Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that is remarkably light on hardware demands, yet the data for the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 reveals a system that is dramatically overqualified for the task, producing frame rates that rival high-refresh-rate monitors at every resolution. The measured results show a combination that never dips below triple-digit averages even at 4K Ultra, which raises questions about where the true bottleneck lies in such an undemanding title. The following analysis breaks down the specific roles of the CPU and GPU, how this pairing ranks against thousands of other tested combinations, and what the resolution scaling data implies about the limiting components in this specific workload.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor built on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. This CPU sits in the 96th percentile of all processors according to average benchmark scores, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44,253 points places it as a top-tier workstation part. For a game like Inside, which is a side-scrolling puzzle platformer with relatively simple physics and AI routines, these specifications are far beyond what the title's engine can utilize. The data bears this out: the CPU's nearest rivals include server-grade parts like the Intel Xeon 6520P (0% delta) and AMD EPYC 4564P (-1.5% delta), none of which are typical gaming processors, suggesting the 270K Plus is more aligned with heavy multi-threaded workloads than with gaming frames.

In the context of Inside, the CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads are largely idle, as the game's logic is unlikely to spawn more than a few active threads. The single-core performance, measured at 2,439 points in Cinebench R23, is the more relevant metric for this title, as puzzle platformers typically rely on a single primary game thread for collision detection and entity updates. The boost clock of 5.50 GHz provides ample headroom for such tasks, and the PassMark single-thread score of 5,068 confirms that this CPU is extremely capable in lightly-threaded scenarios. However, benchmark results indicate that even this single-core strength is not a limiting factor, as the measured FPS at 1080p Low (456 average) suggests the CPU can easily feed frames to the GPU without breaking a sweat.

The L3 cache of 36 MB shared and the per-core L2 cache of 3 MB provide low-latency access to game assets, but for a game of Inside's visual simplicity, cache size is unlikely to influence performance. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5 support is similarly over-provisioned for a title that likely fits entirely within cache or system memory without heavy streaming demands. Data from PassMark shows the CPU excels at integer math (175,986) and floating-point math (229,491), but these strengths do not translate into measurable gains in Inside because the game's logic is not computationally intense. The conclusion from the measured data is that the CPU role here is to stay out of the way, which it does with ease, as evidenced by the fact that 1080p Low produces 456 FPS with no signs of CPU throttling or frame pacing issues.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is an Ada Lovelace architecture GPU with 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock of 2520 MHz and 16,384 shading units make it the most powerful consumer GPU in the data set, yet its percentile rank of 88 among all GPUs suggests that even this flagship is not universally dominant across all tests. For Inside, the GPU's role is primarily to render simple 2D-style scenes with limited polygon counts, which means the RTX 4090's massive compute resources — 82.58 TFLOPS FP32 and 512 tensor cores — are almost entirely underutilized. The 24 GB VRAM is particularly excessive for a game that likely uses less than 2 GB, but the memory bandwidth of 1.01 TB/s ensures that texture streaming and frame buffer operations are never a constraint.

At 4K Ultra, the GPU produces an average of 140 FPS, which is still above the threshold for smooth gameplay on most high-refresh displays. This number is notable because it indicates that even at the highest settings and resolution, the RTX 4090 is not being pushed to its limits; rather, the frame rate is likely capped by the game's engine or CPU single-thread performance. The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database are professional workstation cards like the Intel Arc Pro A60 (0% delta) and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (+0.3% delta), which are not gaming-oriented parts. This contrast highlights that the RTX 4090's average benchmark score of 60,347 places it in a strange middle ground, far from the top of the percentile rankings, because the aggregation includes compute workloads that favor different architectures.

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, the frame rate drops by roughly half in most settings, which is expected for GPU-bound scenarios. However, the absolute numbers remain so high that the GPU is never the sole bottleneck. At 1080p Ultra, the 309 FPS average is likely constrained by the CPU's ability to issue draw calls, while at 4K Ultra, the 140 FPS still leaves headroom on the GPU. The RTX 4090's 24 GB VRAM and 1.01 TB/s bandwidth mean that even if the game were modded with 8K textures, memory would not be an issue. The data suggests that the GPU role in Inside is to provide brute-force rendering headroom that the game simply cannot consume, resulting in frame rates that are limited by other factors rather than by GPU compute or memory throughput.

FAQ

Q: Why does the 4K Ultra average of 140 FPS seem low compared to the 1080p Ultra average of 309 FPS?

A: The resolution scaling data shows that moving from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings reduces the average FPS from 309 to 140, a drop of approximately 55%. This indicates that the GPU is being taxed more heavily at higher resolutions, but the absolute numbers still suggest the RTX 4090 is not fully saturated, as even 4K Ultra remains well above 60 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 456, which is likely near the CPU's maximum frame output for the game's logic. At 4K Ultra, the average drops to 140, showing that the GPU becomes more relevant at higher resolutions. The data implies the CPU limits at very low settings and resolutions, while the GPU limits at the highest settings, but neither component is fully utilized.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 14th out of 2,887 tested combinations for Inside, placing it in the top 0.5% of all systems. This rank reflects the raw power of both components, though the game's simplicity means many weaker systems also achieve high frame rates.

Q: What is the best settings preset for this CPU-GPU pairing?

A: Based on the measured rows, Medium settings at 4K provide an average of 235 FPS with a minimum of 200 FPS, which is the best balance of visual quality and frame rate stability. Ultra settings at 4K drop to 140 FPS average, which is still smooth but sacrifices 95 FPS for minimal visual gains in this art style.

Q: Does the RTX 4090's 24 GB VRAM matter for Inside?

A: No, the game's visual complexity is low, and the measured data shows no indication of VRAM limits at any resolution or settings preset. The 24 GB capacity is far beyond what Inside requires, but it ensures no memory-related stuttering occurs.

Q: Why does the GPU have a lower percentile rank (88) than the CPU (96)?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 60,347 is compared against all GPUs, including professional and compute-focused cards, which can skew the percentile. For gaming-specific workloads like Inside, the RTX 4090 is overkill, but its aggregate benchmark rank reflects a broader range of tests.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 ranks 14th out of 2,887 tested combinations for Inside, placing it in the 99.5th percentile of all systems tested. This ranking is remarkable given that the game is a 2016 puzzle platformer with minimal hardware demands, suggesting that the database includes many systems with far less powerful components that still achieve playable frame rates. The top 13 combos ahead of this one likely feature even more exotic or optimized hardware, but the data shows that this pairing is within striking distance of the absolute peak performance for this title.

The CPU's percentile rank of 96 and the GPU's rank of 88 individually are lower than the combo's overall rank of 14/2,887, which indicates that the combination of these two parts is particularly synergistic for Inside. The CPU's single-core strength and the GPU's raw rendering power complement each other to eliminate potential bottlenecks, resulting in frame rates that are among the highest recorded. However, the data also shows that rank does not necessarily translate to a better experience, as the difference between 140 FPS at 4K Ultra and 456 FPS at 1080p Low is imperceptible on most displays, which max out at 144 Hz or 240 Hz. The ranking reflects the hardware's capability, but for a game like Inside, the practical benefit of being 14th versus 100th is negligible in terms of playability. The measured data indicates that this combo is overbuilt for the title, yet the rank confirms that no other common pairing delivers consistently higher frame rates across all settings and resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data reveals a predictable pattern: as resolution increases from 1080p to 1440p to 4K, average FPS decreases, but the rate of decrease varies by settings preset. At Low settings, the FPS drops from 456 at 1080p to 409 at 1440p (a 10% decrease) and then to 293 at 4K (a 28% decrease from 1440p). This suggests that at Low settings, the CPU is the primary limiter, as the GPU has ample headroom to render simple scenes at any resolution, and the frame rate is capped by the game's logic or draw call submission. At Ultra settings, the FPS drops from 309 at 1080p to 222 at 1440p (a 28% decrease) and then to 140 at 4K (a 37% decrease from 1440p), indicating that the GPU becomes more heavily involved as graphical complexity increases.

The Medium settings data, which includes minimum and maximum FPS values, provides additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the average is 421 FPS with a minimum of 358 and maximum of 484, showing a narrow range that suggests consistent frame pacing. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 374 FPS with a minimum of 318 and maximum of 430, and at 4K Medium, the average is 235 FPS with a minimum of 200 and maximum of 270. The minimum-to-maximum spread at 4K Medium (70 FPS) is wider than at 1080p Medium (126 FPS), which is counterintuitive but may reflect that the GPU is working harder at higher resolutions, leading to more variable frame times. The data implies that the GPU becomes the limiting factor at 4K, especially with higher settings, but the CPU still maintains frame rates above 200 FPS even in the most demanding measured scenario.

The scaling from 1080p to 4K at High settings shows a drop from 325 to 234 to 147 FPS (1080p to 1440p to 4K), which is a cumulative 55% reduction. This is a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern, but the absolute numbers are so high that even the 4K High average of 147 FPS is far above what the game's visuals require. The conclusion is that the limiting component shifts from CPU at 1080p Low to GPU at 4K Ultra, but neither component is ever pushed to its thermal or power limits, as evidenced by the sustained high frame rates across all resolution-settings combinations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of performance across four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) and three resolutions (1080p, 1440p, 4K). At 1080p, the average FPS ranges from 456 at Low to 421 at Medium, 325 at High, and 309 at Ultra. The Medium preset at 1080p has a minimum of 358 and maximum of 484, which is the only setting with full min/max data at this resolution. At 1440p, the averages are 409 at Low, 374 at Medium (min 318, max 430), 234 at High, and 222 at Ultra. At 4K, the averages drop to 293 at Low, 235 at Medium (min 200, max 270), 147 at High, and 140 at Ultra.

The data shows that the difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p is 147 FPS (456 vs 309), while at 4K the difference is 153 FPS (293 vs 140). This indicates that the settings preset has a slightly larger impact at higher resolutions, but the absolute frame rates remain playable even at the lowest measured point (140 FPS at 4K Ultra). The Medium preset consistently provides the highest minimum FPS values when compared to other settings at the same resolution, which is likely due to the balance between GPU load and CPU overhead. For example, at 4K, the Medium average of 235 FPS is 88 FPS higher than High (147) and 95 FPS higher than Ultra (140), but only 58 FPS lower than Low (293). This makes Medium the most efficient setting in terms of raw frame rate per graphical quality.

The lack of min/max data for most settings means that frame time consistency cannot be fully assessed, but the available Medium data shows a spread of 70 FPS at 4K, which is narrower than the 126 FPS spread at 1080p. This suggests that frame pacing becomes more stable at higher resolutions, possibly because the GPU's workload is more consistent and less prone to idle gaps. Overall, the measured FPS breakdown confirms that this combo delivers exceptional performance at every resolution and settings preset, with no scenario falling below 140 FPS average.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the Medium settings preset at 4K (3840x2160) offers the best experience for this CPU-GPU combination. The average FPS of 235 is more than sufficient for any display, and the minimum of 200 FPS ensures that there are no noticeable stutters or drops during intense gameplay moments. Compared to High settings at 4K, which average 147 FPS, Medium provides an 88 FPS increase (60% higher) while likely looking nearly identical for a game with Inside's stylized, low-polygon aesthetic. Similarly, Ultra at 4K averages 140 FPS, which is only 5 FPS less than High but 95 FPS less than Medium, making Ultra the least efficient choice.

At 1440p, Medium settings provide an average of 374 FPS with a minimum of 318, which is overkill for any display but offers the highest minimum FPS among all measured presets at that resolution. The 1440p High average of 234 FPS and Ultra average of 222 FPS are also excellent, but they sacrifice 140-152 FPS compared to Medium for negligible visual improvements. For users with 1080p displays, the Low preset at 456 FPS is the highest measured average, but Medium at 421 FPS is a better choice because it provides more visual detail while still exceeding the refresh rate of any consumer monitor. The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot across all resolutions, as it consistently delivers the best balance of average FPS, minimum FPS, and graphical quality.

The recommendation to use Medium settings is reinforced by the fact that the game's art style relies on atmospheric lighting and shadows rather than high-resolution textures or geometric complexity. The measured data shows that the FPS difference between Medium and Ultra at 4K is 95 FPS (235 vs 140), which represents a 40% performance loss for settings that are unlikely to be perceptible in a 2D side-scroller. Therefore, the optimal configuration is Medium settings at 4K, which provides a 200 FPS minimum and 235 FPS average, ensuring a flawless experience on any high-refresh-rate monitor without wasting the hardware's potential on unnecessary graphical fidelity.