Inside

The pairing of Intel’s 24-core Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 1650 creates a striking imbalance. The CPU sits in the 96th percentile of all processors, while the GPU lands in the 40th percentile. This combination ranks 2780th out of 2887 tested combos for Inside, placing it in the bottom 4% of systems. The data reveals a platform where the processor’s immense headroom is almost entirely unused, as the graphics card becomes the definitive bottleneck across every measurable scenario.

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, operating at a base clock of 3.70 GHz with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. This Arrow Lake Refresh part, built on a 3 nm process, is a compute powerhouse by any measure. In Cinebench R23, it scores 51,731 points in multi-core and 7,303 points in single-core tests. Its PassMark multithreaded score of 60,860 and single-thread score of 4,823 further confirm its position among the fastest desktop processors available. The 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 115.2 GB/s of dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth provide ample data throughput for any workload.

However, Inside is a puzzle platformer that does not demand high core counts. The game’s logic, physics, and rendering pipeline rely on a few threads rather than all 24. Benchmark results show this clearly: at 1080p Low, the system hits 134 FPS average, which is far from the CPU’s theoretical ceiling. The CPU’s nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scores nearly identically with an average benchmark score of 83,807 versus 84,003, a delta of only 0.2%. This means the 290K Plus is not a unique performance outlier; it simply sits at the top of a very crowded field.

The CPU’s role in this combo is essentially passive. At 1080p, where the GPU is less stressed, the CPU still does not become the limiting factor. The jump from 67 FPS at High settings to 134 FPS at Low settings at 1080p shows that the graphics card’s workload changes dramatically with settings, while the CPU’s frame generation remains consistent. Had the CPU been a bottleneck, the FPS differences between settings would be smaller. Instead, the data indicates that even at its fastest, this processor is waiting for the GPU to finish its work. The 5.80 GHz boost clock is effectively overkill for a game like Inside, where the CPU’s single-threaded performance, while excellent, is never fully utilized.

The PassMark data compression score of 698,346 and encryption score of 52,563 are impressive for productivity, but irrelevant here. The CPU’s 96th percentile standing among all CPUs means it outperforms 96% of tested processors, yet this does not translate to proportional gains in this game. The benchmark results suggest that a far less powerful CPU would produce nearly identical frame rates in Inside, given the same GPU. This is a case where the processor’s capabilities are entirely theoretical for this specific workload.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear limiting component in this system. With 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, it delivers 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its TU117 chip, built on a 12 nm process, contains 896 shading units and operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz with a boost of 1665 MHz. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 7,880 places it in the 40th percentile of all graphics cards, and its average benchmark score of 7,472 is nearly identical to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, which scores 7,447 (a 0.3% difference). The Intel Arc A310 is slightly faster at 7,550, a 1% delta, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 trails at 7,441.

In this game, the GTX 1650’s performance is the story. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 134 FPS, which is playable but not exceptional for a game from 2016. The GPU’s 4 GB VRAM is sufficient for Inside at lower settings, but the data shows that as settings increase, frame rates collapse. The GTX 1650’s DirectX 12 score of 35 in PassMark is low, and while Inside is not a demanding title, the GPU’s raw throughput is simply not enough to maintain high frame rates at higher quality presets.

The GPU’s boost clock of 1665 MHz is modest, and its 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is a fraction of what modern cards offer. This is reflected in the measured FPS: at 1080p Ultra, the system manages only 64 FPS, which is half of the Low setting’s 134 FPS. The GPU’s 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate it is an entry-level part, and the benchmark data confirms this. The GTX 1650’s nearest rivals are all low-end or integrated solutions, underscoring its position at the bottom of the discrete GPU market. For Inside, the GPU’s memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s is the key constraint; at higher resolutions and settings, this bandwidth becomes saturated, leading to the sharp FPS drops observed.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of resolution scaling that points directly to the GPU as the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system averages 134 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 97 FPS, a 28% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 61 FPS, a further 37% drop from 1440p. This scaling is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, where increasing pixel count directly increases the workload on the graphics card.

At Medium settings, the pattern continues. 1080p Medium averages 107 FPS, 1440p Medium drops to 77 FPS, and 4K Medium falls to 49 FPS. The frame time data at Medium settings shows a minimum of 91 FPS at 1080p and 66 FPS at 1440p, indicating that even the slower frames are still above 60 FPS at these resolutions. However, at 4K Medium, the minimum FPS of 41 suggests occasional stutters. The CPU’s role in this scaling is minimal; its performance is constant across resolutions, so the FPS changes are almost entirely attributable to the GPU.

High settings show a similar trend: 67 FPS at 1080p, 48 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K. This halving of frame rates from 1080p to 4K is a classic sign of a GPU that is overwhelmed by pixel throughput. Ultra settings are even more revealing. At 1080p Ultra, the system averages 64 FPS, which drops to 46 FPS at 1440p and 29 FPS at 4K. The fact that 4K Ultra produces less than 30 FPS average demonstrates that this combination cannot handle the game’s highest quality preset at modern resolutions.

The resolution scaling data implies that the CPU is never the limiting factor, even at 1080p Low where the GPU has the least work. If the CPU were the constraint, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions. Instead, each resolution increase results in a proportional FPS drop, which is the hallmark of a GPU-bound system. The 290K Plus has so much headroom that it could likely drive far more powerful GPUs without breaking a sweat, but paired with the GTX 1650, its potential is locked away.

FAQ

Q: Why does this system rank so low (2780th out of 2887) despite having a top-tier CPU?

A: The combo rank reflects the overall system balance, not individual component strength. The CPU is in the 96th percentile, but the GPU is in the 40th percentile. The low rank indicates that this pairing yields poor overall gaming performance for Inside, as the GPU severely limits the system.

*Q: Can this system achieve 60 FPS in Inside at 1080p?*

A: Yes, but only at certain settings. At 1080p Low, the average is 134 FPS, and at Medium, it is 107 FPS. However, at High, the average drops to 67 FPS, and at Ultra, it falls to 64 FPS. All 1080p presets exceed 60 FPS on average, but the margin shrinks as settings increase.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain a smooth experience?

A: Based on the data, 1080p is the only resolution where all settings maintain an average above 60 FPS. At 1440p, only Low (97 FPS) and Medium (77 FPS) exceed 60 FPS, while High (48 FPS) and Ultra (46 FPS) do not. At 4K, no setting reaches 60 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7,472, while the Radeon HD 8850M scores 7,447. This is a delta of 0.3%, meaning the two are virtually identical in synthetic benchmarks. In real gaming, the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and modern architecture may offer advantages, but the data shows they are closely matched.

Q: Is the CPU’s 24-core configuration beneficial for this game?

A: No. Inside is a puzzle platformer that does not scale with core count. The benchmark results show that the CPU’s massive multi-core potential (51,731 in Cinebench R23) is not utilized, as the game is GPU-bound. A smaller CPU would likely produce the same frame rates.

Q: What does the 4K Low setting result of 61 FPS imply about the GPU’s capabilities?

A: It suggests that the GTX 1650 can handle the game at 4K only with minimal graphical fidelity. The jump from 61 FPS at Low to 49 FPS at Medium at 4K shows a significant performance cost for even modest quality improvements, indicating the GPU is near its limits at this resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2780 out of 2887 places this system in the bottom 3.7% of all tested combinations for Inside. This is a remarkably low position, especially given the CPU’s elite status. The rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU’s weakness. The GTX 1650’s 40th percentile standing among all GPUs means it is slower than 60% of graphics cards, and this is the primary determinant of the combo’s rank.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each component provides context. The CPU’s closest competitor, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, has a nearly identical average score (83,807 vs. 84,003), so swapping the CPU would not change the rank. The GPU’s rivals, such as the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and Intel UHD Graphics 750, are similarly low-performing, meaning this combo is at the bottom of the performance spectrum. The data indicates that to improve this rank, the GPU would need to be replaced with a significantly faster model, as the CPU is not the limiting factor.

The rank also implies that most other systems tested with Inside deliver better performance. This is expected, as the GTX 1650 is an entry-level card from 2019, while the game is from 2016. The CPU’s presence in this combo is almost an anomaly; it is like pairing a race car engine with bicycle wheels. The benchmark results confirm that the system’s overall performance is dictated by the weakest link, which is unequivocally the GPU.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and frame rate. For a smooth 60 FPS experience at 1080p, all presets are viable, but Medium (107 FPS) offers a good balance between visual quality and performance. High (67 FPS) and Ultra (64 FPS) are also above 60 FPS, but the marginal gains in fidelity are minor for the performance cost.

At 1440p, the choice is more constrained. Low (97 FPS) and Medium (77 FPS) both provide smooth gameplay, but High (48 FPS) and Ultra (46 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS threshold. For the best visual experience while maintaining acceptable performance, Medium at 1440p is the recommended preset. It delivers 77 FPS average with a minimum of 66 FPS, ensuring no significant stutters.

At 4K, no setting achieves 60 FPS. Low (61 FPS) is the only preset that comes close, and it is the only viable option for a playable experience. Medium (49 FPS) and High (30 FPS) are too slow, and Ultra (29 FPS) is essentially unplayable. The data suggests that 4K gaming is not recommended for this combo, and users should stick to 1080p or 1440p for the best experience.

The best overall experience is at 1080p Medium, which offers 107 FPS average, a minimum of 91 FPS, and a maximum of 124 FPS. This provides a large performance cushion while still rendering the game with decent detail. For users prioritizing visual quality over frame rate, 1080p Ultra at 64 FPS is acceptable, but the difference between Medium and Ultra is not worth the 40% performance drop.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system’s performance across all tested scenarios. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 134 FPS at Low settings, 107 FPS at Medium (with a minimum of 91 and maximum of 124), 67 FPS at High, and 64 FPS at Ultra. This shows a clear degradation as settings increase, with the largest relative drop occurring between Low and Medium (27 FPS) and the smallest between High and Ultra (3 FPS).

At 2560x1440, the FPS figures are 97 at Low, 77 at Medium (minimum 66, maximum 89), 48 at High, and 46 at Ultra. The transition from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 30-35% of performance across all settings, which is consistent with the increased pixel count. The Medium preset maintains a playable 77 FPS, but High and Ultra both dip below the 60 FPS mark.

At 3840x2160, the system manages 61 FPS at Low, 49 FPS at Medium (minimum 41, maximum 56), 30 FPS at High, and 29 FPS at Ultra. The 4K results are the most telling: only Low settings approach playability, and even then, the margin is slim. The drop from 1440p Low (97 FPS) to 4K Low (61 FPS) is a 37% reduction, while the 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra drop (46 to 29 FPS) is a 37% reduction as well. This consistent scaling confirms that the GPU is the sole bottleneck.

The minimum FPS data, available only for Medium settings, shows that the system can maintain frame rates close to the average. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 91 FPS against a 107 FPS average, a 15% deviation. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 66 FPS against a 77 FPS average, a 14% deviation. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 41 FPS against a 49 FPS average, a 16% deviation. This consistency suggests that the GTX 1650 does not have severe frame pacing issues, but simply lacks the raw power to push higher frame rates. The data paints a clear picture: this is a GPU-limited system where the CPU’s potential is untapped, and the only way to improve performance is to replace the graphics card.