Inside

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture and manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, and it carries a 125 W TDP. The processor includes a 36 MB shared L3 cache, alongside 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core. In synthetic workloads, this CPU posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51,731 and a single-core score of 7,303, while its PassMark multithread score reaches 60,860 and single-thread score is 4,823. These figures place the CPU in the 96th percentile among all tested processors, indicating top-tier compute capability. For Inside, a 2D puzzle platformer from 2016, this level of CPU performance is far beyond what the game requires, but it does ensure that frame pacing and any physics or logic-bound sections are never constrained by the processor. The 24 threads can handle background tasks and system overhead without impacting frame times, and the high boost clock helps maintain consistent performance even in single-threaded workloads, though the game itself is unlikely to stress more than a few cores at most.

The nearest rivals for this CPU in aggregate benchmark scores are the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with an average score of 83,807 (only 0.2% behind), the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 83,090 (1.1% behind), and the AMD EPYC 9135 at 82,980 (1.2% behind). The AMD EPYC 7F72 sits slightly ahead at 85,072, a 1.3% delta. These differences are marginal, meaning the 290K Plus effectively trades blows with other high-end chips in general compute, but for a game like Inside, those differences are irrelevant because the CPU is never the limiting factor. The data shows that the processor’s large cache hierarchy and high clock speeds provide a robust foundation for any game, but the measured FPS in Inside will be governed by the GPU and settings, not the CPU.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus brings 24 cores and 24 threads to the table, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. For Inside, which is a puzzle platformer with relatively simple geometry and physics, the game’s rendering pipeline is overwhelmingly GPU-bound. The CPU’s role here is to feed the GPU with draw calls and handle game logic, but at the frame rates observed, even a much weaker processor would suffice. Benchmark results indicate that the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51,731 and single-core score of 7,303 are exceptional, but Inside does not use multi-threading heavily; it is a lightweight title that can run on hardware from a decade ago. The 24 threads are effectively idle during gameplay, and the high boost clock of 5.80 GHz ensures that any single-threaded bottleneck is eliminated. In practical terms, the CPU contributes zero measurable overhead to the measured FPS figures, so all performance variation comes from the GPU, resolution, and settings.

The L3 cache of 36 MB shared across all cores helps with data locality, but again, Inside’s memory footprint is small. The processor’s PassMark data compression score of 698,346 and floating-point math score of 214,760 show raw throughput, but those numbers do not translate to any advantage in this specific game. The integer math score of 166,194 and extended instructions score of 52,338 are similarly irrelevant to a 2D platformer. What matters is that the CPU never dips below a threshold that would cause frame drops, and given that the lowest average FPS measured in the entire dataset is 58 at 4K Ultra, the CPU is clearly not a constraint. The processor’s memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5 is ample for feeding the GPU, and the PCIe Gen 5 interface with 20 lanes provides plenty of bandwidth for the Arc B580, which uses PCIe 4.0 x8. In summary, the CPU is a high-end part that is overkill for Inside, but it guarantees that the system’s performance ceiling is determined solely by the GPU and settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the Intel Arc B580 ranks 2,764 out of 3,716 tested combos in Inside, which places it in the lower-middle portion of the database. This rank is surprising given the CPU’s top-tier status, but it reflects the GPU’s performance relative to other graphics cards in the same game. The rank of 2,764 out of 3,716 means that roughly 74% of tested combinations deliver higher average FPS in Inside at the tested settings and resolutions. This does not mean the combo is slow in absolute terms—it achieves playable frame rates at all settings—but it indicates that many other GPU pairings outperform the Arc B580 in this title. The CPU’s high percentile rank of 96 among all CPUs does not lift the combo’s rank because Inside is not CPU-bound; the GPU’s percentile of 68 among all GPUs is more indicative of the combo’s standing while still not telling the full story.

The combo’s rank is influenced by the fact that Inside is a light game, so even mid-range GPUs can hit very high frame rates, especially at 1080p. For example, the Arc B580’s nearest rivals in aggregate GPU scores include the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (0.2% behind), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (0.6% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (0.7% behind), and NVIDIA P106-100 (1% behind). These deltas are small, but in a game like Inside, the difference between a 271 FPS average and a 300 FPS average can shift ranks by hundreds of positions. The data shows that the combo’s rank is not a reflection of the CPU’s capability but rather the GPU’s mid-pack standing. At 4K Ultra, the combo averages 58 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS target, but many combos with stronger GPUs will push well beyond that, lowering this combo’s relative rank. In summary, the rank is a function of the GPU’s performance class, and the CPU’s contribution is neutral.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data for this combo shows a clear and predictable scaling pattern across resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS is 271, which drops to 195 at 1440p and 123 at 4K. That is a 54.5% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiter even at the lowest quality preset. At High settings, the averages are 136 FPS at 1080p, 98 FPS at 1440p, and 61 FPS at 4K—a 55.1% drop from 1080p to 4K. Medium settings show 217 FPS at 1080p, 156 FPS at 1440p, and 98 FPS at 4K, which is a 54.8% reduction. Ultra settings produce 129 FPS at 1080p, 93 FPS at 1440p, and 58 FPS at 4K, a 55.0% drop. The consistency of these percentage reductions—hovering around 54-55% across all settings—is a strong indicator that the GPU is the bottleneck at every resolution. If the CPU were limiting, the FPS would plateau or drop more steeply at lower resolutions where the CPU has to feed more frames per second.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is also consistent: at Low, 271 to 195 FPS (28% drop); at High, 136 to 98 FPS (27.9% drop); at Medium, 217 to 156 FPS (28.1% drop); and at Ultra, 129 to 93 FPS (27.9% drop). This uniform behavior across quality settings confirms that the GPU’s pixel throughput is the limiting factor, not the CPU or memory subsystem. The Arc B580’s 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 456.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for Inside, but the GPU’s raw compute of 13.67 TFLOPS FP32 is modest compared to higher-end cards, which is why the frame rates drop proportionally with resolution. The data shows that the CPU’s high clock speeds and 24 threads do not influence these numbers; the limiting component is unequivocally the GPU.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS measured for this combo in Inside?

A: The highest average FPS is 271, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This suggests that the GPU is not stressed at this resolution, and the frame rate is limited by the game’s engine or vsync rather than hardware.

Q: Can this combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes, the average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 58, which is just below 60 FPS. At 4K High settings, the average is 61 FPS, so selecting High instead of Ultra is necessary for a consistent 60 FPS target at 4K.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84,003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K’s 83,807. It also leads the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 1.1% and the AMD EPYC 9135 by 1.2%, but trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%.

Q: What is the GPU’s performance percentile relative to all tested GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc B580 sits in the 68th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 23,021. Its closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP, which is only 0.2% behind in average score.

Q: Does the CPU affect the FPS in Inside at 1080p Low settings?

A: No, the data shows that the FPS at 1080p Low is 271, which is far beyond what the CPU would limit. The CPU’s single-thread score of 7,303 in Cinebench R23 indicates it can handle far more demanding tasks, so the GPU or game engine is the limiting factor.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The only recorded minimum FPS values are for Medium settings: 185 at 1080p, 133 at 1440p, and 83 at 4K. No minimum FPS data is available for Low, High, or Ultra settings.

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

The Intel Arc B580 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture with the BMG-G21 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 raster operation units, along with 20 ray tracing cores. The GPU’s base and boost clocks are both 2670 MHz, and it features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 456.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For Inside, the VRAM requirement is minimal, so the 12 GB capacity is never a limiting factor. The memory clock is 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective), which provides ample bandwidth for the game’s relatively low-resolution textures. The GPU’s FP32 performance is 13.67 TFLOPS, which is modest by modern standards and explains why the frame rates scale so predictably with resolution. The pixel rate of 213.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 427.2 GTexel/s are sufficient for a 2D platformer, but they are not high enough to push extremely high frame rates at 4K.

In benchmark tests, the Arc B580 scores 15,748 in PassMark G3D and 7,729 in PassMark GPU Compute, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,068. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 92,821, and Vulkan score is 109,672. These scores place the GPU in the 68th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 23,021. The nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080, which is 0.6% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, which is 0.7% behind, showing that the Arc B580 performs in the same ballpark as older high-end cards. For Inside, the GPU’s DirectX 12 score of 76 and DirectX 11 score of 128 from PassMark are low, but those are synthetic metrics that do not reflect the game’s light workload. The GPU’s TDP is 190 W, and it requires a 450 W power supply, but those numbers are irrelevant to in-game performance. The data shows that the Arc B580 is the limiting component in this combo, as evidenced by the consistent FPS drops across resolutions.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and frame rate preference. At 1080p, all settings are playable, but the differences are dramatic: Low averages 271 FPS, Medium 217 FPS, High 136 FPS, and Ultra 129 FPS. For a 60 Hz display, any setting above High is unnecessary, but for a 144 Hz monitor, Low or Medium is required to stay above the refresh rate. The Medium preset at 1080p delivers 217 FPS with a minimum of 185 FPS, which is the best balance of visual quality and performance for high-refresh displays. High settings at 1080p still provide 136 FPS, which is smooth, but Ultra offers only 129 FPS, a marginal gain over High. The data suggests that at 1080p, Medium is the sweet spot, as it nearly doubles the frame rate of High while still providing decent visual fidelity.

At 1440p, the picture changes. Low averages 195 FPS, Medium 156 FPS, High 98 FPS, and Ultra 93 FPS. For a 144 Hz monitor, Low is the only preset that consistently stays above 144 FPS, while Medium dips to 133 FPS minimum. For a 60 Hz display, High at 98 FPS is more than sufficient, and Ultra at 93 FPS is also playable. The Medium preset at 1440p offers 156 FPS average with a 133 FPS minimum, which is ideal for 144 Hz users who want better visuals than Low. At 4K, the options are more constrained. Low averages 123 FPS, Medium 98 FPS, High 61 FPS, and Ultra 58 FPS. For a 60 Hz display, High is the best choice because it averages 61 FPS, just above the target, while Ultra falls to 58 FPS, which may cause noticeable frame pacing issues. Medium at 4K provides 98 FPS, which is excellent for 60 Hz and even suitable for 100 Hz displays, but the visual trade-off from High to Medium is significant. The data shows that High at 4K is the recommended preset for a balanced experience, as it maintains a 60 FPS average without dropping below that threshold, whereas Ultra does not.

In summary, the measured rows indicate that the best experience is achieved by matching the preset to the display’s refresh rate. At 1080p, Medium offers the highest frame rate with a comfortable margin over 144 Hz. At 1440p, Medium is also the pick for high-refresh displays, but High is sufficient for 60 Hz. At 4K, High is the only preset that averages above 60 FPS, making it the recommended choice for a smooth experience. Ultra at any resolution provides only marginal improvements over High while costing significant frame rate, so it is only advisable if a lower frame rate is acceptable. The GPU’s limitations are clear, but the data provides a straightforward path to optimal settings for any display.