only 9 FPS. For most users with a 1440p display running at 144 Hz, the High preset would be the sweet spot, as it delivers 174 FPS which is comfortably above the refresh rate, while Ultra’s 165 FPS remains playable but offers negligible visual improvements.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 218 FPS on Low, 175 FPS on Medium, 109 FPS on High, and 104 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Medium to High is 66 FPS, which is substantial, but the drop from High to Ultra is only 5 FPS. For 4K gaming, the High preset is the recommended choice because it delivers 109 FPS, which is sufficient for a high-refresh-rate 4K monitor, while Ultra’s 104 FPS is only 4.6 percent slower with no meaningful visual uplift.

The data also includes minimum and maximum FPS readings for the Medium preset at each resolution: at 1080p, the minimum is 328 FPS and the maximum is 443 FPS; at 1440p, the minimum is 236 FPS and the maximum is 319 FPS; at 4K, the minimum is 148 FPS and the maximum is 201 FPS. These ranges indicate that the Medium preset maintains a consistent frame rate with no severe dips, which is important for a puzzle platformer where precise timing matters. The other presets do not have min/max data, but the averages suggest that High and Ultra are equally stable.

The best experience per the measured rows is the High preset at any resolution. At 1080p, High delivers 241 FPS, which is 5 FPS above Ultra’s 230 FPS and 145 FPS below Medium’s 386 FPS, but the visual quality jump from Medium to High is worth the performance trade. At 1440p, High’s 174 FPS is ideal. At 4K, High’s 109 FPS is the only preset that stays above 105 FPS while offering full visual fidelity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings, with each row representing an average frame rate. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 418 FPS, the highest of any configuration tested. This is followed by Medium at 386 FPS, High at 241 FPS, and Ultra at 230 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 32 FPS, which is 7.6 percent, indicating that Medium adds some visual effects but does not heavily tax the GPU. The difference between Medium and High is 145 FPS, a 37.6 percent drop, which suggests that High enables more demanding shading or post-processing effects. The difference between High and Ultra is only 11 FPS, a 4.6 percent drop, meaning Ultra is nearly identical to High in performance cost.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 347 FPS, Medium 278 FPS, High 174 FPS, and Ultra 165 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a performance drop of 71 FPS for Low, 108 FPS for Medium, 67 FPS for High, and 65 FPS for Ultra. These drops are not uniform; Medium sees the largest absolute drop, while Ultra sees the smallest. This indicates that at 1440p, the GPU is still not fully saturated, as the frame rates remain well above 165 FPS for all presets.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 218 FPS, Medium 175 FPS, High 109 FPS, and Ultra 104 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K shows drops of 129 FPS for Low, 103 FPS for Medium, 65 FPS for High, and 61 FPS for Ultra. The absolute drops are larger than those from 1080p to 1440p, confirming that 4K places a significantly higher load on the GPU. However, even at 4K Ultra, the frame rate stays above 100 FPS, which is remarkable for a mobile GPU.

The Medium preset at each resolution includes minimum and maximum FPS values, which provide insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the min is 328 FPS and max is 443 FPS, giving a range of 115 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the min is 236 FPS and max is 319 FPS, a range of 83 FPS. At 4K Medium, the min is 148 FPS and max is 201 FPS, a range of 53 FPS. The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU becomes more consistently loaded as resolution increases, reducing the variance in frame times.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drops from 1080p to 4K reveal which component is limiting performance in Inside. At 1080p Low, the average is 418 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 347 FPS, a 17 percent reduction. At 4K Low, it drops to 218 FPS, a 37.2 percent reduction from 1440p and a 47.8 percent reduction from 1080p. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is less severe than from 1440p to 4K, which is typical for a GPU-bound scenario where pixel count increases by 2.25 times from 1080p to 4K.

For the High preset, the progression is 241 FPS at 1080p, 174 FPS at 1440p, and 109 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 67 FPS (27.8 percent), and from 1440p to 4K is 65 FPS (37.4 percent). The near-equal absolute drops suggest that the GPU is handling the additional pixel load consistently, but the percentage drop increases at higher resolutions, implying that the GPU is becoming more of a bottleneck as resolution rises.

The Ultra preset shows 230 FPS at 1080p, 165 FPS at 1440p, and 104 FPS at 4K. The drops are 65 FPS (28.3 percent) and 61 FPS (37 percent), respectively. The similarity between High and Ultra scaling indicates that the Ultra preset does not add a disproportionately large load at higher resolutions compared to High.

The limiting component is clearly the GPU. At 1080p, the frame rates are so high (over 400 FPS on Low) that the CPU could theoretically become a bottleneck, but the measured data shows that even at 1080p Low, the CPU sustains 418 FPS, meaning the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX has headroom. At 4K, the GPU’s pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth determine the frame rates, as evidenced by the consistent drops across presets when resolution increases.

The scaling data also shows that the game is not heavily CPU-bound even at low resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates plateau around a similar value regardless of resolution. Instead, the FPS scales down smoothly with resolution, which is a hallmark of GPU-bound performance. The only exception might be 1080p Low, where 418 FPS is close to the CPU’s practical limit for this game, but the data does not include a CPU-only benchmark for Inside.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm TSMC process. It has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a TDP of 55 watts. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. This is a high-end mobile processor, released on 2025-01-12, and it is actively produced.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU scores 40642 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5737 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 17069 multi-core and 2409 single-core, and in Cinebench R15, 4096 multi-core and 578 single-core. PassMark results show a multithread score of 47985 and a single-thread score of 4500. These scores place the CPU at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 63173. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13790F (0.1 percent ahead), AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G (0.2 percent behind), AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (0.5 percent ahead), and Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX (0.7 percent ahead).

For Inside, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. The game is a puzzle platformer with relatively simple geometry and limited on-screen entities, so the CPU load is low. The measured FPS at 1080p Low, which is the most CPU-sensitive configuration, reaches 418 FPS. This indicates that the 265HX’s single-thread performance, reflected in its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5737, is more than sufficient for the game’s demands.

The CPU’s 20 cores and 30 MB of L3 cache are overkill for Inside, which likely uses only a few threads. However, the high boost clock of 5.30 GHz ensures that the main game thread runs as fast as possible, which is critical for maintaining high frame rates at lower resolutions. The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is also adequate for feeding the GPU with vertex and texture data, though the GPU’s own 1.79 TB/s bandwidth is the dominant factor.

The CPU’s percentile rank of 93 and average benchmark score of 63173 are nearly identical to its nearest rivals, indicating that the 265HX is not uniquely positioned in terms of raw performance. However, in Inside, the frame rates at 1080p are so high that any of these rival CPUs would likely produce similar results, as the game is not CPU-intensive. The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution or setting, as the FPS scaling with resolution is smooth and consistent with GPU-bound behavior.

The 20 threads and 20 cores do not provide any tangible benefit in Inside beyond ensuring that background tasks do not interfere with the game thread. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU is present but not used, as the discrete RTX 5090 handles all rendering. The CPU’s 55 W TDP is modest for a 20-core part, reflecting the efficiency of the 3 nm process, which helps maintain sustained boost clocks during gaming sessions.

In summary, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX provides ample single-thread performance and sufficient memory bandwidth to keep the RTX 5090 fed, but it is not the star of the show in Inside. The game’s frame rates are dictated almost entirely by the GPU’s resolution and settings scaling, with the CPU comfortably keeping pace even at 418 FPS.