Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that, on paper, should be trivial for modern hardware, yet the measured FPS data for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7700 reveals a more nuanced story about where performance bottlenecks actually lie. The benchmark results indicate a system that scales from exceptionally high frame rates to surprisingly demanding ones at maximum settings, suggesting that the game's visual style and rendering techniques can still stress even a top-tier CPU and mid-range GPU combination.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is not linear, and the data reveals a significant shift in the limiting component. At 1080p with Low settings, the system produces 353 FPS, which is an astronomically high number that suggests the CPU is doing the heavy lifting to feed frames. When resolution jumps to 1440p at the same Low setting, the average drops to 254 FPS, a 28% reduction. Moving further to 4K Low yields 160 FPS, which is a 37% drop from the 1440p result and a 55% drop from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline indicates that the GPU is becoming the primary constraint as pixel count increases, which is expected given the Radeon RX 7700's 58th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

The pattern holds across other settings, but the magnitude of the drop changes. With High settings, the transition from 1080p (177 FPS) to 1440p (127 FPS) is a 28% decrease, but the jump to 4K (80 FPS) represents a 37% reduction from 1440p. This suggests that the GPU's rendering load scales consistently with pixel count, but the CPU's ability to maintain high frame rates at lower resolutions is not the limiting factor—otherwise, we would see a plateau at higher resolutions. The data implies that this combo is GPU-bound at 4K, but at 1080p, the CPU's 24 cores and 5.80 GHz boost clock are more than sufficient to keep the pipeline full.

The most telling comparison is the Ultra preset, where 1080p yields 168 FPS and 4K yields 76 FPS. The 55% reduction from 1080p to 4K is nearly identical to the Low preset's drop, which indicates that the resolution scaling is consistent regardless of graphical complexity. This suggests that the game's engine has a fixed overhead per pixel, and the RX 7700's 16 GB of memory and 624.1 GB/s bandwidth are not being saturated at lower resolutions, but rather the compute units are. The data shows that this is a GPU-limited scenario at higher resolutions, while the CPU's role becomes more pronounced only when frame rates exceed 250 FPS, which is well beyond the refresh rate of most displays.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a monstrous processor with 24 cores and 24 threads, a base clock of 3.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its benchmark scores are impressive, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51,731 and a single-core score of 7,303, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. In the context of Inside, which is a side-scrolling puzzle platformer, the CPU's primary job is to handle game logic, physics, and draw calls. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system hits 353 FPS, which is likely near the engine's upper limit or the CPU's frame generation ceiling.

The nearest rivals to this CPU, such as the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% faster on average) and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% slower), demonstrate that the 290K Plus is at the top of the consumer heap. However, in a game like Inside, the CPU's multi-core advantage is less relevant than its single-thread performance. The single-core Cinebench R15 score of 736 and R20 score of 3,067 indicate strong per-thread performance, which is crucial for maintaining high frame rates when the GPU is not the bottleneck. The data implies that at 1080p, the CPU is capable of producing frame rates that far exceed what the GPU can render at higher settings, making the CPU the enabler of those 353 FPS lows.

The CPU's 36 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth likely contribute to low latency in game logic. But the measured FPS data does not show any CPU-related stutters or frame drops, as the minimum FPS values for Medium settings at 1080p (240 FPS) and 1440p (173 FPS) are still extremely high. This suggests that the CPU's architecture, built on a 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors, is more than adequate for the game's demands. The question is whether the CPU's 125W TDP is a limiting factor in sustained performance, but the data shows no such throttling, as the frame rates remain consistent across resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7700, based on the Navi 32 chip and RDNA 3.0 architecture, is a mid-range GPU that sits in the 58th percentile of all GPUs. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is ample for a game like Inside that doesn't heavily utilize texture streaming. The GPU's boost clock of 2459 MHz and game clock of 2041 MHz, combined with 2,560 shading units, give it a FP32 compute rating of 25.18 TFLOPS. In the measured results, the GPU's role is clearly defined by the resolution scaling: at 4K Ultra, the system drops to 76 FPS, which is the lowest result in the data.

Comparing the RX 7700 to its nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon R9 370X (0.1% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (1.7% faster), shows that this GPU is competitive in its class. However, the data suggests that Inside's Ultra settings are particularly demanding on the GPU. The transition from High to Ultra at 1080p shows a drop from 177 FPS to 168 FPS, which is only a 5% reduction, but at 4K, the drop from 80 FPS to 76 FPS is also 5%. This consistency indicates that Ultra settings add a fixed percentage of GPU workload, likely due to increased shadow resolution or post-processing effects.

The GPU's 96 ROPs and 236.1 GPixel/s pixel rate are crucial for a game that uses a monochromatic art style with high contrast, which often involves fill-rate-heavy effects. The data shows that the GPU is not the bottleneck at 1080p Low, where 353 FPS is achieved, but it becomes the limiting factor at 4K, where even Low settings drop to 160 FPS. This is a 55% reduction, which aligns with the increased pixel count from 2.07 million (1080p) to 8.29 million (4K), suggesting that the GPU's pixel throughput is the primary constraint at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system demonstrates its peak performance. Low settings deliver an average of 353 FPS, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. Medium settings reduce this to 282 FPS, with a minimum of 240 FPS and a maximum of 325 FPS, indicating a stable frame time distribution. High settings yield 177 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 168 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 71 FPS (20%), while the difference between High and Ultra is only 9 FPS (5%). This suggests that the Medium preset is where the GPU starts to engage more significantly, but the CPU is still capable of maintaining high rates.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates scale down proportionally. Low settings produce 254 FPS, Medium delivers 203 FPS (with min/max of 173/234), High achieves 127 FPS, and Ultra drops to 121 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 51 FPS (20%), which is consistent with the 1080p results. However, the gap between High and Ultra is only 6 FPS (5%), again showing that Ultra is not a significant step up from High in terms of GPU load. The minimum FPS for Medium at 1440p is 173, which is still higher than the average FPS for High at the same resolution, suggesting that the Medium preset is the sweet spot for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck. Low settings average 160 FPS, Medium drops to 128 FPS (with min/max of 108/147), High falls to 80 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 76 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is 32 FPS (20%), consistent with other resolutions, but the jump from High to Ultra is only 4 FPS (5%). The minimum FPS for Medium at 4K is 108, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for most displays, but the Ultra preset's 76 FPS average leaves little headroom for demanding scenes. The data shows that the GPU's performance scales linearly with pixel count, but the Ultra preset's additional effects have a diminishing impact on frame rate.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 ranks 1,161 out of 2,887 tested combos for Inside, placing it in the 60th percentile of all systems. This ranking is somewhat surprising given the CPU's 96th percentile performance, but it is dragged down by the GPU's 58th percentile ranking. The data suggests that for a game like Inside, the GPU is the primary determinant of the combo's ranking, as the CPU is rarely the bottleneck except at extremely high frame rates.

The combo's ranking implies that there are 1,726 other configurations that perform better in this game, likely those with higher-end GPUs. However, the measured FPS data shows that this combo still delivers playable frame rates at all resolutions and settings, with the lowest average being 76 FPS at 4K Ultra. The ranking also indicates that the CPU's power is somewhat wasted in this title, as the game does not utilize multi-threading heavily, and the GPU's mid-range performance is the limiting factor. The deltaPct values for the CPU's rivals (0.2% faster than the 285K, 1.1% slower than the EPYC 4584PX) suggest that the CPU choice has minimal impact on the game's performance, while the GPU's rivals (0.1% slower than the R9 370X, 1.7% slower than the RTX 3060 Ti) show that the GPU is solidly mid-range.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance across all resolutions. At 1080p, it delivers 282 FPS, which is well above any display's refresh rate, and the minimum of 240 FPS ensures no hitches. At 1440p, Medium yields 203 FPS with a minimum of 173, which is still excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors. Even at 4K, Medium produces 128 FPS with a minimum of 108, which is smooth for most users. The transition from Low to Medium costs 20% of the frame rate but likely provides significant visual improvements, making it the recommended setting.

High settings are a viable alternative for users with 4K displays or those who prefer higher visual fidelity. At 1080p, High delivers 177 FPS, at 1440p it drops to 127 FPS, and at 4K it averages 80 FPS. The 4K High result is above 60 FPS, which is playable, but the 5% drop from High to Ultra suggests that Ultra is not worth the performance cost. Ultra settings should be avoided, especially at 4K, where the 76 FPS average leaves little headroom for demanding scenes. The data clearly shows that Medium is the sweet spot, as it maintains at least 108 FPS at all resolutions, ensuring a fluid experience without sacrificing too much visual quality.

For users with 120Hz or 144Hz displays, the 1440p Medium setting (203 FPS) is the best choice, as it exceeds the refresh rate while providing a stable frame time. At 4K, the 128 FPS Medium result is also suitable for 120Hz displays, but users with 144Hz panels might prefer to drop to Low (160 FPS) for a more consistent experience. The data implies that the Medium preset is the most versatile, offering high frame rates across the board without the need for resolution scaling or frame rate caps.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS is 353, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested systems for Inside?

A: The combo ranks 1,161 out of 2,887 tested combos, placing it in the 60th percentile of all configurations.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K resolution?

A: At 4K, the GPU is the limiting factor, as shown by the 55% FPS drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, which aligns with the increased pixel count.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for Medium settings at 1440p?

A: The minimum FPS for Medium settings at 2560x1440 is 173, with an average of 203 and a maximum of 234.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compared to its closest rival?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is 0.2% faster on average, while the AMD EPYC 4584PX is 1.1% slower, indicating the 290K Plus is slightly below the 285K but above the EPYC.

Q: Does the Ultra preset provide a significant FPS boost over High settings?

A: No, the Ultra preset is only 5% slower than High settings across all resolutions, with a 9 FPS drop at 1080p, a 6 FPS drop at 1440p, and a 4 FPS drop at 4K.