Lockdown Protocol

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT delivers a playable experience in Lockdown Protocol across most common resolution and preset combinations. Measured data shows the combo achieves 60 FPS or higher at 1920x1080 on every preset, including Ultra at 76.5 FPS average. At 2560x1440, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold on High, Medium, and Low settings, while 3840x2160 is limited to Low settings for a playable frame rate. The combination ranks in the 67th percentile of tested configurations for this game.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Lockdown Protocol at 1920x1080 with maximum settings?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings is 76.5, which exceeds the 60 FPS playable threshold by a margin of 16.5 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable preset at 2560x1440?

A: High settings provide the best visual quality while maintaining playability, with an average of 74.1 FPS. Ultra settings at this resolution fall to 57 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this hardware?

A: Only at Low settings, which produce an average of 76.1 FPS. Medium settings drop to 53.9 FPS average, and High settings fall to 48.4 FPS, both below the playable threshold.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25292, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. Its closest competitor, the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS, scores 25284, a difference of 0.0%. The Intel Core 5 120 scores 25362, which is 0.3% higher.

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

A: The RX 6600 XT has an average benchmark score of 24442, placing it in the 70th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 scores 24277, which is 0.7% lower, while the Intel Arc A350M scores 24647, which is 0.8% higher.

Q: What percentage of tested combos does this system outperform?

A: The combo ranks 2512 out of 3714 tested combinations, meaning it performs better than approximately 67% of all tested configurations for Lockdown Protocol.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core i5-13400F and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT shifts noticeably across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the GPU is the primary performance driver, as evidenced by the wide spread between Low and Ultra settings: 157.3 FPS at Low versus 76.5 FPS at Ultra. This 80.8 FPS gap indicates that graphics load, not CPU throughput, caps performance at lower resolutions.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern persists but with a compressed range. Low settings yield 117.3 FPS, while Ultra drops to 57 FPS, a spread of 60.3 FPS. The CPU's 10 cores and 16 threads appear sufficient to feed the GPU at this resolution, as the scaling between presets remains consistent with GPU-bound behavior.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes overwhelmingly dominant. The difference between Low (76.1 FPS) and Ultra (36.4 FPS) is 39.7 FPS, but the absolute numbers are much lower across the board. The CPU's benchmark scores — including a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 22604 and a single-core score of 3191 — suggest it has ample headroom even at 4K, where pixel throughput demands far outstrip the processor's workload.

The data indicates that for this game, the RX 6600 XT is the limiting factor at every resolution. The CPU's 77th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 70th percentile supports this interpretation. Even at 1920x1080 Low, where frame rates reach 157.3 FPS, the CPU does not appear to bottleneck, as the 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314 and PassMark multi-thread score of 25032 demonstrate substantial processing capacity.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals, based on average benchmark scores, offer nearly identical compute performance. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS matches the i5-13400F with a delta of 0.0%, scoring 25284 versus 25292. The Intel Core 5 120 is 0.3% faster at 25362, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D is also 0.3% faster at 25365. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H trails by 0.4% with a score of 25201. Systems built around any of these processors would deliver effectively indistinguishable frame rates in Lockdown Protocol.

On the GPU side, the RX 6600 XT's nearest competitors cluster within a narrow performance band. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 scores 24277, which is 0.7% lower. The Intel Arc A350M scores 24647, representing a 0.8% advantage. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti scores 24236, 0.8% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER scores 24170, 1.1% lower. Interestingly, the RTX 2080 SUPER — a higher-tier product historically — benchmarks slightly below the RX 6600 XT in this aggregate metric, though the 1.1% delta is within run-to-run variance.

For a user considering alternative builds, swapping the CPU to any of the listed rivals would produce negligible FPS changes, likely less than 1%. Similarly, GPU substitutions within the nearest rival group would shift average frame rates by at most a couple of frames per second, assuming driver and game optimizations remain consistent.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the i5-13400F and RX 6600 XT places 2512th out of 3714 tested combos for Lockdown Protocol. This position in the 67th percentile means the system outperforms roughly two-thirds of all configurations tested for this game, while one-third deliver higher frame rates.

The ranking reflects a balanced pairing. The CPU sits in the 77th percentile among all processors, while the GPU occupies the 70th percentile among all graphics cards. The combo's overall rank of 2512 sits close to what one might expect from averaging these two percentile positions, suggesting neither component disproportionately drags down the other.

In practical terms, this rank indicates the system handles the game comfortably at mainstream resolutions but is not designed for high-refresh 4K play. The measured FPS data confirms this: 1920x1080 Ultra produces 76.5 FPS, which is solidly playable, while 3840x2160 Ultra produces 36.4 FPS, which is not. The rank of 2512 places the system in the broad middle-upper tier of configurations, suitable for 1080p and 1440p gaming without compromise.

The Verdict

This PC can run Lockdown Protocol at playable frame rates across three of the four tested resolution-preset combinations, with 1080p being the most accommodating. At 1920x1080, all four presets — Ultra, High, Medium, and Low — clear the 60 FPS threshold. The best playable preset is Ultra at 76.5 FPS average.

At 2560x1440, the system maintains playability on three presets: High (74.1 FPS), Medium (84.6 FPS), and Low (117.3 FPS). Ultra at this resolution drops to 57 FPS, just below the playable threshold. The best playable preset is High at 74.1 FPS, which offers near-Ultra visuals while staying comfortably above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings achieve playable performance at 76.1 FPS. Medium (53.9 FPS), High (48.4 FPS), and Ultra (36.4 FPS) all fall short. For 4K gaming, the system requires significant graphical compromises, making it a marginal option at this resolution.

The verdict is clear: this is a capable 1080p and 1440p gaming system for Lockdown Protocol, with 4K available only at the lowest settings.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, delivering an average of 76.5 FPS. This provides the full visual experience without sacrificing smoothness.

At 2560x1440, High settings are the best choice, achieving 74.1 FPS average. This preset balances visual fidelity with performance, offering a 17.1 FPS margin above the threshold.

At 3840x2160, Low settings are the only playable option, producing 76.1 FPS average. While this requires disabling most graphical enhancements, the frame rate remains solidly playable.

No settings at 3840x2160 beyond Low meet the 60 FPS requirement, and Ultra at 2560x1440 falls short by 3 FPS. For users prioritizing visual quality over resolution, 1920x1080 Ultra is the clear recommendation.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates span from 157.3 FPS at Low to 76.5 FPS at Ultra. Medium settings produce 114.2 FPS, and High produces 99.1 FPS. The step-down from Low to Medium is 43.1 FPS, from Medium to High is 15.1 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 22.6 FPS. These diminishing returns suggest the largest performance cost comes from moving off Low settings, with subsequent preset increases having a more moderate impact.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 117.3 FPS at Low, 84.6 FPS at Medium, 74.1 FPS at High, and 57 FPS at Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is 32.7 FPS, Medium to High is 10.5 FPS, and High to Ultra is 17.1 FPS. The Ultra preset at this resolution is the only setting that fails the 60 FPS test, indicating the GPU's memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s may become a limiting factor at higher pixel counts.

At 3840x2160, the averages drop significantly: 76.1 FPS at Low, 53.9 FPS at Medium, 48.4 FPS at High, and 36.4 FPS at Ultra. The transition from Low to Medium costs 22.2 FPS, Medium to High costs 5.5 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 12 FPS. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus width are likely contributors to the steep decline at 4K, as the pixel fill rate of 165.7 GPixel/s becomes a bottleneck.

The data shows no min or max FPS values recorded for any configuration, only averages. Across all resolutions, the lowest playable average is 57 FPS at 2560x1440 Ultra, while the highest non-playable average is 53.9 FPS at 3840x2160 Medium. The system demonstrates a consistent ability to exceed 60 FPS at 1080p and 1440p when settings are appropriately selected.