Inside

Inside is a puzzle platformer from 2016 that remains surprisingly demanding at high resolutions, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 produces a distinct scaling pattern that reveals a lot about where the bottleneck lies. The data shows a system that is overwhelmingly GPU-limited at 4K, but the CPU’s 16-core, 16-thread configuration ensures that even at lower resolutions, the frame rates stay exceptionally high without the processor becoming a liability. This is a pairing that prioritizes raw graphical headroom, and the measured results confirm that the RTX 5090 is the star of the show, while the Ultra X7 368H provides a stable, high-frequency foundation.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and tells a clear story about the limiting component in this system. At 1080p with High settings, the combo averages 241 FPS, but at 1440p that falls to 174 FPS, and at 4K it drops further to 109 FPS. That represents a 55% reduction in average FPS from 1080p to 4K on the High preset, which is a classic sign of a GPU-bound workload. The RTX 5090 is doing the heavy lifting, and as pixel count increases, its raw throughput becomes the primary constraint.

The Low settings preset amplifies this trend even further. At 1080p Low, the system hits 382 FPS, which drops to 342 FPS at 1440p and then plummets to 218 FPS at 4K. The 4K Low number is still very playable, but the delta between 1440p and 4K is a massive 124 FPS, showing that the GPU’s fill rate is being saturated. Interestingly, the Medium preset shows a tighter spread: 352 FPS at 1080p, 278 FPS at 1440p, and 175 FPS at 4K. The 4K Medium result of 175 FPS is actually higher than the 4K High result of 109 FPS, which suggests that the Medium preset is better balanced for this game’s rendering paths.

What is most telling is the comparison between the Ultra and High presets at each resolution. At 1080p, Ultra achieves 230 FPS while High achieves 241 FPS, a modest 11 FPS gap. At 1440p, the gap narrows to 9 FPS (165 vs 174), and at 4K, it shrinks to just 5 FPS (104 vs 109). This indicates that the Ultra preset is not adding much visual fidelity relative to its performance cost, and the GPU is already near its limit at 4K regardless of whether you choose High or Ultra. The data suggests that the CPU is never the bottleneck here; even at 1080p Low with 382 FPS, the Ultra X7 368H is feeding the GPU fast enough, and the frame rate is limited purely by the graphics card’s ability to process the scene.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a mobile processor with 16 cores and 16 threads, based on the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node. Its base clock is 2.00 GHz with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, and it carries 18 MB of shared L3 cache. In the context of Inside, this CPU is more than sufficient to keep up with the RTX 5090, and the benchmark data confirms that it does not introduce a frame rate ceiling at any resolution tested.

The processor’s single-thread performance is strong, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3984, which places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. This matters for a game like Inside, which, despite being a puzzle platformer, still relies on a primary game thread for physics and logic. The 5.00 GHz boost clock ensures that this thread is serviced quickly, and the measured FPS at 1080p Low (382 FPS) suggests that the CPU can handle extremely high frame rates without becoming a limiting factor.

Multi-threaded performance is equally robust, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28221. This is useful for background tasks and any secondary threads the game might spawn, but it is not the primary driver of Inside’s performance. The CPU’s PassMark multithread score of 32956 and its average benchmark score of 40518 put it in the same class as the Intel Core 7 253PE (40557, -0.1% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40431, 0.2% delta). This means that, in terms of overall compute capability, the Ultra X7 368H is essentially on par with those rivals, and the tiny differences in their scores would not translate into a measurable FPS difference in Inside.

What is notable is that the CPU’s TDP is only 25 W, which is remarkably low for a 16-core part. This suggests that the Ultra X7 368H is efficient, but it also means that sustained boost clocks could be limited by thermal headroom in a thin laptop chassis. However, the measured FPS data does not show any signs of CPU throttling, as the frame rates scale predictably with resolution and settings. The LPDDR5X memory support with a dual-channel bus and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for this game, and the PCIe Gen 5 x16 interface (with 4 CPU lanes) provides ample bandwidth for the RTX 5090 to communicate with the rest of the system.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is the dominant component in this pairing, and its specifications are staggering. It features 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s. The GPU has 21760 shading units, 680 TMUs, and 176 ROPs, with a base clock of 2017 MHz and a boost clock of 2407 MHz. Its FP32 performance is 104.8 TFLOPS, and it is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture using a 5 nm process node from TSMC, with a massive die size of 750 mm² containing 92,200 million transistors.

In Inside, the RTX 5090’s role is to push frame rates to the limits of what the game engine allows, and the data shows it succeeds admirably. At 1080p Medium, the combo achieves 352 FPS, and at 1080p Low, it reaches 382 FPS. These numbers are far beyond the refresh rate of most monitors, and they indicate that the GPU is not being stressed at this resolution. The 32 GB VRAM is overkill for a game from 2016, but it ensures that there is no memory pressure at any settings preset, even at 4K Ultra.

The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 39650 places it in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 79842 is closely matched by the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (79605, 0.3% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (78940, 1.1% delta). However, the RTX 5090 has a significant advantage in raw power, as evidenced by its 1.79 TB/s memory bandwidth and 104.8 TFLOPS FP32 performance. This translates directly to the measured FPS, where the 4K High result of 109 FPS is respectable but not exceptional, and the 4K Low result of 218 FPS shows that the GPU still has headroom when the graphical load is reduced.

The fact that the 4K Medium result (175 FPS) is higher than the 4K High result (109 FPS) by 66 FPS indicates that the game’s High preset introduces a specific rendering feature that is disproportionately expensive on the RTX 5090. This could be related to shadow quality or post-processing effects, but the data does not specify which. What is clear is that the GPU is the sole determinant of performance at 4K, as the CPU’s influence is negligible at those frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database, this specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 490th out of 3716 tested combos for Inside. This places it in the top 13% of all systems tested, which is a strong result, but it is not at the absolute top. The ranking reflects the fact that while the GPU is beastly, the CPU is a mobile part, and some desktop combos with higher-clocked processors and the same GPU might achieve slightly higher frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios.

However, for this game, the combo ranking is likely constrained by the GPU’s performance at 4K, where the RTX 5090 is the bottleneck. The 490th rank out of 3716 combos means that there are 489 other systems that perform better in Inside, but given that this is a mobile CPU paired with a flagship GPU, the result is impressive. The Ultra X7 368H’s percentile rank of 87% among all CPUs and the RTX 5090’s percentile rank of 92% among all GPUs suggest that both components are well above average, but the combo rank is not the sum of those percentiles, as the game’s specific workload determines the final outcome.

The nearest rivals for the CPU (Intel Core 7 253PE, Intel Core 5 223PE, AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, Intel Xeon 6507P) all have very similar average benchmark scores, with deltas of -0.1% to 0.2%. This means that swapping the Ultra X7 368H for any of these CPUs would likely result in a negligible FPS difference in Inside, as the game is not CPU-limited at the tested settings. Similarly, the GPU’s nearest rivals (Tesla P100 variants and RX 6850M XT) have deltas of 0.3% to 1.1%, but the RTX 5090’s massive VRAM and bandwidth give it a clear edge in this game’s high-resolution scenarios.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average FPS is 382, which occurs at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The second-highest is 352 FPS at 1080p Medium, showing that the system is capable of very high frame rates at lower resolutions.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 4K resolution?

A: The data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck at 4K. The average FPS drops from 241 at 1080p High to 109 at 4K High, a 55% reduction, which is consistent with GPU-bound rendering. The CPU’s performance is sufficient to avoid limiting frame rates at any resolution.

Q: How does the Ultra X7 368H compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518, which is within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40431) and within 0.1% of the Intel Core 7 253PE (40557). This indicates that these CPUs are effectively equivalent in raw compute performance.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 4K monitor with this combo?

A: For 4K, the Medium preset offers the best balance, with an average FPS of 175 and a minimum FPS of 148. The High preset drops to 109 FPS, and Ultra drops to 104 FPS, so Medium provides a significant performance advantage with likely minimal visual difference.

Q: Does the RTX 5090’s 32 GB VRAM cause any issues in Inside?

A: No, the 32 GB GDDR7 memory is more than sufficient for Inside, which is a 2016 puzzle platformer. There is no indication of memory pressure at any resolution or settings preset, as the frame rates remain high and consistent.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all other tested systems for Inside?

A: This combo ranks 490th out of 3716 tested combos, placing it in the top 13% of all systems. This is a strong result, but not the absolute best, likely due to the mobile CPU’s limitations in other games, although Inside itself is not CPU-bound.

Settings Recommendations

For this specific hardware combination, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and refresh rate of your display. The data shows that the Medium preset consistently delivers the best experience in terms of frame rate stability, as it is the only preset with recorded minimum FPS values that are all above 100 FPS at every resolution. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 352 with a minimum of 299, which is excellent for a high-refresh-rate monitor. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 278 FPS with a minimum of 236, still well above the threshold for smooth gameplay. At 4K Medium, the average is 175 FPS with a minimum of 148, which is ideal for a 144 Hz display.

If you are gaming at 4K, the High and Ultra presets are playable but not ideal. High averages 109 FPS, and Ultra averages 104 FPS, which are both above 60 FPS but below 120 FPS, meaning you would not be able to fully utilize a 120 Hz or 144 Hz monitor. The 4K Low preset averages 218 FPS, which is excellent for competitive play, but it sacrifices visual quality that is noticeable in a game like Inside with its atmospheric lighting and shadows. Therefore, the Medium preset at 4K is the recommended choice, as it provides a 66 FPS advantage over High while likely maintaining similar visual fidelity.

For 1440p, the same logic applies. The Medium preset at 278 FPS is far superior to High at 174 FPS, and the minimum FPS of 236 ensures no noticeable stuttering. The Ultra preset at 165 FPS is also viable, but the 113 FPS difference between Medium and Ultra is too large to justify the minor visual upgrade. At 1080p, all presets are playable, but the Medium preset’s minimum FPS of 299 makes it the safest choice for maintaining high frame rates during complex scenes. The Low preset at 382 FPS is overkill for most displays, and the Ultra preset at 230 FPS is a good compromise if you want maximum visual quality without sacrificing the 200+ FPS feel. Ultimately, the Medium preset is the sweet spot across all resolutions, offering the best combination of high average FPS and stable minimum FPS.