Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that, on this hardware pairing, reveals a surprisingly steep performance curve across resolutions and presets. The measured data shows a system that can deliver extremely high frame rates at 1080p but struggles to maintain smoothness at 4K, indicating a clear bottleneck that shifts depending on the settings chosen. The combination of the 16-core Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and the AMD Radeon 880M integrated graphics produces a wide spread of results, from a playable 30 FPS at 4K High to a blistering 131 FPS at 1080p Low, making the choice of resolution and preset far more consequential than in many other titles.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and exposes the GPU as the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 131 at 1920x1080 to 94 at 2560x1440, a 28% reduction, and then plummets to 59 at 3840x2160, a further 37% drop from the 1440p figure. This steep decline is characteristic of a system where the integrated graphics unit is being pushed to its absolute limits, as the pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, demanding exponentially more fill rate and memory bandwidth than the Radeon 880M can physically provide.

The scaling pattern at Medium settings tells a similar story, albeit with lower absolute numbers. The average FPS here goes from 105 at 1080p, down to 75 at 1440p, and finally to 47 at 4K. The incremental drops of 29% and 37% respectively show a consistent and severe penalty for each step up in resolution. This is not a case where the CPU begins to limit performance at lower resolutions, as the gap between 1080p and 1440p remains significant. The data suggests that even at 1080p, the GPU is working hard, and the headroom that a powerful CPU might offer is largely untapped because the graphics pipeline is saturated.

Interestingly, the scaling at High and Ultra presets is slightly less extreme in percentage terms but starts from much lower base frame rates. For High, the average drops from 66 FPS at 1080p to 47 FPS at 1440p and then to 30 FPS at 4K. For Ultra, the figures are 62, 45, and 28 FPS respectively. While the percentage drops are similar, the absolute values mean that the 4K experience is borderline unplayable, hovering around the 30 FPS mark. The data implies that the GPU's fixed resources, particularly its 16 ROPs and 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, are simply overwhelmed by the 8.3 million pixels at 4K, regardless of the visual complexity being rendered.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is the decisive component in this system's gaming performance, and its characteristics directly explain the observed frame rates. With a boost clock of 2900 MHz and 768 shading units, the GPU has a theoretical peak of 4.454 TFLOPS, a figure that places it in the lower-midrange of the GPU percentile rankings at 43. This is an integrated graphics solution, meaning it shares system memory for its VRAM, with the memory size, type, and bus width all listed as "System Shared" and bandwidth as "System Dependent". This architectural choice is a critical bottleneck, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory access, and the bandwidth available is not dedicated solely to graphics tasks.

The benchmark results for the GPU reinforce its modest standing. Its Passmark G3D score of 7615 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 535 are indicative of a part designed for light gaming and productivity, not high-end 4K rendering. In the context of its nearest rivals, the Radeon 880M sits within 1.3% of the AMD Radeon R9 M375X and is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX. This comparison is telling: the 880M is competing with discrete graphics cards from over a decade ago, which explains why 4K gaming is such a struggle. The data shows that the GPU's VRAM allocation being system-dependent means that at 4K, where frame buffers are large, memory pressure likely contributes to the low frame rates, as the shared memory interface becomes a severe constraint.

The GPU's role is further highlighted by the fact that the minimum FPS figures are only provided for the Medium preset across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 89 FPS, at 1440p it is 64 FPS, and at 4K it is 40 FPS. These minimums show that the frame pacing is relatively stable, without massive drops, but the overall level is low. This suggests the GPU is consistently saturated rather than experiencing intermittent spikes in load. The 12 ray tracing cores are present but offer no tangible benefit in a game like Inside, which does not utilize RT effects, meaning they sit idle while the traditional rasterization pipeline carries the entire load.

How This Combo Ranks

Looking at the broader picture, this specific combination of CPU and GPU ranks at 2816 out of 2887 tested combos in Inside, placing it in the bottom 2.5% of all systems. This ranking is a stark indicator that while the individual components may have their merits, their pairing for this game is not optimal. The CPU itself is a strong performer, sitting at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, but the GPU's 43rd percentile ranking drags the overall gaming experience down significantly. The combo rank reflects the reality that gaming performance, especially in a GPU-bound scenario like Inside at higher resolutions, is dictated by the weakest link.

The performance data suggests that this combo is far better suited to 1080p gaming than anything higher. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 131 FPS, which is in the field of high-refresh-rate monitors, and even at 1080p Medium it hits 105 FPS. However, the rank of 2816 out of 2887 shows that other tested combinations are overwhelmingly faster. The nearest CPU rivals, such as the Intel Core 7 253PE and AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, have nearly identical average benchmark scores, with deltas of -0.1% and 0.2% respectively, but their pairing with different GPUs would likely yield vastly superior frame rates in this game. The data indicates that the CPU is not the constraint here; it is the GPU that is holding the combo back from climbing the ranks.

This poor rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's limitations. While the CPU's high single-threaded performance, evidenced by its 3984 score in Cinebench R23, could theoretically drive high frame rates, the GPU cannot keep up with the rendering demands. The measured FPS data confirms this, as even at 1080p Low, the 131 FPS average is likely limited by the GPU's pixel throughput, not the CPU's ability to process game logic. The combo rank serves as a cautionary tale that a powerful CPU cannot compensate for a weak GPU in a graphically intensive scenario.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings for this hardware depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset appears to be the sweet spot, delivering an average of 105 FPS with a minimum of 89 FPS. This provides a smooth, responsive experience that takes advantage of the CPU's capabilities while keeping the GPU from being the sole bottleneck. While Low settings push the average to 131 FPS, the visual fidelity loss is likely not worth the extra 26 FPS, and High settings drop the average to 66 FPS, which, while playable, is a significant step down in smoothness. The data shows that Medium at 1080p offers the best balance of fluidity and visual quality.

For 2560x1440, the situation is more precarious. The Low preset achieves a respectable 94 FPS, making it the only 1440p option that provides a clearly smooth experience. Medium drops to 75 FPS, which is still acceptable for many players, but the minimum of 64 FPS suggests occasional dips that could be noticeable. High and Ultra at 1440p, at 47 and 45 FPS respectively, are on the borderline of playability and should be avoided if a consistent 60 FPS is desired. The data suggests that for 1440p gaming, players should stick to Low or Medium presets to maintain a fluid experience.

At 3840x2160, the data paints a grim picture. The Low preset averages 59 FPS, which is technically playable but not ideal. Medium drops to 47 FPS, and High and Ultra fall to 30 and 28 FPS respectively, which are below the threshold for smooth gameplay. Given these numbers, 4K gaming on this combo is not recommended. If a player must use a 4K display, the Low preset is the only viable option, and even then, the experience will be subpar compared to 1080p. The data clearly indicates that this system is a 1080p machine for this game, with 1440p being a stretch and 4K being largely an exercise in frustration.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Inside at 4K smoothly?

A: The data shows that at 4K, the average FPS ranges from 28 on Ultra to 59 on Low. The Low preset is the only one that approaches a playable frame rate, while Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 50 FPS, with High and Ultra sitting at 30 and 28 FPS respectively. This indicates that 4K gaming is not a smooth experience on this hardware.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware in Inside?

A: According to the measured FPS, 1920x1080 is the optimal resolution. At 1080p, even the High preset achieves 66 FPS, while Low and Medium reach 131 and 105 FPS respectively. This is the only resolution where the system can consistently deliver high frame rates across multiple presets.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 880M compare to its direct rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 8436 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, which scores 8427, a delta of 0.1%. It is also within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and 1.3% of the AMD Radeon R9 M375X. This shows it is performance-competitive with older discrete mobile GPUs.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck for this game?

A: The benchmark results indicate the CPU is not the limiting factor. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H ranks in the 87th percentile of all CPUs and has a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28221. The steep frame rate drops at higher resolutions are attributable to the GPU's 43rd percentile ranking and its 4.454 TFLOPS compute capacity.

Q: What is the lowest frame rate recorded for the Medium preset?

A: For the Medium preset, the minimum FPS was recorded as 89 at 1920x1080, 64 at 2560x1440, and 40 at 3840x2160. These figures show that the frame pacing remains relatively consistent, but the overall performance level declines sharply with increased resolution.

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

A: The combination of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and AMD Radeon 880M ranks 2816 out of 2887 tested combos in Inside. This places it in the bottom 2.5% of all systems, indicating that while it can run the game, most other hardware configurations will deliver significantly higher performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its benchmark results are strong, with a Passmark multithread score of 32956 and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28221, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. This level of performance suggests that the CPU is more than capable of handling the game's logic and physics, which are not particularly demanding for a 2016 puzzle platformer. The 18 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel LPDDR5X memory support provide ample bandwidth for the CPU's operations.

However, the CPU's role in the gaming performance is largely secondary to the GPU. The data shows that the frame rates are primarily dictated by the graphics card, especially at resolutions above 1080p. The CPU's high single-threaded performance, evidenced by its 3984 score in Cinebench R23 single-core, is more than sufficient to feed the GPU with draw calls and game state updates. The fact that the frame rate drops by roughly 30% to 40% with each resolution increase, regardless of preset, is a hallmark of a GPU bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions, which is clearly not the case.

The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core 7 253PE and AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, have nearly identical average benchmark scores, with deltas of -0.1% and 0.2% respectively. This indicates that swapping the CPU for another high-end model would have minimal impact on the game's performance, as the GPU would still be the constraint. The data implies that the Ultra X7 368H is a future-proof component that will not hinder gaming performance in this title, but its potential is unrealized due to the weaker GPU. The 25W TDP and 3nm process node also suggest efficient operation, but these factors do not directly translate to higher frame rates in a GPU-bound scenario.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset for Inside provides a clear picture of performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers an average of 131 FPS on Low, 105 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 89 and maximum of 121), 66 FPS on High, and 62 FPS on Ultra. The 1080p results show a wide range, with the Low preset nearly doubling the frame rate of the Ultra preset, indicating that the GPU's fill rate is a major factor even at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop significantly: 94 FPS on Low, 75 FPS on Medium (minimum 64, maximum 87), 47 FPS on High, and 45 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows in percentage terms, but the absolute difference of 49 FPS remains substantial. The 1440p data shows that the system can still achieve high frame rates on lower presets, but the higher presets begin to struggle, falling below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the performance is the most constrained: 59 FPS on Low, 47 FPS on Medium (minimum 40, maximum 55), 30 FPS on High, and 28 FPS on Ultra. The 4K results show that only the Low preset can achieve a frame rate close to 60 FPS, while all other presets fall below 50 FPS, with High and Ultra being effectively unplayable at under 30 FPS. This breakdown confirms that the AMD Radeon 880M is the definitive bottleneck, as the frame rates scale almost linearly with the pixel count, and the CPU's high performance cannot overcome the GPU's fundamental lack of rendering power at higher resolutions.