Inside

Inside pairs the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti, and the measured frame rates across all resolutions and presets confirm this is a combination built to saturate high-refresh-rate displays in this puzzle platformer. The data shows a system capable of triple-digit averages even at 4K with Ultra settings, with the only meaningful bottleneck appearing at the lowest preset where CPU overhead becomes the limiting factor. This analysis walks through the CPU and GPU contributions, settings behavior, and resolution scaling using only the measured rows and benchmark context provided.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus brings 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. This Arrow Lake Refresh part, built on a TSMC 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die, is clearly a high-end desktop processor. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and single-core score of 7303 indicate massive headroom for any game workload, but Inside is a puzzle platformer that does not stress multi-threading heavily. The PassMark multithread score of 60860 and single-thread score of 4823 reinforce that this CPU excels in both parallel and single-threaded tasks.

The relevant question for Inside is whether the CPU ever limits the GPU. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 442, which is the highest measured value in the entire dataset. This suggests that at 1080p with minimal GPU load, the CPU is still able to push frames well beyond what most displays can show, but the 442 FPS ceiling is likely set by the game engine or CPU single-thread performance rather than the RTX 4070 Ti. Comparing the Ultra 9 290K Plus to its nearest rivals, it scores 0.2% above the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (avg score 83807 vs 84003), 1.1% above the AMD EPYC 4584PX, and 1.2% above the AMD EPYC 9135. It lags 1.3% behind the AMD EPYC 7F72. These deltas are negligible in gaming terms, meaning the CPU is not the differentiator here.

At higher resolutions and settings, the CPU’s role diminishes. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 116, which is far below the CPU’s capability. The L3 cache is 36 MB shared, and each core has 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2, which is ample for a game like Inside that has modest data footprint. The 24 threads might be overkill for this title, but the high boost clock of 5.80 GHz ensures that any single-threaded bottleneck is minimized. The percentileVsAllCpus of 96 confirms this is a top-tier processor, and the data shows it never becomes the limiting component in any of the 12 measured configurations—the FPS scales consistently with resolution and settings, which is typical of a GPU-bound scenario.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is an Ada Lovelace part with 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 2310 MHz with a boost of 2610 MHz, and the memory runs at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective). The GPU has 7680 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, with 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores. It delivers 40.09 TFLOPS FP32 and a pixel rate of 208.8 GPixel/s. In PassMark G3D, it scores 31624, and its percentileVsAllGpus is 84, meaning it outperforms the majority of GPUs but is not at the very top.

For Inside, the GPU is the primary driver of frame rates. At 1080p Low, the GPU is underutilized, allowing the CPU to push 442 FPS. But as the resolution increases, the GPU load grows. At 1440p High, the average is 194 FPS, and at 4K High it is 122 FPS. The 12 GB VRAM is more than sufficient for a puzzle platformer, even at 4K Ultra, so VRAM capacity is not a constraint. The GPU’s nearest rivals show it is closely matched with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile (deltaPct -0.8), AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (-1.3), and Intel Arc A730M (-1.7), while it is 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A6000. These small deltas mean the RTX 4070 Ti’s performance is well understood, and in Inside it consistently delivers playable frame rates.

The GPU’s 285 W TDP and dual-slot design are typical for this class, but the measured FPS tells the story: even at 4K Ultra, the average of 116 FPS is far above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The 40.09 TFLOPS is more than enough for the game’s simple geometry and lighting. The only configuration where the GPU might not be the sole bottleneck is 1080p Low, where the 442 FPS average suggests the CPU or engine cap is reached, but that is an extreme edge case.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide clear guidance on which preset offers the best experience. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 442 FPS, Medium 408 FPS, High 269 FPS, and Ultra 257 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is only 34 FPS, but from Medium to High there is a drop of 139 FPS, which is substantial. For most users with a 144 Hz or 165 Hz monitor at 1080p, High at 269 FPS is already well above the refresh rate, so Ultra at 257 FPS is nearly identical in practice. The data suggests that at 1080p, High is the sweet spot—it provides 269 FPS versus 257 FPS on Ultra, a negligible difference that favors lower GPU load.

At 1440p, the pattern repeats: Low gives 387 FPS, Medium 310 FPS, High 194 FPS, and Ultra 184 FPS. Here, High and Ultra are only 10 FPS apart, so either is viable. However, Medium at 310 FPS is dramatically higher than High, suggesting that the High preset introduces a significant effect that costs 116 FPS. For a puzzle platformer, the visual difference between Medium and High may not justify the frame rate drop, but 194 FPS is still exceptionally smooth. The recommendation is High for best visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness, as 194 FPS exceeds any consumer display’s refresh rate.

At 4K, the presets show a wider spread: Low at 243 FPS, Medium at 195 FPS, High at 122 FPS, and Ultra at 116 FPS. The drop from Medium to High is 73 FPS, which is significant, but 122 FPS is still high enough for a 120 Hz display. Ultra at 116 FPS is only 6 FPS slower than High, so the Ultra preset is nearly free in performance terms. The best experience at 4K is Ultra, since it offers the highest visual quality with an average of 116 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS standard and close to 120 Hz. The Medium preset at 195 FPS is overkill and would only be useful for a 165 Hz or 240 Hz 4K display, which is rare. Overall, the data indicates that High at 1080p, High at 1440p, and Ultra at 4K give the best balance of quality and speed.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank for this pairing in Inside is 128 out of 2887 tested combinations, placing it in the top 4.4% of all systems tested. This is a strong result, showing that the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and RTX 4070 Ti together are well-suited for this game. The rank reflects the high average FPS across all settings and resolutions, but it does not tell the whole story—the system is so fast that it often exceeds the refresh rate of typical monitors, making the rank more about raw capability than practical advantage.

Compared to other combos, this pairing is likely held back by the GPU rather than the CPU, since the CPU’s percentileVsAllCpus is 96 while the GPU’s percentileVsAllGpus is 84. In a game like Inside, the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as evidenced by the 4K Ultra average of 116 FPS versus 1080p Low at 442 FPS. The rank of 128 out of 2887 means there are 127 combos that are faster, likely featuring higher-end GPUs like the RTX 4090 or RX 7900 XTX, but for the RTX 4070 Ti’s class, this is an excellent result. The combo outperforms the median system by a wide margin, and the data shows no configuration where the CPU holds the GPU back, except possibly the 1080p Low extreme.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average is 442 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration where the CPU or engine might be the limiting factor, as the GPU is underutilized at that resolution and preset.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra compared to 1080p Low?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 116, while at 1920x1080 with Low settings it is 442. This represents a 73.7% drop in frame rate, indicating that the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck as resolution increases.

Q: Which settings preset gives the smoothest experience at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 387 FPS, Medium 310 FPS, High 194 FPS, and Ultra 184 FPS. High is recommended because it offers 194 FPS, which is well above the refresh rate of any consumer display, while providing better visual quality than Medium.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data shows the GPU is the limiting factor at most resolutions and settings, since FPS scales inversely with resolution and preset quality. The CPU only becomes a potential limit at 1080p Low, where 442 FPS is achieved, but this is far beyond typical display refresh rates.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 128 out of 2887 tested combinations, placing it in the top 4.4%. This is a strong result, reflecting the high performance of both the CPU and GPU in this title.

Q: What is the average FPS at 4K Medium?

A: At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 195, with a minimum of 166 and a maximum of 224. This shows that even at 4K, the combo can maintain high frame rates at moderate settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured averages are: Low 442 FPS, Medium 408 FPS (min 347, max 469), High 269 FPS, and Ultra 257 FPS. The Medium preset has the only min/max data in this resolution, showing a range of 347 to 469 FPS, which indicates some frame time variance but still consistently high performance. The step from Low to Medium is 34 FPS, from Medium to High is 139 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 12 FPS. This shows that the High preset introduces a significant cost over Medium, but Ultra is nearly identical to High.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 387 FPS, Medium 310 FPS (min 263, max 356), High 194 FPS, and Ultra 184 FPS. The Medium min/max range is 263 to 356 FPS, which is a 93 FPS spread, suggesting the game can have heavier scenes. The drop from Medium to High is 116 FPS, which is the largest single-step decrease in this resolution. High to Ultra is only 10 FPS, so Ultra is nearly free.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 243 FPS, Medium 195 FPS (min 166, max 224), High 122 FPS, and Ultra 116 FPS. The Medium min/max range is 166 to 224 FPS, a 58 FPS spread. The drop from Low to Medium is 48 FPS, from Medium to High is 73 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 6 FPS. At 4K, the Ultra preset is only 6 FPS slower than High, making it the best choice for maximum quality without a major FPS penalty.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drops from 1080p to 4K reveal how the workload shifts from CPU to GPU. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 442 at 1080p to 387 at 1440p (a 12.4% drop) and then to 243 at 4K (a 37.2% drop from 1440p). This steep decline at 4K Low indicates the GPU is becoming the limiting factor, even with minimal graphical effects. At Medium settings, the progression is 408 FPS at 1080p, 310 FPS at 1440p (a 24.0% drop), and 195 FPS at 4K (a 37.1% drop from 1440p). The consistent percentage drops suggest a smooth scaling curve.

At High settings, the FPS goes from 269 at 1080p to 194 at 1440p (a 27.9% drop) and then to 122 at 4K (a 37.1% drop from 1440p). This pattern shows that the GPU’s rendering load scales predictably with pixel count, with the 4K to 1440p drop being the most severe in absolute terms (72 FPS). At Ultra settings, the progression is 257 at 1080p, 184 at 1440p (a 28.4% drop), and 116 at 4K (a 37.0% drop from 1440p). The Ultra preset shows the smallest absolute difference between 1080p and 1440p (73 FPS) but the same relative drop to 4K.

The limiting component is clearly the GPU across all settings, as the CPU’s performance does not change with resolution. The fact that 1080p Low reaches 442 FPS while 4K Ultra is 116 FPS shows a 3.8x difference, which is more than the 4x pixel count increase (1920x1080 is 2.07 million pixels, 3840x2160 is 8.29 million, a 4x increase). This suggests that the GPU is not perfectly scaling with pixel count due to other bottlenecks like memory bandwidth or shading rate, but the RTX 4070 Ti’s 504.2 GB/s bandwidth is adequate. The data indicates that at 1080p, the system is so fast that the engine or CPU cap is reached, but at 4K, the GPU is fully utilized, making this a GPU-bound scenario for all practical purposes.