Lockdown Protocol

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT delivers a playable experience in Lockdown Protocol across most common configurations, but the data shows clear limits at higher resolutions. This combination is a capable 1080p and 1440p performer, with 4K requiring significant compromises to maintain fluid frame rates. The benchmark results below break down exactly what to expect at each setting level.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, this combo is consistently above the 60 FPS threshold. The Low preset delivers an average of 167 FPS, which is exceptionally high and leaves substantial headroom for competitive play. Medium produces an average of 119 FPS, with minimums of 101 FPS and maximums of 136 FPS, indicating smooth frame pacing. The High preset still impresses with an average of 104 FPS. Even the most demanding Ultra preset holds an average of 78 FPS, which comfortably clears the playable threshold. The scaling from Low to Ultra is roughly a 53% drop in average frame rate, but all settings remain fluid.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance remains strong, though the Ultra preset begins to show strain. Low delivers an average of 123 FPS, which is still excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors. Medium follows at 87 FPS, with minimums of 74 FPS and maximums of 100 FPS. High drops to an average of 76 FPS, which is still above the 60 FPS target. However, Ultra falls to an average of 57 FPS, which is below the playable threshold. The gap between High and Ultra here is 19 FPS, suggesting that the extra visual fidelity at Ultra demands a significant performance cost.

At 3840x2160, the RX 7600 XT's 16 GB of memory is not enough to overcome the raw compute demands. The Low preset is the only playable option, averaging 79 FPS. Medium drops to 56 FPS, with minimums of 48 FPS and maximums of 65 FPS, meaning frame times will be inconsistent. High averages 49 FPS, and Ultra falls to 37 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 42 FPS, a 53% reduction, showing that this resolution is only viable with the lowest visual settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear shift in bottleneck behavior depending on resolution. At 1920x1080, the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient to feed the GPU, as evidenced by the high frame rates across all presets. The Ryzen 5 8400F's single-thread performance, reflected in a 3DMark single-thread score of 951, helps maintain high minimums even when the GPU is under load. The difference between Low (167 FPS) and Ultra (78 FPS) at 1080p is 89 FPS, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiter as settings increase.

At 2560x1440, the GPU's role becomes more pronounced. The frame rate drops from 123 FPS on Low to 76 FPS on High, a 47 FPS difference. This scaling is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, as the CPU has enough headroom to handle the increased pixel count without becoming the limiting factor. The Ultra preset's drop to 57 FPS further confirms that the RX 7600 XT's compute throughput, rated at 22.57 TFLOPS, is the primary constraint.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmingly the bottleneck. The fact that Low (79 FPS) is more than double Ultra (37 FPS) indicates that the GPU cannot sustain the shading and texture work required at higher presets. The CPU's role is minimal here, as even the weakest preset produces more frames than the GPU can process. The memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s also becomes a limiting factor at 4K, where the 128-bit bus struggles to feed the GPU with enough data.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's benchmark data places it in close company with several other processors. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F has an average score of 24964, which is only 0.2% higher than the 8400F's 25005. This makes the 7500F a near-identical match in gaming workloads. The Intel Core i7-11850H trails by 0.3%, and the Intel Core i7-13620H is 0.4% behind. On the higher end, the AMD EPYC 9474F scores 0.4% higher, though its server-oriented design makes it an unlikely comparison for gaming. In practical terms, swapping the 8400F for any of these would produce imperceptible differences in Lockdown Protocol.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are more surprising. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 scores 17037, just 0.3% below the RX 7600 XT's 17083. The AMD Radeon HD 7970M is 0.4% behind, while the NVIDIA Tesla M4 is 0.9% behind. The most relevant comparison is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, which scores 17208, or 0.7% higher. This indicates that the RX 7600 XT performs almost identically to an RTX 3070 in synthetic benchmarks, though the RTX 3070's older architecture may handle some titles differently. For Lockdown Protocol, the data suggests that a system with an RTX 3070 would deliver nearly the same frame rates at every resolution and preset.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Ryzen 5 8400F and RX 7600 XT ranks 2360 out of 3714 tested combos for Lockdown Protocol. This places it in the 36th percentile of all systems tested, meaning roughly 64% of combinations perform better. The ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU's 60th percentile standing among all GPUs, while the CPU sits at the 77th percentile. The CPU's higher relative performance does not compensate for the GPU's mid-range positioning, especially at higher resolutions where the GPU becomes the limiting factor.

The combo's rank is also affected by the fact that Lockdown Protocol is an FPS title, which tends to favor higher-end GPUs with better rasterization performance. The RX 7600 XT's 64 ROPs and 128 TMUs are adequate for 1080p and 1440p, but the 4K results show that it is not designed for that resolution. Systems ranked above this combo likely feature GPUs with higher fill rates and more compute units, which directly translate to better performance in this genre.

The Verdict

The data confirms that this PC can run Lockdown Protocol well at 1080p and 1440p. At 1920x1080, all four presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—clear the 60 FPS threshold, with the Ultra preset averaging 78 FPS. This makes it suitable for any competitive or casual play at this resolution. At 2560x1440, the High preset is the most demanding option that stays above 60 FPS, averaging 76 FPS. The Ultra preset at 1440p is not playable, averaging 57 FPS, which falls short of the target.

At 3840x2160, the verdict is less favorable. Only the Low preset is playable, averaging 79 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 56 FPS, which is below the playable threshold, and High and Ultra are even less viable at 49 FPS and 37 FPS, respectively. For 4K gaming, this combo requires significant visual compromises, and even then, the experience is only acceptable on the lowest settings. The 16 GB of VRAM is a helpful buffer, but it does not overcome the GPU's compute limitations.

Best Settings per Resolution

Based on the measured data, the highest preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS at each resolution is as follows:

• 1920x1080: Ultra is the best choice, averaging 78 FPS. This provides the full visual experience without sacrificing fluidity. The step down to High (104 FPS) is unnecessary unless you are targeting a 100+ FPS display.
• 2560x1440: High is the most demanding playable preset, averaging 76 FPS. Medium (87 FPS) and Low (123 FPS) offer more headroom, but High strikes the best balance between image quality and performance.
• 3840x2160: Low is the only playable preset, averaging 79 FPS. Medium is close at 56 FPS, but it falls short of the 60 FPS threshold, and the minimum of 48 FPS suggests occasional stutters. For a consistent experience at 4K, Low is the only viable option.

The recommendation is straightforward: play at 1080p Ultra or 1440p High for the best experience. If you must use a 4K display, Low settings are required, and you will need to accept a significant reduction in visual fidelity to maintain playable frame rates.