Lockdown Protocol

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 3 architecture (codenamed Vermeer) using TSMC's 7 nm process. It carries a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP and support for DDR4 memory across a dual-channel bus. The chip includes 32 MB of L3 cache and 512 KB of L2 per core. In synthetic workloads, the CPU demonstrates strong single-thread performance — its 3DMark single-thread score of 917 and Cinebench R23 single-core result of 2622 support this. Multi-threaded results are also respectable: Cinebench R23 multi-core hits 18,578, and Geekbench multi-core reaches 8,673.

The data suggests this processor is not a bottleneck for Lockdown Protocol at most settings. Look at the measured FPS: at 1080p Low, the combo averages 246.2 FPS. That figure is high enough that even a modestly slower CPU would likely be the limiting factor before the GPU. However, the 5600X's position in the broader CPU landscape — its 78th percentile vs. all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 20,680 — places it just 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT (20,740) and 0.3% behind the Intel Core i7-10700 (20,746). These near-identical scores imply that in CPU-bound scenarios, swapping among these chips would produce negligible differences.

The interesting question is whether the 5600X's 6 cores are fully utilized in this FPS title. The CPU's 3DMark 16-thread score of 5,582 versus its max-thread score of 5,588 suggests almost perfect scaling beyond 8 threads, but the game's engine may not leverage all 12 threads effectively. Given that the 1080p Low result (246.2 FPS) is so far above typical display refresh rates, the CPU appears to have headroom. The processor's PassMark single-thread score of 3,364 reinforces that individual core performance is solid, which matters for games that rely on a few primary threads for physics and game logic.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture (Navi 48 chip) using a 4 nm process from TSMC. It packs 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's boost clock reaches 2520 MHz, with a game clock of 2070 MHz and a base of 1330 MHz. Memory runs at 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective). The card features 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, with 56 ray-tracing cores. Its compute output is 36.13 TFLOPS FP32.

The GPU's role in Lockdown Protocol becomes clear when examining the performance scaling across resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the combo drops to 51.5 FPS, which is a 79% reduction from the 4K Low result of 115.9 FPS. That's a steep penalty for maxing settings. The 16 GB VRAM buffer is likely sufficient for the game's textures even at 4K Ultra, since the memory bandwidth (644.6 GB/s) and bus width (256 bit) are substantial. The pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 564.5 GTexel/s suggest the card has raw fill-rate capacity, but the Ultra preset's additional effects — likely shadows, reflections, and post-processing — exact a heavy toll.

The GPU's benchmark profile shows a PassMark G3D score of 25,381 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6,290. Its 79th percentile vs. all GPUs places it among capable performers, though the nearest rivals are unusual: the NVIDIA A2 (34,866 avg score, -0.2% delta), NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (34,677, +0.3%), AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34,541, +0.7%), and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (34,511, +0.8%). These comparisons are based on average benchmark scores, not gaming-specific results, so they don't directly translate to Lockdown Protocol performance.

FAQ

Q: Why does the combo achieve 246.2 FPS at 1080p Low but only 115.9 FPS at 4K Low?

A: The resolution scaling shows a 53% drop in average FPS when moving from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 at Low settings. The GPU must render four times as many pixels at 4K, and the data indicates the RX 9070's fill-rate and memory bandwidth become more stressed even at minimal graphical detail.

Q: Which component limits performance at 1080p Ultra?

A: At 1080p Ultra, the combo averages 117.2 FPS, which is still high but well below the 246.2 FPS at Low. The gap between Low and Ultra at the same resolution (129 FPS difference) suggests the GPU is the primary constraint, as the CPU's workload doesn't change dramatically with graphical settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals in synthetic tests?

A: The Ryzen 5 5600X has an average benchmark score of 20,680, placing it 0.3% behind the Ryzen 5 5600GT (20,740) and Intel Core i7-10700 (20,746), and 0.5% behind the Intel Core i5-12490F (20,794). It is 0.7% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6325P (20,538). These deltas are within noise, indicating near-parity performance.

Q: Is the 16 GB VRAM sufficient for 4K Ultra in this game?

A: The measured 51.5 FPS at 4K Ultra is playable, but the frame rate is much lower than at 4K High (73.8 FPS). The data doesn't indicate VRAM capacity as a limiting factor, since the card's 16 GB allocation and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth are substantial; the performance drop is more likely due to the GPU's compute load from Ultra effects.

Q: What does the combo's rank of 533 out of 1,637 imply?

A: The combo sits in the 33rd percentile of tested combinations for Lockdown Protocol. This means roughly two-thirds of tested combos outperform it, but it still delivers playable frame rates at most settings, suggesting the pairing is balanced rather than exceptional.

Q: Does the CPU's 65 W TDP affect gaming performance?

A: The 65 W TDP reflects power draw, not directly performance. The 5600X's boost clock of 4.60 GHz and 32 MB L3 cache are more relevant to gaming, and the measured FPS at 1080p Low (246.2) indicates the CPU can feed the GPU well in this title.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X + AMD Radeon RX 9070 combination achieves a rank of 533 out of 1,637 tested combos in Lockdown Protocol. That places it in the upper-middle tier of the database — not a top contender, but far from the bottom. The percentile interpretation matters: with 1,637 total combos, a rank of 533 means the combo outperforms roughly 1,104 others (67%) and trails about 532 (33%).

What does that ranking reveal about the pairing's balance? The CPU and GPU are mismatched in generation — the 5600X is a 2020 release (launch MSRP $299) while the RX 9070 is a 2025 product (launch MSRP 549 USD). Yet the measured FPS shows the combo can reach 246.2 FPS at 1080p Low, which is excellent for competitive play. The rank suggests that many other combinations — likely featuring newer CPUs with higher single-thread scores — can push higher frame rates in this CPU-sensitive title. However, the 5600X's 78th percentile CPU standing (vs. all CPUs) is respectable, and the GPU's 79th percentile standing is similarly solid.

The ranking also implies diminishing returns: moving from rank 533 to, say, rank 200 would require substantially more expensive components for what may be an imperceptible difference at 144 Hz. The data shows the combo is viable for 1440p High (109.7 FPS) and even 4K High (73.8 FPS), which are common targets. The rank is a summary statistic, but the measured FPS reveals the practical experience.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal balance of visual quality and frame rate depends on the display resolution. At 1080p, High settings (151.3 FPS) provide a 29% improvement over Ultra (117.2 FPS) while still looking substantially better than Low (246.2 FPS) — the latter is overkill for most monitors. At 1440p, Medium (127.1 FPS) offers a strong middle ground, with High (109.7 FPS) still above 100 FPS for smooth gameplay. Ultra at 1440p (85.5 FPS) is acceptable but sacrifices headroom.

For 4K, the choice becomes more constrained. High (73.8 FPS) is the highest preset that maintains a comfortable frame rate. Medium (81.9 FPS) offers a small boost, while Low (115.9 FPS) is the only preset that exceeds 100 FPS at 4K. Ultra at 4K (51.5 FPS) dips below the 60 FPS threshold, which may cause noticeable stutter on standard 60 Hz displays. The data suggests that High is the recommended preset for 4K, as it balances visual fidelity with a playable 73.8 FPS average.

The most striking insight is the steep drop from Medium to Ultra across all resolutions. At 1080p, the gap is 56.3 FPS (173.5 vs. 117.2); at 1440p, it's 41.6 FPS (127.1 vs. 85.5); at 4K, it's 30.4 FPS (81.9 vs. 51.5). The Ultra preset's cost is disproportionate to its visual benefit, making High or Medium the pragmatic choices unless the user prioritizes maximum fidelity over frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings, producing 12 distinct data points. At 1080p, the results span from 246.2 FPS (Low) down to 117.2 FPS (Ultra). The intermediate settings are 173.5 FPS (Medium) and 151.3 FPS (High). Moving to 1440p, the range tightens: 181.4 FPS (Low), 127.1 FPS (Medium), 109.7 FPS (High), and 85.5 FPS (Ultra). At 4K, the spread narrows further: 115.9 FPS (Low), 81.9 FPS (Medium), 73.8 FPS (High), and 51.5 FPS (Ultra).

Several patterns emerge from these numbers. First, the Low preset consistently provides the highest frame rate at every resolution, with the margin between Low and Medium shrinking as resolution increases. At 1080p, Low beats Medium by 72.7 FPS (246.2 vs. 173.5); at 1440p, the margin is 54.3 FPS (181.4 vs. 127.1); at 4K, it's 34.0 FPS (115.9 vs. 81.9). This narrowing indicates that at higher resolutions, the GPU's pixel throughput becomes the dominant cost, reducing the relative impact of preset effects.

Second, the High preset is consistently close to Medium but slightly below it. At 1080p, High (151.3) trails Medium (173.5) by 22.2 FPS; at 1440p, the gap is 17.4 FPS (109.7 vs. 127.1); at 4K, it's 8.1 FPS (73.8 vs. 81.9). This suggests High adds modest visual enhancements over Medium at a small performance cost. Third, Ultra is the outlier: its cost is disproportionately high at all resolutions, with the largest absolute drop occurring at 1080p (56.3 FPS below Medium).

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals which component is the limiting factor at each setting. At Low settings, the scaling is: 246.2 FPS (1080p) → 181.4 FPS (1440p) → 115.9 FPS (4K). That's a 53% reduction from 1080p to 4K (130.3 FPS lost). At Medium, the progression is 173.5 → 127.1 → 81.9, a 53% drop (91.6 FPS lost). At High, it's 151.3 → 109.7 → 73.8, a 51% drop (77.5 FPS lost). At Ultra, the figures are 117.2 → 85.5 → 51.5, a 56% drop (65.7 FPS lost).

The consistency of these percentage drops — all around 51-56% — indicates that the GPU is the primary scaling driver. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we'd expect the FPS to remain flatter across resolutions at low settings, since the CPU's workload doesn't change with pixel count. Instead, the near-linear pixel-count relationship (4K has 4x the pixels of 1080p, but the FPS doesn't drop by 4x) shows the RX 9070's bandwidth and compute are being utilized progressively more as resolution rises.

The absolute FPS loss from 1080p to 4K is largest at Low (130.3 FPS) and smallest at Ultra (65.7 FPS). This is counterintuitive at first: you'd expect Ultra to have the largest absolute drop because it's already stressing the GPU. However, the Ultra preset's low starting point (117.2 FPS at 1080p) means there's less headroom to lose. The data implies that at Ultra, the GPU is already saturated at 1080p, and additional resolution has a smaller marginal effect — the GPU is the clear limiting component at every resolution and setting combination, with the CPU providing sufficient headroom for the game's logic and draw calls.