Inside

Inside is a puzzle platformer that demands precise timing and atmospheric rendering, and the data for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 580 shows a combination that lands in the lower tier of tested systems. The combo ranks 2631 out of 2887 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 9% of all pairings for this specific game. That rank is a direct reflection of the GPU's age and position in the current hardware landscape, rather than any limitation imposed by the processor, which sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. The pairing creates a noticeable imbalance, where the CPU has substantial headroom while the GPU becomes the primary constraint on frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions and detail settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The overall rank of 2631 out of 2887 combos places this system firmly in the lower quartile of tested configurations for Inside. This is a telling statistic because the CPU itself is an extremely capable part, with an average benchmark score of 84003 across all tested workloads. That score puts the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of processors on the market. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scores 83807, a delta of just 0.2%, indicating the 290K Plus is essentially at parity with its immediate predecessor in synthetic tests. The AMD EPYC 4584PX trails by 1.1% with a score of 83090, while the AMD EPYC 9135 is 1.2% behind at 82980. The only rival ahead of it is the AMD EPYC 7F72, which scores 85072, a 1.3% advantage for that part.

Despite this CPU strength, the combination's rank is dragged down by the GPU. The AMD Radeon RX 580 has an average benchmark score of 12928, placing it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. That is a mid-pack position, and its nearest rivals show just how tight the competition is at this performance level. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile scores 12940, a delta of -0.1%, meaning the RX 580 is essentially tied with that mobile part. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is 0.4% ahead at 12986, while the AMD Radeon 740M is 0.5% behind at 12870, and the AMD FirePro W5100 trails by 0.6% at 12847. The gap between these GPUs is negligible, which suggests the RX 580 is sitting in a crowded and well-trodden performance band.

The disparity between the CPU's 96th percentile ranking and the GPU's 53rd percentile ranking is the defining characteristic of this combo. In a game like Inside, which is a side-scrolling puzzle platformer rather than a demanding AAA first-person shooter, the CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads are largely underutilized. The game's logic and physics are not heavily multithreaded, so the processor's substantial multi-core capabilities, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731, do not translate into proportionate gains in frame rate. Instead, the GPU's fill rate and pixel throughput become the limiting factors, and the RX 580's modest position in the GPU hierarchy means the combo's rank is closer to the GPU's percentile than the CPU's. The data shows that this is a configuration where the processor is overqualified for the task, and the graphics card holds the entire system back from achieving higher rankings.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is built on the Polaris 20 chip, using the GCN 4.0 architecture and a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. It operates with a base clock of 1257 MHz and a boost clock of 1340 MHz, which are modest figures by modern standards. The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The memory clock runs at 2000 MHz, translating to 8 Gbps effective. These specifications place the RX 580 in a position where it can handle 1080p gaming comfortably, but it struggles as resolution increases.

In Inside, the GPU's role is central to the measured frame rates. The game's visual style relies on stark lighting, shadows, and particle effects, all of which tax the GPU's shading units and texture mapping units. The RX 580 has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations pipelines. Its pixel rate is 42.88 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 193.0 GTexel/s, with a FP32 performance of 6.175 TFLOPS. These numbers indicate a GPU that was competitive at its launch in 2017, but they are far below what modern flagship cards offer. The GPU's DirectX 12 support is listed as 12_0, which is adequate for this title, but the older architecture means it does not have dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which are absent from the specifications entirely.

The GPU's benchmark results reinforce its mid-range standing. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 1005, while Geekbench Metal yields 45235, OpenCL 37453, and Vulkan 45173. Passmark results show DirectX 11 scoring 60, DirectX 12 scoring 43, and DirectX 9 scoring 124. The Passmark G3D score is 8813, with a G2D score of 769 and a GPU compute score of 3488. These scores are consistent with a GPU that sits in the 53rd percentile, and they explain why the combo's performance in Inside is limited. The GPU's 8 GB of VRAM is sufficient for this game, which does not require massive texture pools, so memory capacity is not the bottleneck. Instead, the raw compute and fill rate are what constrain the frame rates.

The RX 580's launch MSRP was 229 USD, and it is now marked as end-of-life, having been succeeded by the Vega architecture. Its production status is end-of-life, which means it is no longer being manufactured, and its performance is fixed relative to newer parts. In the context of Inside, the GPU's 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is enough to produce playable frame rates at lower settings, but it becomes the clear limiting factor at higher settings and resolutions. The data shows that the CPU has no trouble feeding the GPU, so any performance shortfall is attributable to the graphics card's capabilities.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 150 FPS, which is exceptionally smooth and well above the refresh rate of most monitors. The Medium preset drops to 120 FPS, still excellent, with a minimum of 102 FPS and a maximum of 138 FPS. The High preset yields 75 FPS, which is playable but more modest. The Ultra preset produces 71 FPS, which is also playable, but the difference between High and Ultra is minimal, suggesting diminishing returns. For a 1080p display, the Medium preset is the sweet spot, offering 120 FPS average with a minimum above 100 FPS, which ensures a consistent experience without sacrificing too much visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset still manages 108 FPS, which is smooth, but the Medium preset drops to 86 FPS with a minimum of 73 FPS and a maximum of 99 FPS. The High preset falls to 54 FPS, and the Ultra preset is at 51 FPS. At this resolution, the Medium preset is the recommended choice, as it keeps the average above 60 FPS while providing a reasonable visual upgrade over Low. The High and Ultra presets are borderline, with averages in the low 50s, which may be acceptable for a slower-paced puzzle platformer but are not ideal for maintaining smooth motion.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes dramatically. The Low preset averages 68 FPS, which is playable, but the Medium preset drops to 54 FPS, with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS. The High preset averages 34 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 32 FPS. At 4K, the Low preset is the only one that provides a consistently playable experience, with an average above 60 FPS. The Medium preset is borderline, with a minimum below 50 FPS, which could lead to noticeable stuttering in a game that requires precise timing. The High and Ultra presets are not recommended at this resolution, as they fall below 35 FPS, which is too low for a smooth experience.

The data suggests that the GPU is the limiting component at all settings, but the CPU's strength allows the system to push higher frame rates at lower resolutions. For the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, Medium at 1080p and 1440p is the right call, while Low is the only sensible option at 4K. The Ultra preset offers no meaningful advantage over High in terms of average FPS, so it is not worth the performance cost. Players with a 1080p monitor can enjoy the game at Medium with 120 FPS, which is likely a superior experience to the High preset's 75 FPS given the minor visual differences.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at how this combo performs across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset leads with an average of 150 FPS, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. The Medium preset follows at 120 FPS, with a minimum of 102 FPS and a maximum of 138 FPS. The High preset drops to 75 FPS, and the Ultra preset is close behind at 71 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 30 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 45 FPS, and between High and Ultra is just 4 FPS. This pattern indicates that the GPU can handle 1080p with headroom at lower settings, but the transition from Medium to High incurs a significant cost.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 108 FPS, which is a 42 FPS drop from the 1080p Low score. The Medium preset averages 86 FPS, with a minimum of 73 FPS and a maximum of 99 FPS, representing a 34 FPS drop from its 1080p counterpart. The High preset averages 54 FPS, a 21 FPS drop from 1080p High, and the Ultra preset averages 51 FPS, a 20 FPS drop from 1080p Ultra. The relative drops are larger at lower settings, suggesting that the GPU is becoming more stressed as resolution increases, but the CPU is still not a factor.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 68 FPS, a 40 FPS drop from 1440p Low and an 82 FPS drop from 1080p Low. The Medium preset averages 54 FPS, with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS, a 32 FPS drop from 1440p Medium. The High preset averages 34 FPS, a 20 FPS drop from 1440p High, and the Ultra preset averages 32 FPS, a 19 FPS drop from 1440p Ultra. At 4K, the Low preset is the only one that stays above 60 FPS, while the Medium preset is barely above 50 FPS, and the High and Ultra presets fall into the low 30s.

The data shows a consistent trend: the GPU's performance scales inversely with resolution, and the frame rate drops are more pronounced at lower settings. For example, the 1080p Low to 1440p Low drop is 42 FPS, while the 1440p Low to 4K Low drop is 40 FPS. This suggests that the GPU is operating near its limits at higher resolutions, and the CPU's performance is not the constraint. The minimum FPS values are only recorded for the Medium preset at each resolution, with 102 FPS at 1080p, 73 FPS at 1440p, and 46 FPS at 4K. These minimums indicate that the Medium preset can experience frame dips, particularly at 4K, where the minimum falls below 50 FPS.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K reveals how the GPU becomes the limiting component as pixel count increases. At the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 150 at 1080p to 108 at 1440p, a 28% decrease, and then to 68 at 4K, a 37% decrease from 1440p. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 82 FPS, or 55%. At the Medium preset, the average drops from 120 at 1080p to 86 at 1440p, a 28% decrease, and then to 54 at 4K, a 37% decrease from 1440p. The total drop is 66 FPS, or 55%. At the High preset, the average drops from 75 at 1080p to 54 at 1440p, a 28% decrease, and then to 34 at 4K, a 37% decrease from 1440p. The total drop is 41 FPS, or 55%. At the Ultra preset, the average drops from 71 at 1080p to 51 at 1440p, a 28% decrease, and then to 32 at 4K, a 37% decrease from 1440p. The total drop is 39 FPS, or 55%.

This consistent 55% drop across all settings is a strong indicator that the GPU is the bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting performance, the percentage drop would vary more across settings, as higher settings would put more load on the GPU and less on the CPU. Instead, the uniform scaling suggests that the RX 580's fill rate and pixel throughput are being saturated at each resolution, and the CPU is not contributing to the frame rate ceiling. The 4K resolution has four times the pixels of 1080p, and the data shows roughly a 55% reduction in frame rate, which is less than the theoretical 75% reduction if the GPU were perfectly pixel-bound. This discrepancy could be due to the game's rendering engine not scaling perfectly with resolution, or it could be that the CPU provides a floor for frame rates at lower settings.

The fact that the Low preset at 4K achieves 68 FPS, while the Ultra preset at 1080p achieves 71 FPS, is telling. This means that the GPU can handle 4K if the visual settings are reduced, but it cannot handle both high resolution and high settings simultaneously. The CPU's strong single-thread performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4823, ensures that it is never the limiting factor in these tests. The data indicates that the resolution scaling is entirely governed by the GPU's capabilities, and the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has ample headroom to support even a much faster graphics card without becoming a constraint.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU and GPU combination for Inside?

A: The combo ranks 2631 out of 2887 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 9% of all systems tested for this game.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K at 83807, 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 83090, and 1.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9135 at 82980. It trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%, which scores 85072.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1080p gaming with this combo?

A: At 1920x1080, the Medium preset provides an average of 120 FPS with a minimum of 102 FPS and a maximum of 138 FPS, making it the best balance of visual quality and performance. The Low preset hits 150 FPS, but Medium offers a significant visual upgrade for a 30 FPS cost.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K resolution in Inside?

A: At 3840x2160, only the Low preset achieves a playable average of 68 FPS. The Medium preset averages 54 FPS with a minimum of 46 FPS, while High and Ultra average 34 and 32 FPS respectively, which are too low for smooth gameplay.

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

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU sits in the 96th percentile of all processors, while the GPU sits in the 53rd percentile. The uniform 55% frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates that the RX 580's performance ceiling is reached before the CPU becomes a constraint.

Q: How does the RX 580 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The RX 580 scores 12928, which is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile at 12940, 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER at 12986, 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon 740M at 12870, and 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5100 at 12847.