Inside

# Inside — Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT

The pairing of Intel's 24-core Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with AMD's Radeon RX 7800 XT produces a fascinating dataset for Inside, a 2016 puzzle platformer that is far more demanding than its minimalist aesthetic suggests. Measured results across three resolutions and four settings tiers reveal a system that is rarely challenged by this title, yet the scaling patterns expose where the bottleneck truly lies. The combo ranks 670th out of 2,887 tested combinations, placing it in the top 23% of all systems evaluated for this game—a strong showing that hints at headroom rather than limitation.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic but tells a clear story about which component governs performance. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 208 FPS at 1920x1080 to 149 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 94 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 55% reduction from 1080p to 4K, which is substantial but not linear—the 1440p step costs 28% of performance, while the 4K step costs another 37% of the 1440p figure. This pattern suggests the GPU is becoming the limiting factor as pixel count rises, though the absolute numbers remain high enough that even 4K High delivers a smooth experience.

Low settings show an even steeper curve: 415 FPS at 1080p drops to 299 FPS at 1440p (a 28% loss), then plummets to 188 FPS at 4K (a 37% further reduction). The 1080p Low result of 415 FPS is remarkable—it approaches the theoretical ceiling for many displays and indicates the CPU is doing heavy lifting at lower resolutions. At 4K Low, the 188 FPS figure is still far above typical refresh rates, but the scaling suggests the RX 7800 XT is working harder relative to the processor. Medium settings reinforce this: 332 FPS at 1080p, 239 FPS at 1440p, and 150 FPS at 4K, with the 4K result including a measured minimum of 128 FPS and maximum of 173 FPS.

Ultra settings present the most interesting case for bottleneck analysis. The 1080p Ultra average of 198 FPS is nearly identical to the 1080p High result of 208 FPS, differing by only 5%. This narrow gap implies that at 1080p, the game is not GPU-bound even on the highest preset—the CPU and memory subsystem are likely the limiting factors. However, at 4K Ultra, the average drops to 89 FPS, which is 55% lower than 1080p Ultra. The scaling from 1440p Ultra (142 FPS) to 4K Ultra (89 FPS) is a 37% reduction, matching the pattern seen at other settings. This consistency across presets indicates the GPU's rendering load scales predictably with resolution, while the CPU's contribution remains relatively constant.

How This Combo Ranks

With a combo rank of 670 out of 2,887 tested combinations, this system sits comfortably in the upper quartile for Inside. The percentile placement is noteworthy because the RX 7800 XT individually ranks at the 51st percentile among all GPUs, while the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus ranks at the 96th percentile among all CPUs. The combo's ranking suggests the CPU's strength compensates for the GPU's middling percentile position, resulting in a system that outperforms what the GPU alone might suggest.

The delta between this combo and others in the database is revealing. The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% higher average score), AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% higher), and AMD EPYC 9135 (1.2% higher), while the AMD EPYC 7F72 trails by 1.3%. These are all server or high-end desktop parts, indicating the 290K Plus is competitive with enterprise silicon. For the GPU, the nearest rivals are older or lower-tier cards: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is 0.5% faster in average benchmark score, while the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is 1.8% slower. This is a striking comparison—the RX 7800 XT's average benchmark score of 11,627 places it near much less capable cards, yet in Inside, it delivers playable 4K Ultra performance.

The rank of 670th out of 2,887 combos means this system outperforms roughly 77% of tested configurations. Given the game's age and relatively modest requirements, this high ranking is expected, but the data confirms the combination is well-matched for this title. The 96th percentile CPU ranking ensures no processor bottleneck, while the GPU's 51st percentile ranking is sufficient for the game's demands.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 7800 XT brings 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. For Inside, a game with a 2016 release date, this memory configuration is far beyond what the title requires. The GPU's boost clock of 2430 MHz and game clock of 2124 MHz, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip, provide the raw throughput needed for high-refresh-rate play. The 37.32 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 233.3 GPixel/s pixel rate are substantial figures that explain why 4K High can sustain 94 FPS average.

The GPU's benchmark results show a mixed profile. The PassMark G3D score of 24,176 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 54,228 indicate strong DirectX and Vulkan performance, while the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4,157 reflects modern API efficiency. However, the GPU's overall percentile rank of 51st among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 11,627, places it in the middle of the pack. The nearest rivals—GTX 1660, Radeon Pro 5500M, Tesla K20c, and RX 6500 XT—are all significantly less powerful on paper, yet their average scores are within 1.8% of the RX 7800 XT. This suggests the benchmark database's GPU scoring may weight certain workloads differently than gaming performance.

In Inside, the GPU's role becomes clear through the resolution scaling data. At 1080p, the GPU is not the primary constraint—the CPU's 24 cores and high clock speeds can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them, but the game's engine likely caps out around 415 FPS on Low settings. At 4K, the GPU's pixel throughput becomes more relevant, with the 89-188 FPS range across settings showing that the RX 7800 XT can handle the increased load without dropping below playable thresholds. The 16 GB VRAM is never a concern for this title, as even 4K Ultra textures would fit comfortably within the memory pool.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings ladder is available: Low averages 415 FPS, Medium averages 332 FPS with a minimum of 282 and maximum of 382, High averages 208 FPS, and Ultra averages 198 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is substantial—124 FPS—while the gap between High and Ultra is just 10 FPS. This suggests that High and Ultra presets are nearly identical in rendering cost, possibly differing only in minor effects or shadow quality. The 1080p Low result of 415 FPS is the highest measured value in the entire dataset, indicating the game engine has a high frame ceiling when GPU load is minimized.

At 2560x1440, the pattern continues but with reduced headroom: Low averages 299 FPS, Medium averages 239 FPS (minimum 203, maximum 275), High averages 149 FPS, and Ultra averages 142 FPS. The Medium-to-High drop is 90 FPS, while High-to-Ultra is only 7 FPS. This consistency—Ultra being only 5% slower than High at both 1080p and 1440p—reinforces that the Ultra preset adds minimal rendering overhead. The 1440p Low result of 299 FPS is still high enough for any current display, while the 1440p Ultra result of 142 FPS comfortably exceeds 120 Hz refresh rates.

At 3840x2160, the GPU begins to show its limits: Low averages 188 FPS, Medium averages 150 FPS (minimum 128, maximum 173), High averages 94 FPS, and Ultra averages 89 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 128 FPS is important—it indicates the frame time variance is manageable even at 4K. The High-to-Ultra gap at 4K is only 5 FPS, again confirming the minimal difference between these presets. The 4K Low result of 188 FPS is still higher than many systems achieve at 1080p, demonstrating the overall capability of this combination.

FAQ

Q: Is this system capable of 4K gaming in Inside?

A: Yes, the measured data shows 4K High averaging 94 FPS and 4K Ultra averaging 89 FPS, both well above standard 60 Hz display refresh rates. Even 4K Low achieves 188 FPS average, which exceeds most high-refresh monitors.

Q: What is the best resolution for maximum frame rates?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system averages 415 FPS, the highest measured result. For a balance of visual quality and speed, 1440p Ultra at 142 FPS average offers a strong experience.

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

A: The RX 7800 XT has an average benchmark score of 11,627, which is 0.5% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680) and 1.8% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842? No, 11,842 is the RX 6500 XT score, meaning the 7800 XT is 1.8% lower). The Radeon Pro 5500M is 0.9% lower, and the Tesla K20c is 1.3% lower.

Q: What is the CPU's ranking relative to all processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus ranks at the 96th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84,003. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scores 83,807, a 0.2% difference.

Q: Does the Ultra preset provide meaningful improvement over High?

A: The data shows minimal difference: at 1080p, Ultra is 10 FPS slower than High (198 vs 208 FPS); at 1440p, 7 FPS slower (142 vs 149 FPS); at 4K, 5 FPS slower (89 vs 94 FPS). The visual improvement may be subtle given the small performance cost.

Q: What is the system's overall ranking for this game?

A: The combo ranks 670th out of 2,887 tested combinations, placing it in the top 23% of all systems measured for Inside. This is a strong result given the game's age and the hardware's capabilities.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on TSMC's 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.80 GHz, combined with 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB L2 cache per core, provide substantial computational headroom. The CPU's benchmark results are impressive: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 51,731 and single-core scores 7,303, while PassMark multi-thread scores 60,860 and single-thread scores 4,823. These figures place the CPU at the 96th percentile among all processors.

In Inside, the CPU's role is most evident at lower resolutions. The 1080p Low result of 415 FPS suggests the game engine is capable of very high frame rates when the GPU is not the bottleneck, and the 24 cores ensure there is no thread starvation. The CPU's nearest rivals—the Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% faster), EPYC 4584PX (1.1% faster), and EPYC 9135 (1.2% faster)—are all high-end parts, and the 290K Plus outperforms the EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%. This competitive positioning means the processor is unlikely to limit performance in a game like Inside, which was released in 2016 and likely does not utilize more than a few cores effectively.

The memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5, with ECC support, ensures the CPU can feed data to the GPU without stalling. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 20 CPU lanes provides ample bandwidth for the GPU's PCIe 4.0 x16 connection. The CPU's integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units is irrelevant for gaming with a discrete GPU but demonstrates the processor's versatility. The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is the limiting factor, as evidenced by the 415 FPS ceiling on Low settings—above this, the game engine or CPU single-thread performance may cap frame rates, but 415 FPS is far beyond any practical display requirement.

Settings Recommendations

For 1920x1080 displays, the Ultra preset at 198 FPS average is the recommended choice. The 10 FPS difference from High is negligible, and the visual enhancements of Ultra are worth the minor cost. For players seeking maximum frame rates, Low at 415 FPS is excessive for any current monitor, making Medium at 332 FPS a better balance—it maintains a 282 FPS minimum while providing improved visuals over Low.

At 2560x1440, Ultra at 142 FPS average is the optimal preset, as it exceeds 120 Hz refresh rates while offering the best visual quality. High at 149 FPS is nearly identical and could be chosen if stability is preferred. Medium at 239 FPS is an alternative for high-refresh 1440p monitors, though the visual downgrade from Ultra is more noticeable than the 97 FPS difference suggests.

For 3840x2160, the Medium preset at 150 FPS average with a 128 FPS minimum is the best experience. It provides smooth gameplay on 120 Hz 4K displays while maintaining good visual fidelity. High at 94 FPS is acceptable for 60 Hz displays but may feel less responsive on higher refresh screens. Ultra at 89 FPS is similar to High and offers minimal visual improvement—the data shows only a 5 FPS difference, so High or Medium are better choices. Low at 188 FPS is unnecessary for 4K, as the visual quality loss outweighs the frame rate benefit. The measured frame time consistency, indicated by the Medium preset's 128-173 FPS range at 4K, suggests this setting provides the most stable experience across the resolution spectrum.