Lockdown Protocol

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Lockdown Protocol with the Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 shows a steep performance curve that depends heavily on both resolution and quality preset. At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the combination struggles across the board. The Low preset delivers an average of 34.1 FPS, Medium drops to 29.0 FPS, High falls further to 22.6 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 15.4 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS playability threshold, and the gap between Low and Ultra represents a 55% reduction in average frame rate, which indicates that the GPU is being pushed far beyond its comfortable operating range at 4K.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains below the playability mark for every preset. Low settings produce an average of 56.1 FPS, which is tantalizingly close to 60 FPS but still short. Medium averages 41.0 FPS, High averages 33.9 FPS, and Ultra averages 24.9 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 27% drop, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 17%, and High to Ultra costs another 27%. This pattern suggests that the GTX 1650's 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus are significant limiting factors at 1440p, as each quality tier adds enough memory pressure or shading complexity to cause a noticeable frame rate penalty.

At 1920x1080, the data finally shows a playable configuration. Low settings achieve an average of 77.7 FPS, comfortably clearing the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings average 53.0 FPS, which is playable but with noticeable dips below the target. High settings average 49.6 FPS, and Ultra falls to 34.8 FPS. The delta between Low and Medium is 24.7 FPS, or roughly 32% lower performance, which is a substantial penalty for one quality step. The difference between Medium and High is smaller at 3.4 FPS, suggesting that the Medium to High transition involves settings that are less GPU-intensive, while the Low to Medium jump engages features that heavily tax this particular hardware combination.

It is notably the measured FPS data does not include min or max frame values for any resolution or preset, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates. The absence of minimum frame data means that stutter or frame pacing issues cannot be assessed from the database, but the average figures alone indicate that this system is only viable at 1080p with the lowest quality settings.

FAQ

Q: Can the Intel Core i5-9400 and GTX 1650 run Lockdown Protocol at 4K?

A: No. The best average FPS at 3840x2160 is 34.1 FPS on Low settings, which is far below the 60 FPS playability threshold. Ultra settings at this resolution average only 15.4 FPS.

Q: What is the highest playable settings preset at 1920x1080?

A: Low settings are the only playable preset at 1080p, with an average of 77.7 FPS. Medium settings fall to 53.0 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p Low to 1440p Low?

A: The average frame rate drops from 77.7 FPS at 1920x1080 Low to 56.1 FPS at 2560x1440 Low, a reduction of 21.6 FPS or approximately 28%.

Q: Is there any resolution where Ultra settings are playable?

A: No. At every resolution tested, Ultra settings fall significantly below 60 FPS. The highest Ultra average is 34.8 FPS at 1920x1080.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, while the Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, putting the Arc A310 1% ahead. This is a negligible difference in synthetic benchmarks.

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking among all tested processors?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 sits at the 47th percentile, meaning it outperforms 47% of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 2254.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database's verdict system identifies playable settings as those that maintain an average FPS at or above 60. For this combination, only one resolution and preset qualifies.

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves playable status. The closest option is Low with 34.1 FPS, but that is still 43% below the threshold. The database records no best settings for this resolution because none meet the minimum requirement.

At 2560x1440, the same situation applies. Low settings come nearest at 56.1 FPS, but the 3.9 FPS shortfall means the system cannot sustain 60 FPS at this resolution under any quality setting. The database again records no playable settings.

At 1920x1080, Low settings are the clear winner, delivering 77.7 FPS on average. This is the only playable configuration in the entire dataset. Medium settings at 53.0 FPS are close but do not clear the threshold, and the database explicitly lists Low as the best settings with an average FPS of 77.7. Users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity should stick with Low at 1080p; those who want higher quality would need to accept sub-60 FPS performance or upgrade hardware.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the CPU first, the Intel Core i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254 and sits at the 47th percentile. Its nearest rivals are all within a fraction of a percent in performance. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259, which is 0.2% higher, making it effectively identical in compute capability. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, 0.3% lower. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 also scores 2246, 0.4% lower. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, 0.4% higher. For Lockdown Protocol, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly the same frame rates as the i5-9400, assuming the GPU remains the same. The differences are so small that they would be imperceptible in real gameplay.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472 and sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447 (0.3% lower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (0.4% lower), the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (0.6% lower), and the Intel Arc A310 at 7550 (1% higher). These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning that swapping the GTX 1650 for any of these alternatives would produce nearly identical FPS results in Lockdown Protocol. The Intel Arc A310 is technically the strongest of the group, but a 1% advantage would not change the playability verdict at any resolution.

For a system builder looking at this data, the implication is that this performance tier is tightly clustered. The CPU and GPU both have rivals that match them within a single percentage point, so the overall gaming experience would be consistent across a range of similar hardware combinations. The bottleneck in this system is unlikely to shift dramatically with a small hardware change; the playable envelope remains 1080p Low regardless of which near-identical alternative is chosen.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3543 out of 3714 tested combos in Lockdown Protocol. This places it in the bottom 5% of all configurations in the database, at the 4.6th percentile. To put that in context, this system is outperformed by roughly 95% of all tested hardware pairings for this specific game.

The low rank is consistent with the measured FPS data. Only one configuration, 1080p Low, achieves playable performance. The GPU sits at the 40th percentile overall, and the CPU at the 47th, so neither component is particularly weak on its own, but the combination clearly struggles with Lockdown Protocol's demands. The rank suggests that most other tested systems, even those with modest individual component scores, manage to deliver better frame rates at higher settings or resolutions.

This ranking is a useful reference point for buyers considering this hardware. It indicates that while the system can run the game, it does so at the minimum viable settings and only at the lowest resolution. Users who expect to play Lockdown Protocol at higher quality presets or on a 1440p or 4K monitor would need to look at systems ranked significantly higher in the database.

The Verdict

The short answer is yes, this PC can run Lockdown Protocol, but with significant limitations. The verdict by resolution is clear: at 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, with the best average FPS being 34.1 on Low. At 2560x1440, there are also no playable settings, with Low averaging 56.1 FPS, just under the 60 FPS threshold. At 1920x1080, Low settings are playable with an average of 77.7 FPS, which clears the threshold by a comfortable margin.

This means that the system is only viable for 1080p gaming at the lowest quality preset. Users who own a 1080p monitor and are willing to accept Low settings will get a playable experience with headroom above 60 FPS. Those with 1440p or 4K displays will need to lower the resolution to 1080p to achieve playable frame rates, or accept sub-60 FPS performance at native resolution. The data does not support any claim of playability at Medium or higher settings at any resolution, so visual quality will be firmly limited to the Low preset for a smooth experience.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals an interesting division of labor between the CPU and GPU in Lockdown Protocol. Looking at the FPS scaling across resolutions, the GPU is clearly the dominant factor. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 77.7 FPS at 1080p to 56.1 FPS at 1440p and 34.1 FPS at 4K. That is a 28% drop from 1080p to 1440p and another 39% drop from 1440p to 4K. This pattern is typical of GPU-bound scenarios, where increasing pixel count directly taxes the renderer.

The settings scaling further confirms the GPU's importance. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 24.7 FPS, while moving from Medium to High costs only 3.4 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 14.8 FPS. The irregular pattern suggests that certain quality settings, likely those that increase shading complexity or texture memory usage, disproportionately affect the GTX 1650. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is likely a constraint at higher presets, as texture quality and anti-aliasing settings can exceed that limit.

The CPU's role appears secondary but not negligible. The i5-9400 delivers an average benchmark score of 2254 and sits at the 47th percentile, which is adequate for most gaming workloads. Since the FPS differences between rival CPUs are all within 0.4%, the CPU is unlikely to be the limiting factor at any resolution. The system is GPU-bound throughout, meaning that upgrading the graphics card would yield larger FPS gains than upgrading the processor.

At higher resolutions, the GPU's load increases while the CPU's workload remains relatively constant, so the GTX 1650 becomes even more dominant as a bottleneck. The fact that 1440p Low nearly hits 60 FPS but falls short, while 1080p Low exceeds it by 17.7 FPS, suggests that the GPU is right at the edge of its capability for this game. A slightly stronger GPU would likely make 1440p Low playable, but the CPU would not need to change. Conversely, a stronger CPU paired with this GTX 1650 would produce almost identical results, as the data from CPU rivals shows no meaningful performance spread.