Inside

# Inside — Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB

The benchmark data for Inside with this Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB combination reveals a system that delivers playable performance across most settings, but with a clear pattern: the GPU becomes the dominant constraint as resolution climbs, while the CPU's substantial multi-threaded capacity appears underutilized in this puzzle platformer. Measured frame rates range from 199 FPS at 1080p Low down to 43 FPS at 4K Ultra, indicating a wide performance envelope that narrows significantly at higher resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, pointing directly at the GPU as the limiting factor. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 199 at 1920x1080 to 143 at 2560x1440 – a 28% reduction – and then to 90 at 3840x2160, which is a further 37% drop from 1440p. This pattern repeats at Medium settings: 159 FPS at 1080p, 114 at 1440p (down 28%), and 72 at 4K (down 37% from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings suggests a purely resolution-driven bottleneck rather than a settings-driven one.

At High settings, the scaling is similar but with slightly smaller relative drops: 99 FPS at 1080p, 71 at 1440p (down 28%), and 45 at 4K (down 37% from 1440p). Ultra settings show the same trend: 95 FPS at 1080p, 68 at 1440p (down 28%), and 43 at 4K (down 37% from 1440p). The fact that the percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is nearly identical across all four settings (28% for Low, Medium, High, and Ultra) strongly indicates that the rendering workload scales with pixel count in a predictable manner, and the RTX 3050 4 GB simply runs out of throughput as pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K.

What is revealing is the difference between Low and Ultra at each resolution. At 1080p, the gap between Low (199 FPS) and Ultra (95 FPS) is 104 FPS, or about 52% of the Low score. At 1440p, that gap narrows to 75 FPS (143 vs. 68), and at 4K it shrinks to 47 FPS (90 vs. 43). This narrowing gap suggests that at higher resolutions, the pixel-fill and memory-bandwidth demands overshadow the extra shading work from higher settings, leaving less headroom for settings to matter. The data implies that at 4K, the GPU is so saturated that even dropping from Ultra to Low only recovers 47 FPS, whereas at 1080p the same settings change recovers over 100 FPS.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus brings 24 cores and 24 threads to this puzzle platformer, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44253 and single-core score of 2439 place it in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 93785. The nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6520P (deltaPct 0), AMD EPYC 4564P (deltaPct -1.5), AMD EPYC 9175F (deltaPct -1.9), and AMD EPYC 4565P (deltaPct -2.1) – all server-class processors with similar average scores.

However, the measured FPS data for Inside shows no evidence that this CPU's massive multi-threading capability is being exercised. The game is a 2D puzzle platformer from 2016, and the frame rates at 1080p Low (199 FPS) suggest the CPU is far from being a bottleneck. The PassMark single-thread score of 5068 and multi-thread score of 68574 indicate strong per-core performance, which matters more for games that rely on a few threads. The data compression score of 804322 and encryption score of 59097 are irrelevant to gaming workloads but confirm the CPU's general compute strength.

What the data implies is that this CPU is vastly over-provisioned for Inside. With 24 cores and a 36 MB shared L3 cache, the processor could handle far more demanding titles. The fact that frame rates scale down with resolution rather than with CPU load – and that 1080p Low hits 199 FPS while 4K Ultra drops to 43 FPS – suggests the CPU is idle-waiting on the GPU at every resolution tested. The boost clock of 5.50 GHz likely helps maintain high single-threaded performance, but even a much weaker CPU would probably deliver similar results in this game, given the GPU-bound scaling pattern.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain 60+ FPS?

A: At 2560x1440, the combo delivers 71 FPS on High, 114 FPS on Medium, and 143 FPS on Low, all above 60 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low (90 FPS) and Medium (72 FPS) exceed 60 FPS, while High (45 FPS) and Ultra (43 FPS) fall below.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance in this game?

A: The data shows the GPU limits performance. The frame rate drops are consistent with resolution scaling (about 28% from 1080p to 1440p and 37% from 1440p to 4K across all settings), indicating the RTX 3050 4 GB is the bottleneck. The CPU's 96th percentile benchmark score and high boost clock suggest it has ample headroom.

Q: How does the RTX 3050 4 GB's memory configuration affect 4K performance?

A: The 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. At 4K, the average FPS drops to 43-45 on High and Ultra settings, likely due to both memory capacity and bandwidth pressure from higher pixel counts. The memory clock runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low averages 199 FPS while Ultra averages 95 FPS, a difference of 104 FPS. Medium sits at 159 FPS and High at 99 FPS, showing that the largest settings step is from Medium to High (60 FPS drop), while High to Ultra only drops 4 FPS.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus comparable to server CPUs?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score of 93785 is nearly identical to the Intel Xeon 6520P (93786, deltaPct 0) and slightly below the AMD EPYC 4564P (95183, deltaPct -1.5), EPYC 9175F (95615, deltaPct -1.9), and EPYC 4565P (95764, deltaPct -2.1). This places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What FPS can I expect at 1440p Medium with this combo?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the measured average FPS is 114, with a minimum of 97 and maximum of 131. This is well above the 60 FPS threshold and provides a smooth experience.

How This Combo Ranks

This particular combination of Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB ranks 2511 out of 2887 tested combos for Inside, placing it in the lower 13% of all configurations. This ranking reflects the GPU's constraints rather than the CPU's capability – the RTX 3050 4 GB sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU is at the 96th percentile. The mismatch is stark: a top-tier CPU paired with a mid-range GPU produces a combo that ranks poorly because the GPU holds back the entire system.

The ranking suggests that many other combos – presumably with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs – achieve higher frame rates in this game. Given that the data shows the GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution, the combo rank is essentially determined by the RTX 3050 4 GB's performance class. At 1080p, the combo can deliver high frame rates (up to 199 FPS on Low), but the 4K results (43-90 FPS) drag the overall ranking down. The fact that the combo ranks 2511 out of 2887 indicates that most other tested combinations, even those with less powerful CPUs, outperform it because they likely pair those CPUs with more capable graphics cards.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is built on the Ampere architecture with the GA107 chip, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. It features 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, along with 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The base clock runs at 1545 MHz with a boost clock of 1740 MHz, delivering 7.127 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a modest figure for modern games.

In Inside, the GPU's role is clearly the bottleneck. The measured frame rates show that at 4K, even Low settings only achieve 90 FPS, while Ultra drops to 43 FPS. The pixel rate of 55.68 GPixel/s and texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s suggest the GPU can handle fill-rate demands, but the limited memory bandwidth (192.0 GB/s) and small 4 GB frame buffer likely cause the steep drops at higher resolutions. The 12 Gbps effective memory speed on the 1500 MHz memory clock is not enough to sustain high frame rates at 4K with demanding settings.

The GPU's 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, combined with its 90 W TDP and dual-slot design, indicates it is an entry-level card. The data shows that at 1080p, it can push past 100 FPS on most settings, but at 1440p and 4K, the performance degrades predictably. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provides adequate bandwidth to the CPU, and the 1x HDMI 2.1 plus 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support modern displays. The RTX 3050 4 GB's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility mean it can handle the game's rendering requirements, but the hardware limits are evident in the resolution scaling data.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best performance. Low settings average 199 FPS, Medium averages 159 FPS with a minimum of 135 and maximum of 183, High averages 99 FPS, and Ultra averages 95 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 40 FPS, Medium to High costs 60 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 4 FPS. This suggests that High and Ultra are nearly identical in workload for this GPU, while Medium offers a significant FPS boost over High with likely minor visual differences.

At 2560x1440, performance drops considerably. Low averages 143 FPS, Medium averages 114 FPS with a minimum of 97 and maximum of 131, High averages 71 FPS, and Ultra averages 68 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 43 FPS, while High to Ultra is only 3 FPS. At this resolution, the GPU begins to struggle with High and Ultra settings, but Medium still provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overextended. Low averages 90 FPS, Medium averages 72 FPS with a minimum of 61 and maximum of 83, High averages 45 FPS, and Ultra averages 43 FPS. Only Low and Medium maintain playable frame rates above 60 FPS. The minimum FPS of 61 at Medium suggests occasional dips close to the 60 FPS threshold, which could cause noticeable stutter. High and Ultra both fall into the 40s, indicating a poor experience at 4K with demanding settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the best experience for this combo depends on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, Medium settings provide 159 FPS with a minimum of 135 FPS, offering a strong balance between visual quality and smoothness. High settings drop to 99 FPS, which is still smooth but sacrifices 60 FPS for a modest visual gain. Ultra at 95 FPS is nearly identical to High, so there is no reason to choose Ultra over High unless the 4 FPS difference is critical; Medium is the smart recommendation for 1080p.

At 2560x1440, Medium is the clear winner. The 114 FPS average with a 97 FPS minimum keeps the experience well above 60 FPS, while High (71 FPS) and Ultra (68 FPS) are playable but leave less headroom for frame-time spikes. Low at 143 FPS is an option for competitive play, but Medium offers the best balance of quality and performance. The data shows that High and Ultra are nearly identical (3 FPS apart), so choosing High over Medium costs 43 FPS – a significant sacrifice that may not be justified.

At 3840x2160, the options are limited. Low (90 FPS) and Medium (72 FPS) are the only settings that maintain 60+ FPS averages, with Medium's 61 FPS minimum being dangerously close to the threshold. High (45 FPS) and Ultra (43 FPS) are not recommended for a smooth experience. For 4K, Medium provides the best experience with acceptable frame rates, but the tight minimum suggests that players should monitor for stutters. If 4K is the target, Low with 90 FPS is the safer choice for consistent performance, while Medium is the best compromise between visuals and smoothness.