Lockdown Protocol

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS across resolutions tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lives in this pairing. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo reaches 124.4 FPS, but dropping to 2560x1440 Low yields 87.9 FPS — a 29.4% reduction. Pushing further to 3840x2160 Low produces 58.2 FPS, which is a 53.2% drop from the 1080p Low figure. This scaling pattern is steep and consistent with a GPU-limited scenario, since the GTX 1660 SUPER is the component being asked to render exponentially more pixels.

The trend becomes even more pronounced when examining higher presets. At High settings, the transition from 1080p (76.8 FPS) to 1440p (54 FPS) represents a 29.7% decline, while moving from 1440p to 4K (38.3 FPS) costs another 29.1%. The Ultra preset shows the most dramatic falloff: 55.8 FPS at 1080p, 39.9 FPS at 1440p, and just 27.1 FPS at 4K. That last step — from 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra — is a 32.1% reduction, indicating that the GPU is completely saturated at the highest resolution and quality combination.

What does this imply about the limiting component? The Ryzen 7 9800X3D, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, is clearly not the constraint here. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the processor would be the ceiling regardless of pixel count. Instead, the data shows a steady decline with every resolution increase, which is the hallmark of a GPU-bound system. The GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are being pushed to their limits as resolution scales, and the frame rates reflect that pressure.

Interestingly, the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (124.4 FPS) and Ultra (55.8 FPS) is 68.6 FPS. At 1440p, that gap narrows to 48 FPS (87.9 vs 39.9). At 4K, it shrinks to 31.1 FPS (58.2 vs 27.1). This compression suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so overwhelmed by pixel throughput that the additional shading work from Ultra settings matters less in absolute terms — the renderer is fighting for every frame regardless of quality level.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows reveal a clear sweet spot for this combination. At 1920x1080, Medium settings deliver 87 FPS, which is a 44.2% improvement over Ultra's 55.8 FPS while only sacrificing 37.3 FPS compared to Low's 124.4. This positions Medium as the balanced choice for 1080p gaming, offering smooth motion without the steep quality penalty of dropping to Low.

Moving to 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts. Medium produces 63.8 FPS, which is playable but noticeably below the 87 FPS seen at 1080p Medium. Low settings at this resolution hit 87.9 FPS, matching the 1080p Medium experience. For players prioritizing frame rate over visual fidelity at 1440p, Low is the safer bet. High settings at 54 FPS fall into a marginal zone, while Ultra's 39.9 FPS is likely too choppy for a fast-paced FPS.

At 3840x2160, the data paints a grim picture for high-quality gaming. Low settings manage 58.2 FPS, which is the only 4K preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold — and it barely does so. Medium drops to 43.7 FPS, High to 38.3, and Ultra to 27.1. The conclusion is straightforward: if 4K is the target, Low settings are the only viable option, and even then, the frame rate is marginal for competitive play. The 6 GB VRAM capacity likely contributes to this ceiling, as texture and geometry demands at 4K can exceed what this GPU can comfortably handle.

The pattern across all resolutions is that the GTX 1660 SUPER cannot sustain Ultra settings without significant frame rate compromises. The measured data suggests that Medium at 1080p or Low at 1440p offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, while 4K demands Low settings as the sole playable option.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D brings substantial processing power to this pairing, but the benchmark results indicate that its capabilities are largely untapped in Lockdown Protocol. The CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.20 GHz, represent a high-end processor that sits in the 90th percentile versus all CPUs. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 34004 and single-core score of 4800 confirm its strength across both multithreaded and lightly threaded workloads.

However, the measured FPS data shows that this CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution or settings combination. The steady FPS declines with increasing resolution — from 124.4 FPS at 1080p Low to 58.2 FPS at 4K Low — demonstrate that the GPU is the primary constraint. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to plateau at a certain level regardless of resolution, particularly at lower settings where the GPU has less work to do.

The 3DMark benchmarks provide context for the CPU's theoretical capabilities. Its 16-thread score of 10081 and single-thread score of 1212 indicate strong performance, but these numbers don't translate into higher FPS in this game because the GTX 1660 SUPER simply cannot render frames fast enough to utilize the CPU's headroom. The PassMark multithread score of 40009 and single-thread score of 4430 further reinforce this point — the processor is ready to feed frames, but the GPU is the gatekeeper.

This is not a criticism of the CPU, but rather an observation about the nature of this specific combination. In a system with a more powerful GPU, the 9800X3D's capabilities would likely shine. But with the GTX 1660 SUPER, the processor is effectively waiting on the graphics card at every turn. The data suggests that Lockdown Protocol's engine is not particularly CPU-intensive at the settings tested, or at least not intensive enough to challenge this processor's 8-core, 16-thread configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame places this pairing at 1462 out of 1637 tested combinations. This rank — in the 10.7th percentile of all combos — reflects the significant mismatch between the CPU and GPU. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D is a top-tier processor, sitting in the 90th percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37780. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-13900HK (38020, -0.6% delta) and the Intel Core i5-13600KF (38028, -0.7% delta), showing that it competes with high-end desktop and mobile processors.

In contrast, the GTX 1660 SUPER is in the 55th percentile versus all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14286. Its nearest rivals — the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14314, -0.2%), Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14315, -0.2%), and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14389, -0.7%) — are all integrated or entry-level discrete graphics solutions. This GPU is firmly in the lower-middle tier of graphics hardware, which explains why the combo ranks so poorly despite the powerful CPU.

The ranking data reveals that the GTX 1660 SUPER drags down the overall performance of this combination. A processor like the 9800X3D would typically be paired with a much stronger GPU to achieve a higher combo rank. The measured FPS numbers confirm this: even at 1080p Low, the combo only reaches 124.4 FPS, which is respectable but not exceptional for a high-end CPU pairing. At 4K Ultra, the 27.1 FPS result is firmly in unplayable territory, underscoring the GPU's limitations.

This rank suggests that users with this combination would benefit more from upgrading the GPU than the CPU. The processor has ample headroom, but the graphics card is holding back the entire system. In the context of the 1637 tested combos, this pairing sits near the bottom, which is a direct consequence of the GPU's modest capabilities relative to the CPU's potential.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combination?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the most practical resolution. At Low settings, the combo achieves 124.4 FPS, and at Medium it reaches 87 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low settings (87.9 FPS) approach playable frame rates, while 3840x2160 is limited to Low settings at 58.2 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GPU has an average benchmark score of 14286, which places it in the 55th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14314, -0.2% delta), Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14315, -0.2%), and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14389, -0.7%). These are all within 0.7% of the GTX 1660 SUPER's score.

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 9800X3D the bottleneck in this system?

A: No. The CPU's average benchmark score of 37780 places it in the 90th percentile, and its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 34004 indicates strong processing power. The steady FPS decline across resolutions — from 124.4 FPS at 1080p Low to 58.2 FPS at 4K Low — confirms the GPU is the limiting component.

Q: What settings should be used at 2560x1440?

A: Low settings provide the best experience at 87.9 FPS. Medium drops to 63.8 FPS, High to 54 FPS, and Ultra to 39.9 FPS. For a smooth FPS experience, Low is the recommended preset at this resolution.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming?

A: Only at Low settings, where it achieves 58.2 FPS. Medium drops to 43.7 FPS, High to 38.3 FPS, and Ultra to 27.1 FPS. The 6 GB GDDR6 memory and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth appear insufficient for higher quality presets at 4K.

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

A: It ranks 1462 out of 1637 tested combos, placing it in the lower 10.7% of all combinations. This reflects the significant performance gap between the high-end CPU and the mid-range GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured FPS across settings shows a wide spread. Low settings deliver 124.4 FPS, Medium produces 87 FPS, High manages 76.8 FPS, and Ultra drops to 55.8 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 68.6 FPS, representing a 55.1% reduction in frame rate when maximizing quality.

At 2560x1440, the numbers compress somewhat. Low settings achieve 87.9 FPS, Medium reaches 63.8 FPS, High hits 54 FPS, and Ultra falls to 39.9 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 48 FPS, a 54.6% reduction. Notably, 1440p Low (87.9 FPS) nearly matches 1080p Medium (87 FPS), suggesting that resolution scaling and quality settings have comparable impacts on performance.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overwhelmed at higher presets. Low settings produce 58.2 FPS, Medium drops to 43.7 FPS, High falls to 38.3 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 27.1 FPS. The total spread from Low to Ultra is 31.1 FPS, a 53.4% reduction. More importantly, no preset at 4K achieves the 60 FPS threshold that would be considered ideal for an FPS, and only Low comes close at 58.2 FPS.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: each settings tier costs roughly 15-20% of frame rate at any given resolution. From Low to Medium, the average drop across resolutions is approximately 24.5 FPS. From Medium to High, the average drop is about 9.5 FPS. And from High to Ultra, the average drop is approximately 17.5 FPS. This suggests that the Medium-to-High transition is the least costly in performance terms, while Low-to-Medium and High-to-Ultra impose larger penalties.

GPU Role

The GTX 1660 SUPER is the decisive factor in this combination's performance. With a base clock of 1530 MHz and boost clock of 1785 MHz, this Turing-architecture GPU (12 nm process, 6,600 million transistors) provides 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus delivers 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by modern standards but was adequate for 1080p gaming at the time of its release.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it in the 55th percentile versus all GPUs, with an average score of 14286. Its PassMark G3D score of 12699 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1278 indicate that it is a capable entry-level to mid-range graphics card. However, the measured FPS data in Lockdown Protocol reveals that it struggles with higher resolutions and quality settings, particularly at 4K where even Low settings only reach 58.2 FPS.

The VRAM capacity is a likely contributor to the performance ceiling at 4K. With only 6 GB of GDDR6 memory, the GPU may be forced to swap textures and geometry data more aggressively at higher resolutions, which could explain the steep FPS drops when moving from 1440p to 4K. The memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s, while respectable for a 192-bit bus, may also be insufficient for the data throughput demands of 4K rendering.

The GPU's end-of-life production status and its position in the GeForce 16-series (predecessor to GeForce 20) suggest that this is aging hardware. Its direct rivals — the Radeon RX Vega 11, Iris Xe MAX, and RX 5500 XT — are all within 0.7% of its average score, indicating that it competes with integrated graphics and entry-level discrete solutions. This context is important for understanding why the combo ranks at 1462 out of 1637: the CPU is operating at a far higher tier than the GPU, and the overall system performance is constrained by the graphics card's modest capabilities.