Lockdown Protocol

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i9-14900K sits in a tightly contested performance band. The closest matching processor is the Intel Core i9-14900KF, which scores only 0.3% higher in average benchmark score. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is nearly identical as well, trailing by 0.6%. The AMD EPYC 7413 is 1.2% ahead, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is 1.7% behind. For practical purposes, any of these four CPUs would deliver indistinguishable compute performance in Lockdown Protocol, since the game's frame rates at lower resolutions are heavily constrained by the graphics card rather than the processor.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 occupies a much more scattered neighborhood. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 0.3% slower, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is 0.4% slower, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 is 0.6% slower. On the faster side, the Intel Arc A310 leads by 1.0%. These four GPUs form a cluster where the GTX 1650 is effectively the middle option. A user swapping between these parts would see negligible differences in average frame rates, though the GTX 1650's driver support and feature set may differ from the integrated or older discrete options.

The CPU ranks in the 95th percentile among all tested processors, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of installed hardware. The GPU, by contrast, sits in the 40th percentile, which places it below the median for all graphics cards in the database. This pairing is a classic example of a high-end processor matched with an entry-level graphics solution. The CPU's headroom is enormous, but the GPU becomes the limiting factor in any graphically demanding scenario.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data reveals a clear pattern: the GPU dominates performance scaling across resolutions and presets, while the CPU's contribution is effectively constant. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 78.3 FPS. Dropping to 2560x1440 Low reduces the average to 56.0 FPS, a 28.5% decline. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 34.5 FPS, another 38.4% drop. These reductions track closely with pixel count increases, which is the signature of a GPU-bound workload.

The settings ladder reinforces this conclusion. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium costs 23.6 FPS (from 78.3 to 54.7), and from Medium to High another 5.1 FPS (54.7 to 49.6). The jump from High to Ultra costs 11.9 FPS (49.6 to 37.7). At 2560x1440, the same progression goes from 56.0 Low to 40.3 Medium to 36.5 High to 28.6 Ultra. At 3840x2160, the values are 34.5 Low, 28.0 Medium, 24.8 High, and 17.1 Ultra. Every step down in settings yields a disproportionate FPS gain, which is typical when the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are stretched thin.

The CPU's 24 cores and 32 threads are far beyond what Lockdown Protocol requires, especially considering this is an FPS title that rarely scales beyond a handful of threads. The integrated UHD Graphics 770 is irrelevant here, as the discrete GTX 1650 handles all rendering. The data shows no scenario where CPU performance becomes the bottleneck: even at the lowest resolution and preset, the GPU is still working near its limit. The CPU's 95th percentile standing means it would not hold back any GPU in the database, let alone one in the 40th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Lockdown Protocol at 1920x1080?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings. The average frame rate at 1920x1080 Low is 78.3 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium and High presets fall short, with 54.7 and 49.6 FPS respectively, and Ultra drops to 37.7 FPS.

Q: Is this system playable at 2560x1440?

A: No. The best average at this resolution is 56.0 FPS on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra produce 40.3, 36.5, and 28.6 FPS respectively. No settings combination reaches playable performance.

Q: What about 3840x2160?

A: The system is not playable at 4K under any preset. The highest average is 34.5 FPS on Low, followed by 28.0 on Medium, 24.8 on High, and 17.1 on Ultra. All of these are well below the 60 FPS line.

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

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 7472, which is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750, and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350. The Intel Arc A310 is 1.0% faster. The GPU ranks in the 40th percentile among all graphics cards.

Q: Is the CPU the reason for low frame rates?

A: No. The Intel Core i9-14900K ranks in the 95th percentile among all CPUs and has a multi-core score of 39399.5 in Cinebench R23. The performance scaling between resolutions and presets matches GPU-bound behavior, indicating the GTX 1650 is the limiting component.

Q: What is the best playable settings combination?

A: The only playable configuration in the database is 1920x1080 with Low settings, producing 78.3 FPS average. This is the sole setting that achieves at least 60 FPS across all tested resolutions and presets.

The Verdict

This PC can run Lockdown Protocol, but with significant limitations. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold only on Low settings, achieving 78.3 FPS. Medium and High fall below the line at 54.7 and 49.6 FPS, and Ultra manages just 37.7 FPS. The database verdict lists 1920x1080 Low as the only playable configuration.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The closest is Low at 56.0 FPS, which is 4 FPS short of the playable threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra produce 40.3, 36.5, and 28.6 FPS respectively. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse: Low yields 34.5 FPS, Medium 28.0, High 24.8, and Ultra 17.1. The verdict for both higher resolutions is not playable.

The core issue is the GPU. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and a 128-bit bus, which limits texture streaming and fill rate at higher resolutions. The CPU, meanwhile, is overkill for this title. Users who want higher settings or resolutions would need a more capable graphics card, as the CPU would have no trouble feeding a faster GPU.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 78.3 FPS. This is the only playable option in the entire dataset. Medium at 54.7 FPS and High at 49.6 FPS are close but do not meet the threshold. Ultra at 37.7 FPS is not viable.

At 2560x1440, there is no playable preset. The best average is Low at 56.0 FPS, which misses the 60 FPS mark by 4 frames. Medium at 40.3, High at 36.5, and Ultra at 28.6 are progressively worse. Users at this resolution would need to lower the resolution or upgrade the GPU.

At 3840x2160, no preset is playable. Low at 34.5 FPS is the highest average, followed by Medium at 28.0, High at 24.8, and Ultra at 17.1. This resolution is effectively out of reach for this hardware combination. The database lists no playable settings for either 2560x1440 or 3840x2160.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i9-14900K and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3493 out of 3714 tested combos in Lockdown Protocol. This places the system in the bottom 6% of all configurations tested for this game. The rank reflects the severe imbalance between the top-tier CPU and the entry-level GPU.

The data shows why this ranking is so low. The CPU's 95th percentile standing does not translate into high frame rates because the GPU is in the 40th percentile. Nearly any modern mid-range or high-end GPU paired with this CPU would rank significantly higher. The CPU's enormous compute headroom is wasted in a game where the GPU is saturated at even the lowest settings.

For context, the GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472 is just 0.3% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, a mobile-class GPU from a much older generation. The GPU's 4 GB memory capacity is a particular liability for modern FPS titles, which often require more than 4 GB at higher presets. The ranking of 3493 out of 3714 should be interpreted as a warning: this system is not competitive for Lockdown Protocol beyond the lowest settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded frame rate data covers 12 configurations, spanning three resolutions and four settings tiers. All values are average FPS; no minimum or maximum frame times were recorded.

At 3840x2160, the averages are as follows: Low 34.5 FPS, Medium 28.0 FPS, High 24.8 FPS, and Ultra 17.1 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 17.4 FPS, a 50.4% reduction. The progression is linear, with each settings tier costing roughly 3 to 7 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 56.0 FPS, Medium 40.3 FPS, High 36.5 FPS, and Ultra 28.6 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 27.4 FPS, a 48.9% reduction. Medium represents the steepest single drop from Low, losing 15.7 FPS, while High to Ultra loses 7.9 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the averages are: Low 78.3 FPS, Medium 54.7 FPS, High 49.6 FPS, and Ultra 37.7 FPS. The Low to Ultra gap is 40.6 FPS, a 51.9% reduction. The step from Low to Medium is the largest single drop at 23.6 FPS, while Medium to High loses 5.1 FPS and High to Ultra loses 11.9 FPS.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: the percentage loss from Low to Ultra is roughly 50% at every resolution. This indicates that the settings presets scale uniformly, and the GPU's relative performance is consistent regardless of resolution. The absolute FPS values shrink as resolution increases, but the relative cost of higher settings remains stable. This is typical for a GPU with a fixed memory bandwidth and shading capability. The 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 throughput establish a ceiling that no CPU can overcome.