Inside

Inside is a side-scrolling puzzle platformer from 2016 that asks very little of modern hardware, yet the benchmark data for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 reveals a fascinating study in component scaling. The game is not a demanding showcase title, but the measured frames per second across resolutions and settings provide clear signals about where the bottleneck lies—and it is almost never the CPU.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on a 3 nm process from TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a thermal design power of 125 W. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a 36 MB shared L3 cache. It supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and uses the Intel Socket 1851.

For a game like Inside, which is a 2D cinematic platformer with limited physics simulation, the CPU is largely idle. The benchmark results across all measured settings and resolutions show no scenario where the processor becomes the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 378 FPS average; at 4K Low, it still manages 171 FPS. These numbers are almost entirely dictated by the GPU, not the CPU. The processor’s single-thread performance is strong—evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4823—but Inside does not need that strength. The game’s threads are few and light, so the 24-core design offers no tangible advantage in this title.

The data suggests that the CPU’s role here is purely to stay out of the way. With a PassMark multithread score of 60860 and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731, the processor has ample headroom for any background tasks or streaming software, but the game itself will never push it past a fraction of its capacity. Even at the highest settings and lowest resolution, where frame rates peak, the CPU is not the constraint. The measured FPS at 1080p Ultra is 180, which is still far below what the processor could theoretically support. In short, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is vastly overqualified for Inside, but that is not a criticism—it simply means the game’s performance is governed entirely by the graphics card.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 ranks 986th out of 2887 tested combos for Inside. This places the pairing in the 66th percentile of all systems measured, meaning it outperforms roughly two-thirds of the tested configurations. That is a solid result, but not a top-tier one, and the reason is clear: the RTX 3070 is a mid-range card from the Ampere generation, and Inside is not a game that rewards extreme CPU power.

Compared to the CPU’s nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus sits at the top of its class. Its average benchmark score is 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807) and 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090). It is 1.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9135 (82980), while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072) by 1.3%. These deltas are tiny, and in a game like Inside, they translate to zero measurable difference in frame rate. The CPU’s ranking among all processors is the 96th percentile, so it is a top-tier chip, but the combo rank is pulled down by the GPU.

The GPU, meanwhile, ranks at the 61st percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 17208. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (0.7% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (1% faster), and the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (1.1% faster), while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c is 1.5% slower. These are not modern competitors; they are older or lower-tier parts, which underscores that the RTX 3070 is a capable but not exceptional performer in 2025. The combo’s 986th place ranking reflects this balance: the CPU is elite, the GPU is mid-pack, and the game is light enough that the GPU still dictates the outcome.

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

The resolution scaling data for Inside is a textbook example of GPU-bound behavior. At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 189 FPS at 1080p to 136 FPS at 1440p, then to 85 FPS at 4K. That is a 28% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 55% drop from 1080p to 4K. The pattern is consistent across all settings, with the deltas growing as resolution increases.

At Low settings, the FPS goes from 378 at 1080p to 272 at 1440p (a 28% drop) to 171 at 4K (a 55% drop from 1080p). At Medium, the numbers are 302, 217, and 136, respectively, with the same percentage drops. At Ultra, they are 180, 129, and 81. The uniformity of these percentage drops—28% and 55% in every case—is a clear indicator that the GPU is the sole bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting, the percentage drop would shrink as resolution increases, because the CPU work stays constant while GPU load grows. Instead, the consistent scaling shows that the RTX 3070 is running out of pixel-pushing capacity at higher resolutions.

The 4K numbers are telling. At 4K High, the combo averages 85 FPS, which is still playable, but at 4K Ultra it drops to 81 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is just 4 FPS, while at 1080p the same settings gap is 9 FPS. This compression at higher resolutions further confirms the GPU limit: at 4K, the card is already saturated, so additional settings tweaks yield diminishing returns. The 1080p Medium result of 302 FPS is the highest measured with a minimum frame rate of 257, which shows that even at lower resolutions, the GPU has headroom but the CPU is never the reason for a frame rate ceiling.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

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

A: The highest average is 378 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 302 FPS at 1080p Medium, followed by 189 FPS at 1080p High.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus bottleneck the RTX 3070 in this game?

A: No. The resolution scaling shows consistent percentage drops from 1080p to 4K across all settings, which indicates the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU’s 96th percentile ranking and high single-thread scores (7303 in Cinebench R23) are irrelevant here because the game is too light to stress it.

Q: How does the combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 986th out of 2887 tested combinations for Inside, placing it in the 66th percentile. This is above average, but not top-tier, largely because the RTX 3070 is a mid-range GPU that ranks at the 61st percentile among all graphics cards.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 4K at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 302 at 1080p to 217 at 1440p, then to 136 at 4K. This represents a 28% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 55% drop from 1080p to 4K.

Q: Is the RTX 3070 better or worse than its nearest rival, the Radeon RX 7600 XT?

A: The RTX 3070 has an average benchmark score of 17208, which is 0.7% lower than the Radeon RX 7600 XT’s score of 17083. This means the RX 7600 XT is marginally faster in synthetic benchmarks, but the difference is negligible in real-world gaming.

Q: What is the lowest average frame rate measured for this combo?

A: The lowest average is 81 FPS, measured at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. The next lowest is 85 FPS at 4K High, showing that even at maximum resolution and settings, the game remains playable.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 is built on the Ampere architecture with a GA104 chip, fabricated on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It features 5888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units, along with 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores. The card has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. Its base clock is 1500 MHz, boosting to 1725 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The GPU’s TDP is 220 W, and it was launched with an MSRP of 499 USD.

For Inside, the GPU is the clear performance driver, but the game’s demands are modest. The 8 GB VRAM is more than sufficient; the game is a 2D title with simple textures and no need for large asset streaming. The measured frame rates show that the RTX 3070 is not stressed at 1080p, where it can push 378 FPS on Low settings. Even at 4K, the card maintains 171 FPS on Low, which is well above refresh rates for most monitors.

The GPU’s performance relative to its peers is mid-pack. It ranks at the 61st percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 17208. The nearest rival, the Radeon RX 7600 XT, is only 0.7% faster, while the GTX 690 and HD 7970M are 1% and 1.1% faster, respectively. These are older cards, which suggests that the RTX 3070 is holding its own against newer budget options but is not competitive with higher-tier Ampere or Ada parts. In Inside, this translates to frame rates that are playable at all settings and resolutions, but not exceptionally high compared to what a top-end GPU might achieve.

The 4K Ultra result of 81 FPS is the weakest measured, but it is still above 60 FPS, meaning the card can handle the game at maximum settings without dropping below playable thresholds. The fact that the GPU is the bottleneck is confirmed by the consistent scaling pattern: the FPS drops by the same percentage from 1080p to 4K regardless of settings, which would not happen if the CPU were sharing the load.

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

The measured data offers four settings presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—across three resolutions. For the best experience, the choice depends on the target resolution and refresh rate, but the data points clearly to Medium as the sweet spot for most users.

At 1080p, Medium settings deliver 302 FPS average with a minimum of 257 and a maximum of 347. This is 124 FPS higher than High (189) and 122 FPS higher than Ultra (180), while Low tops out at 378. The difference between Medium and Low is 76 FPS, but Medium likely offers better visual quality without sacrificing smoothness. The minimum frame rate of 257 at 1080p Medium is far above any typical refresh rate (144 Hz or 165 Hz), so there is no risk of stutter. For competitive or high-refresh gaming, Low at 378 FPS is overkill, but Medium is the best balance.

At 1440p, Medium again stands out with 217 FPS average, a minimum of 185, and a maximum of 250. High delivers 136 FPS, and Ultra drops to 129. Low is 272. The gap from Medium to High is 81 FPS, which is significant, and the minimum of 185 FPS at Medium is still above 144 Hz. For 1440p users, Medium is the recommended preset because it keeps the frame rate well above 144 FPS while offering better visuals than Low.

At 4K, the situation changes. Medium delivers 136 FPS, while High drops to 85 and Ultra to 81. Low is 171. The gap from Medium to High is 51 FPS, which is noticeable, but the 4K Medium result of 136 FPS is still excellent for a 4K display, which typically runs at 60 Hz or 120 Hz. High at 85 FPS is also playable, but Ultra at 81 FPS is only marginally better visually and offers no frame rate advantage. For 4K, Medium is the clear winner, as it provides the highest average frame rate below Low while maintaining a minimum of 116 FPS (the only measured minimum at 4K).

Overall, the data suggests that Medium is the optimal preset across all resolutions. It offers the best combination of frame rate and visual fidelity, with minimums that never drop below 116 FPS. Ultra, by contrast, provides only a small visual improvement over High at a steep frame rate cost—at 1080p, Ultra is 9 FPS slower than High, and at 4K, it is 4 FPS slower. Low is only useful for maximizing frame rate beyond 300 FPS, which is unnecessary for a puzzle platformer. The recommendation is to set the game to Medium and enjoy a smooth, visually pleasing experience at any resolution.