Lockdown Protocol

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 produces uniformly low frame rates. The High preset averages 19.5 FPS, Medium averages 26.9 FPS, Low averages 37.4 FPS, and Ultra averages 19.1 FPS. The spread between settings is narrow, with Low being the only preset that approaches playability, and even then it falls well short of the 60 FPS threshold. The data shows a clear ceiling at 4K: no setting delivers even half of the target frame rate, and the difference between High and Ultra is negligible at 0.4 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the picture improves but remains constrained. Low settings reach an average of 54.6 FPS, which is the closest this combination gets to 60 FPS outside of 1080p. Medium averages 38.1 FPS, High averages 33.2 FPS, and Ultra drops to 23.7 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 16.5 FPS loss, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 4.9 FPS. Ultra is a steep step down from High, losing 9.5 FPS. The pattern suggests that the GTX 1650's 4 GB frame buffer and memory bandwidth become limiting factors as resolution increases, but even at 1440p Low, the system cannot sustain a consistent 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the combination finally demonstrates its potential. Low settings average 77.1 FPS, which clears the playability threshold by a comfortable margin. Medium averages 53.3 FPS, just 6.7 FPS shy of 60. High averages 45.4 FPS, and Ultra averages 38.3 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium costs 23.8 FPS, from Medium to High costs 7.9 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs another 7.1 FPS. The data indicates that 1080p Low is the only preset where this hardware consistently outperforms the 60 FPS target, while Medium is a near miss that might be acceptable for some users depending on tolerance for occasional dips.

The measured results include only average frame rates; no minimum or maximum values were recorded for any resolution or preset. This means the analysis relies on averages alone, which can hide frame time spikes or stutter. The absence of min/max data is a limitation, but the averages themselves tell a consistent story: this is a 1080p-oriented setup with a single playable preset.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Core i5-10400F and the GTX 1650 becomes apparent when comparing scaling across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system produces 77.1 FPS. At 1440p Low, that drops to 54.6 FPS, a 22.5 FPS decrease. At 4K Low, it falls further to 37.4 FPS, another 17.2 FPS loss. This linear degradation with resolution strongly implicates the GPU as the primary bottleneck. The GTX 1650's 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth simply cannot feed the rasterizer fast enough at higher pixel counts.

The CPU's role is more visible at 1080p, where the frame rate is high enough for processor limitations to surface. The i5-10400F has 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283 and single-core score of 1451 indicate a capable mid-range processor. However, the GTX 1650's FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS and 896 shading units suggest that even at 1080p Low, the GPU is doing most of the heavy lifting. The 77.1 FPS result at 1080p Low versus 54.6 FPS at 1440p Low shows that the GPU is still the limiting factor even at the lowest preset.

Preset scaling reinforces this conclusion. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium reduces average FPS by 23.8 FPS, while at 1440p the same preset change costs 16.5 FPS. The smaller absolute loss at higher resolution indicates that the GPU is already saturated, so additional shading work has less headroom to absorb. At 4K, the Low-to-Medium drop is 10.5 FPS, further confirming that the GPU is the dominant constraint.

The CPU's 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support are sufficient for this workload, as evidenced by the fact that frame rates scale predictably with resolution rather than collapsing due to CPU stalls. If the processor were the bottleneck, we would expect similar frame rates across resolutions at the same preset, which is not the case. The data points to a GPU-bound scenario at all tested settings, with the CPU providing adequate headroom even at the lowest resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this combination at rank 3619 out of 3714 tested combos for Lockdown Protocol. That puts it in the bottom 2.6 percent of all recorded configurations, a stark illustration of how far this hardware sits from the top of the performance curve. The rank reflects the measured FPS results, which show only one playable preset across all resolutions.

The GPU's percentile versus all GPUs is 40, meaning it outperforms 40 percent of the database's recorded graphics cards. The CPU's percentile versus all CPUs is 68, placing it above the majority of processors. The disparity between these two percentiles is telling: the CPU is a mid-pack performer, while the GPU is below average. In a game like Lockdown Protocol, which appears to be GPU-bound based on the resolution scaling, the lower-performing component drags the overall result down.

The combo rank of 3619 versus the CPU's individual percentile of 68 suggests that the i5-10400F is capable of driving far more powerful graphics cards, but the GTX 1650 caps the system's potential. The 3714 total combos include many with weaker CPUs and stronger GPUs, and the ranking reflects the fact that this particular pairing leaves performance on the table. For users considering upgrades, the data implies that swapping the GPU would yield a larger improvement than swapping the CPU.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Lockdown Protocol? The answer depends entirely on resolution and settings. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best result is Low at 37.4 FPS, which is 22.6 FPS short of the playability threshold. The database records no playable settings at 4K, and the verdict is unambiguous: this resolution is not viable.

At 2560x1440, the situation is similar. Low settings average 54.6 FPS, which is 5.4 FPS below the 60 FPS target. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall further behind. The verdict lists no playable settings at 1440p either, meaning users must drop to 1080p to achieve a smooth experience.

At 1920x1080, the system clears the bar. Low settings average 77.1 FPS, which is 17.1 FPS above the threshold. The database records Low as the only playable setting at this resolution, with Medium at 53.3 FPS just missing the cutoff. The verdict is clear: 1080p Low is the sole configuration that delivers a consistent 60 FPS experience.

The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and the data shows that this hardware meets that standard only at 1080p with the lowest preset. Users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate may find Medium acceptable despite the 53.3 FPS average, but the recorded data cannot guarantee that the experience will stay above 60 FPS. For competitive play or smooth motion, 1080p Low is the recommended configuration.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Xeon 6756E, which scores 14163 with a delta of 0.2 percent, and the AMD EPYC 7552, which scores 14115 with a delta of 0.5 percent. Both are within half a percent of the i5-10400F's average benchmark score of 14185. The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232 with a delta of -0.3 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277 with a delta of -0.6 percent. These processors would behave nearly identically in CPU-bound scenarios, though the i5-10400F's 6 cores and 12 threads give it an edge in heavily threaded workloads.

The GPU's nearest rivals are more telling. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 with a delta of 0.3 percent, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441 with a delta of 0.4 percent, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425 with a delta of 0.6 percent. All three are slightly slower than the GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550 with a delta of -1 percent, making it marginally faster. These alternatives would produce frame rates within a few percent of the GTX 1650 at the same settings, meaning users with those GPUs would see nearly identical results in Lockdown Protocol.

The presence of integrated graphics like the Intel UHD Graphics 750 in the GPU's nearest rivals underscores how modest the GTX 1650's performance is. A user upgrading from integrated graphics would see a meaningful improvement, but the GTX 1650 sits at the low end of dedicated GPUs. The nearest rival data confirms that this GPU is not an outlier; it performs exactly where its specs suggest it should.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, there is no best setting because no preset reaches 60 FPS. The database records no playable settings and no average FPS at best. Users at this resolution must accept frame rates well below the target, with Low offering the highest average at 37.4 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the same conclusion applies. No preset clears 60 FPS, and the database records no playable settings. Low is the closest at 54.6 FPS, but it falls short of the threshold. Users who insist on 1440p will need to accept a sub-60 FPS experience or reduce their resolution.

At 1920x1080, the best setting is Low, with an average FPS of 77.1. This is the only preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. Medium comes close at 53.3 FPS, but it does not meet the threshold. The data suggests that 1080p Low is the sweet spot for this hardware, offering a 17.1 FPS margin over the playability cutoff.

The pattern across resolutions is consistent: the GTX 1650 can handle Lockdown Protocol only at its lowest settings and lowest resolution. The 4 GB VRAM capacity and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are the likely constraints, and the benchmark results reflect those limitations at every preset above 1080p Low.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Lockdown Protocol at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the average FPS is 77.1. At 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware?

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution with a playable preset. Low settings at 1080p deliver 77.1 FPS, while 1440p Low averages 54.6 FPS and 4K Low averages 37.4 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 7472 on average, slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, 0.3 percent slower), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, 0.4 percent slower), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425, 0.6 percent slower). The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1 percent faster.

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

A: The data shows the GPU is the primary constraint. Frame rates drop significantly as resolution increases, from 77.1 FPS at 1080p Low to 54.6 FPS at 1440p Low to 37.4 FPS at 4K Low, indicating GPU-bound performance.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p Medium?

A: The average FPS at 1080p Medium is 53.3, which is 6.7 FPS below the 60 FPS playability threshold. It is playable by feel, but the recorded data does not guarantee consistent 60 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: This combination ranks 3619 out of 3714 combos in the database. The CPU sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs.