Inside

Inside is a puzzle platformer from 2016, but this benchmark run pairs a 2026 mobile processor with a flagship desktop GPU, producing results that are far from dated. The data shows a system capable of obliterating this title at any setting, with frame rates that remain playable even at 4K Ultra. This is a case where the GPU’s raw power meets a CPU with high single-core throughput, creating a combination that is almost entirely GPU-bound at lower resolutions and surprisingly balanced at higher ones. The following analysis breaks down exactly how each component contributes to the measured performance.

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

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor built on the Panther Lake architecture. It features a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, drawing a 25 W TDP. The benchmark results show a strong single-core performance, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2200.5 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4280. This is critical for a game like Inside, which, as a puzzle platformer, typically relies heavily on a single primary game thread for physics and game logic. The high boost clock directly translates to faster processing of these instructions.

In the broader context of all CPUs, this processor sits at the 88th percentile. Its average benchmark score of 44466 places it in close competition with a group of rivals. The nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, has an average score of 44573, making the Intel part just 0.2% slower. It is 0.3% faster than the Intel Core i9-13950HX, 0.4% faster than the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, and 0.5% faster than the Intel Core i5-13600. These deltas are incredibly small, meaning the X9 388H offers performance that is statistically identical to its nearest competitors. For a game like Inside, this level of CPU performance is more than sufficient; the processor is not the bottleneck in any of the measured scenarios.

The 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample room for the game’s assets and instructions. The Passmark physics score of 3226 further indicates robust computational ability for the game's simple physics interactions. While the CPU has 16 threads, the game is unlikely to utilize all of them effectively, but the sheer speed of the individual cores is what matters most here. The data suggests that even at 1080p Low, where the CPU’s load is highest relative to the GPU, it keeps up with the GPU’s output without any issues, as evidenced by the 421 FPS average. The processor's performance is a non-factor in limiting the game's frame rate, as the GPU is clearly the driving force in this pairing.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is the centerpiece of this configuration. It is a massive GPU built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with a 5 nm process node, featuring 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die. With a base clock of 2017 MHz and a boost clock of 2407 MHz, it possesses 21760 shading units. Its memory subsystem is equally extreme: 32 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s. The GPU’s benchmark scores are equally impressive, with a Passmark G3D score of 39650 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 376728, placing it in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs.

For Inside, the GPU's role is to render the game’s distinctive, monochromatic environments and lighting effects. The data shows that the RTX 5090 has more than enough power to handle this task. The game's demands are low enough that at 1080p High, the GPU is able to produce an average of 241 FPS. The 32 GB of VRAM is vastly overkill for a game from 2016, but it ensures there are no memory-related hitches at any resolution or setting. The high memory bandwidth is also a factor, allowing for fast texture streaming.

When compared to its nearest rivals, the RTX 5090's average benchmark score of 79842 is intriguing. It is 1.4% slower than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, which scores 80959. However, it is 0.3% faster than the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB, 0.6% faster than the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB, and 1.1% faster than the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT. These are not direct gaming rivals, but the comparison highlights that while the RTX 5090 is a top-tier consumer card, its compute benchmarks are closely matched by some workstation and older high-end parts. In this game, however, the RTX 5090's specific architecture and driver optimizations for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) ensure it performs at the top of its class, as the measured FPS demonstrates.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how the system scales with resolution. At 1080p with High settings, the average FPS is 241. Moving to 1440p High drops this to 174 FPS, a 28% reduction. At 4K High, the average further falls to 109 FPS, which is a 55% drop from 1080p. This pattern is consistent across all settings. For example, at Low settings, the average FPS goes from 421 at 1080p, to 347 at 1440p, and finally to 218 at 4K. At Ultra settings, the numbers are 230, 165, and 104 FPS respectively.

This scaling behavior is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound system. The CPU's workload does not change significantly with resolution, but the GPU's does. As the resolution increases, the GPU must render more pixels, which takes more time and reduces the FPS. The fact that the FPS drops so consistently as resolution increases shows that the RTX 5090 is the primary limiting factor. At 1080p, the CPU is likely able to feed the GPU frames faster than it can render them, leading to a massive FPS count. As resolution rises, the GPU's rendering time increases, and the CPU has more time to prepare frames, so the CPU is never the bottleneck.

The data also reveals the game's scalability. The jump from Low to Medium settings at 4K results in a 43 FPS drop (from 218 to 175). The jump from Medium to High is a 66 FPS drop (from 175 to 109). However, the jump from High to Ultra is only a 5 FPS drop (from 109 to 104). This suggests that the Ultra preset is not significantly more demanding than High in this game, or that the GPU is already reaching a limit. The 4K Medium run is the only one with all three FPS metrics given, showing an average of 175, a minimum of 148, and a maximum of 201. This variance indicates that even in a simple puzzle game, there are moments of higher complexity that stress the GPU.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combined performance of this CPU and GPU places the configuration at rank 418 out of 3716 tested combos for this game. This puts it in the top 11.25% of all tested systems, which is a strong showing, but perhaps not as dominant as the individual component benchmarks might suggest. The high rank confirms the raw power of the RTX 5090, but the fact that it is not in the top 100 indicates that there are other combinations that achieve even higher frame rates in this specific title.

The rank implies that many other combos, likely with even more powerful desktop CPUs, are able to push higher average frame rates, particularly at lower resolutions where CPU speed is more critical. Since Inside is not a demanding game, even mid-range GPUs can achieve high frame rates, and the difference between a top-tier GPU and a mid-tier one can be minimized by the CPU's frame pacing at 1080p. For instance, a system with a faster desktop CPU and a slightly slower GPU might achieve a higher average FPS at 1080p Low because the CPU can generate frames faster than the RTX 5090 can render them, but the RTX 5090's advantage becomes more pronounced at 4K. This combo's rank of 418 shows that it is a high-performing setup, but the data suggests that for this specific game, the CPU and GPU are not perfectly balanced for maximum 1080p performance, where the GPU's extreme power is somewhat wasted.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Inside at 4K with maximum settings?

A: Yes. The measured data shows an average of 104 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is well above the standard 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay.

Q: How much of a performance difference is there between 1080p and 4K?

A: The difference is significant and resolution-dependent. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 241 at 1920x1080 to 109 at 3840x2160. At Low settings, it drops from 421 to 218 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the main bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU is the primary limiting factor. This is evident from the steady FPS drop as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance. The CPU's performance is sufficient to not hold the GPU back at any resolution.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H compare to its nearest rival in terms of overall benchmark score?

A: The X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44466. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, has an average score of 44573, making the Intel processor 0.2% slower in this aggregate metric.

Q: What is the average frame rate at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The average FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings is 278 frames per second. This run also showed a minimum FPS of 236 and a maximum of 319.

Q: Is there a big difference between High and Ultra settings at 4K?

A: The data shows there is a negligible difference. At 3840x2160, High settings yield an average of 109 FPS, while Ultra settings yield an average of 104 FPS, a difference of only 5 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following table details the exact measured average FPS for each resolution and settings preset combination. Where recorded, the minimum and maximum FPS are also provided.

1920x1080

• Low: 421 FPS average
• Medium: 386 FPS average (min 328, max 444)
• High: 241 FPS average
• Ultra: 230 FPS average

2560x1440

• Low: 347 FPS average
• Medium: 278 FPS average (min 236, max 319)
• High: 174 FPS average
• Ultra: 165 FPS average

3840x2160

• Low: 218 FPS average
• Medium: 175 FPS average (min 148, max 201)
• High: 109 FPS average
• Ultra: 104 FPS average

The data shows that this configuration delivers an exceptionally smooth experience across the board. Even in the most demanding scenario tested (4K Ultra), the average frame rate remains above 100 FPS. The system’s performance is so high that it is likely to be limited by the refresh rate of the display in most cases. For example, a 144Hz 1440p monitor would be fully saturated at Medium, High, and Ultra settings. A 240Hz 1080p display would only be saturated at the Low preset, with Medium and High coming close. This is a high-end setup that leaves virtually no performance on the table for this game.