Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that places modest demands on modern hardware, and the measured results for the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H paired with the AMD Radeon 760M reflect that reality. With an average frame rate ranging from 21 FPS at 4K Ultra to 96 FPS at 1080p Low, this combo delivers playable performance at lower resolutions but struggles to maintain smooth motion at higher settings. The data shows a system where the integrated GPU is the clear bottleneck, as frame rates scale dramatically with resolution and quality presets, while the 16-core processor sits largely underutilized in a game that favors single-threaded responsiveness. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across all tested configurations, examines how the GPU and CPU each contribute to the results, and provides context on where this combo ranks among the thousands of tested hardware pairings.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU and GPU combo in Inside?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H with AMD Radeon 760M ranks 2876 out of 2887 tested combos in this game. This places it in the bottom 0.4% of all tested pairings, indicating that while the system can run the game, it offers near-bottom-tier performance relative to what other hardware configurations achieve.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1080p with this combo?

A: At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS ranges from 46 FPS on Ultra settings to 96 FPS on Low settings. Medium settings deliver 77 FPS on average, while High settings produce 48 FPS. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 65 FPS and a maximum of 88 FPS, indicating a playable experience at lower resolutions.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6400, scores 6001, which is 0.3% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M also scores 6000 (0.3% lower), while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049, putting it 0.5% ahead of the 760M.

Q: Is the CPU a strong performer relative to other processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44466. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, scores 44573, which is only 0.2% higher. The Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44342, putting it 0.3% behind, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is 0.4% behind at 44309.

Q: What resolution provides the best balance of performance for this game?

A: At 2560x1440, the combo delivers 69 FPS on Low settings and 55 FPS on Medium settings, with Medium showing a minimum of 47 FPS and a maximum of 63 FPS. This represents a solid middle ground between the high frame rates of 1080p and the degraded performance seen at 4K, where even Low settings only reach 43 FPS.

Q: Does the benchmark data show consistent frame times across settings?

A: The only configurations with min/max FPS data are Medium settings at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the range is 65 to 88 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 47 to 63 FPS; and at 4K Medium, it is 29 to 40 FPS. The absence of min/max data for Low, High, and Ultra presets means frame time consistency cannot be fully assessed for those settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 760M occupies a rank of 2876 out of 2887 tested hardware combinations in Inside. This positions the pairing in the bottom fraction of all configurations, with only 11 combos performing worse. The rank reflects the integrated GPU’s limitations rather than the CPU’s capabilities, as the processor’s 88th percentile standing among all CPUs contrasts sharply with the GPU’s 35th percentile position. In practical terms, this means the system can run Inside, but it will not deliver high-refresh-rate experiences at demanding settings.

The gap between the CPU and GPU performance tiers is stark. The processor’s average benchmark score of 44466 places it within 0.5% of rivals like the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D and Intel Core i5-13600, showing it is a high-end mobile part. The GPU, however, with its average score of 6019, sits just 0.3% above the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and 0.5% below the NVIDIA Quadro P2000. This disparity means that in a game like Inside, which is not particularly demanding on processor resources, the GPU becomes the limiting factor preventing higher frame rates.

When examining the rank in context, it is important to note that the data is measured rather than estimated. The 2876th position out of 2887 indicates that most other hardware combinations, including those with discrete entry-level GPUs, outperform this integrated solution. For a puzzle platformer with a 2016 release date, this rank suggests the combo is capable of running the game but not at high visual fidelity or smooth frame rates on larger displays. Users with this hardware would likely need to prioritize resolution and settings carefully to achieve an acceptable experience.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines, with 8 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, delivering a pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is rated at 5.323 TFLOPS, which is modest for modern gaming workloads.

Memory bandwidth for this IGP is system dependent, as it uses shared system memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The bus width, memory size, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent," meaning the GPU’s performance in memory-intensive scenarios will vary based on the host system’s RAM configuration. The GPU connects via PCIe 4.0 x8 and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

In Inside, the GPU’s 35th percentile standing among all GPUs directly correlates with the measured performance. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 96 FPS, but this drops to 46 FPS at 1080p Ultra. The trend continues at higher resolutions, with 4K Low producing 43 FPS and 4K Ultra falling to 21 FPS. The GPU’s benchmark scores, such as 5310 in Passmark G3D and 400 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, place it in the range of older discrete GPUs like the GTX 770M, which scores 6000, and the RX 6400, which scores 6001. This class of performance is sufficient for less demanding titles like Inside at lower settings, but it struggles when pixel count and graphical effects increase.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of how this combo handles Inside across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the system delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 96 FPS, Medium settings average 77 FPS with a range of 65 to 88 FPS, High settings average 48 FPS, and Ultra settings average 46 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 19 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High is 29 FPS, and from High to Ultra is just 2 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance decreases noticeably. Low settings average 69 FPS, Medium settings average 55 FPS with a range of 47 to 63 FPS, High settings average 34 FPS, and Ultra settings average 33 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 14 FPS, while Medium to High represents a 21 FPS drop. High to Ultra shows only a 1 FPS difference, indicating that the Ultra preset adds little visual benefit at this resolution for the performance cost.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the combo struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 43 FPS, Medium settings average 35 FPS with a range of 29 to 40 FPS, High settings average 22 FPS, and Ultra settings average 21 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 8 FPS, Medium to High is 13 FPS, and High to Ultra is a negligible 1 FPS. The 4K results show that even at Low settings, the system barely reaches the threshold for smooth gameplay, and at High or Ultra, it falls below 30 FPS.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: Low settings provide the best frame rates, Medium offers a playable middle ground, and High and Ultra produce nearly identical results that are substantially lower. This suggests the GPU hits a performance ceiling that additional graphical effects in the High and Ultra presets cannot overcome, as the difference between these two settings is minimal.

Resolution Scaling

The impact of resolution on frame rates reveals the GPU-bound nature of this combo. Comparing 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by 27 FPS at Low settings (96 to 69), 22 FPS at Medium (77 to 55), 14 FPS at High (48 to 34), and 13 FPS at Ultra (46 to 33). This represents percentage drops of approximately 28% at Low, 29% at Medium, 29% at High, and 28% at Ultra. The consistency of these drops, around 28-29%, indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor, as the performance scales nearly linearly with the increase in pixel count from 1080p to 1440p.

Scaling from 1440p to 4K shows an even more dramatic decline. Low settings drop from 69 to 43 FPS, a 26 FPS or roughly 38% reduction. Medium settings fall from 55 to 35 FPS, a 20 FPS or 36% reduction. High settings decrease from 34 to 22 FPS, a 12 FPS or 35% reduction, and Ultra settings drop from 33 to 21 FPS, a 12 FPS or 36% reduction. The larger percentage drops at 4K compared to 1440p suggest that the GPU’s memory bandwidth, which is system dependent, becomes a more significant constraint as the pixel workload increases.

The resolution scaling data points clearly to the GPU as the bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting performance, we would expect frame rates to remain relatively stable across resolutions, since the processor’s workload does not change significantly with pixel count. Instead, the consistent and substantial FPS drops at higher resolutions indicate that the Radeon 760M’s shading units, texture units, and memory interface are overwhelmed by the increased number of pixels. The CPU, with its 16 cores and 5.10 GHz boost clock, is not the limiting factor in this scenario.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel’s 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of 25 W. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is dual-channel LPDDR5X with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, and the chip uses an Intel BGA 2540 socket.

In benchmark tests, the CPU demonstrates strong multi-threaded performance, scoring 18911 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 13101 in Cinebench R20 multi-core. Single-thread performance is also solid, with Cinebench R23 single-core scoring 2200.5 and Cinebench R15 single-core scoring 309.5. Passmark tests show a multi-thread score of 36811 and a single-thread score of 4280. These results place the CPU at the 88th percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 44466.

For Inside, the CPU’s role is relatively minor compared to the GPU. The game is a puzzle platformer that does not demand extensive multi-threaded processing, so the 16 cores and 16 threads are largely underutilized. The processor’s high single-thread performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2200.5, is more relevant for this title, but even that capability does not compensate for the GPU’s limitations. The nearest CPU rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D with a score 0.2% higher and the Intel Core i9-13950HX with a score 0.3% lower, all perform within a narrow band, confirming that the processor is not the differentiating factor in this combo’s frame rates.

The CPU’s 25 W TDP and mobile market segment indicate it is designed for thin-and-light laptops rather than gaming performance. Its integrated graphics, listed as Arc B390, are separate from the discrete AMD Radeon 760M used in this test, but the overall system power envelope limits what the GPU can achieve. The benchmark results show that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with data without becoming a bottleneck, as frame rates scale predictably with resolution and settings, but the GPU’s modest compute resources cap the maximum performance.