Lockdown Protocol

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates across the three tested resolutions reveal a clear pattern of GPU limitation. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 126.7 FPS, but this drops to 93.6 FPS at 1440p and further to 56.4 FPS at 4K. This represents a 26% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a further 40% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is consistent with a graphics-card-bound scenario where the pixel-count increase directly impacts throughput.

When moving from Low to Ultra settings at each resolution, the frame rate penalty grows substantially. At 1080p, the gap between Low (126.7 FPS) and Ultra (60.7 FPS) is 66 FPS, or roughly a 52% reduction. At 1440p, the same comparison shows Low at 93.6 FPS and Ultra at 41.9 FPS, a 55% reduction. At 4K, the spread narrows in absolute terms—Low at 56.4 FPS and Ultra at 27 FPS—but the relative drop is even steeper at 52%. This narrowing absolute gap at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU's shading and memory subsystems are becoming the dominant constraint, rather than the CPU or driver overhead.

The 4K Ultra result of 27 FPS is the lowest measured point in the entire dataset. It indicates that this configuration struggles to maintain playable frame rates at maximum settings in 4K for Lockdown Protocol. Conversely, the 1080p Low result of 126.7 FPS shows that the same hardware can deliver high-refresh-rate performance when graphical demands are reduced. The data points to a system where the GTX 1660 Ti's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus are the limiting factors at higher resolutions, as the CPU's capabilities far exceed what the GPU can feed at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1409th out of 1637 tested combinations in Lockdown Protocol. This places it in the lower 14% of all tested configurations, indicating that this pairing is not optimized for this particular FPS title. The rank reflects the significant bottleneck created by the GTX 1660 Ti when paired with the top-tier Ryzen 7 9800X3D processor.

The CPU alone sits in the 90th percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37780. Its nearest rivals—the Intel Xeon 6353P, Intel Core Ultra 5 225, Intel Core i9-13900HK, and Intel Core i5-13600KF—all score within 0.7% of the 9800X3D's average. This demonstrates that the processor is among the fastest available, yet the combo's overall rank suffers because the GPU's average benchmark score of 13925 places it in only the 55th percentile versus all GPUs.

The GPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 570X (0.4% ahead), NVIDIA Tesla K10 (0.7% behind), NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (0.8% ahead), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (0.8% ahead). This tight clustering around the GTX 1660 Ti's performance level confirms that the graphics card is the weak link in this pairing. The data shows a stark mismatch: a top-10% CPU paired with a mid-tier GPU yields a bottom-14% combo ranking in this game.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti operates with a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz. Its memory runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective throughput, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth across a 192-bit bus. The 6 GB of GDDR6 memory is the most likely constraint in Lockdown Protocol's higher-resolution presets, as texture-heavy scenes at 4K can exceed this capacity.

The GPU's compute capabilities include 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output pipelines. Its FP32 performance is rated at 5.437 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 10.87 TFLOPS (2:1). The pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s provide context for why 4K Ultra (27 FPS) falls below playable thresholds—the fill-rate demands outpace what this Turing-based chip can deliver.

Benchmark results show the GPU scoring 12871 in Passmark G3D and 5226 in Passmark GPU Compute. Its DirectX 11 score of 103 and DirectX 12 score of 51 indicate that the card is more comfortable with older API workloads, which aligns with its 2019 release date. The GPU's 55th percentile standing among all GPUs, combined with its end-of-life production status, suggests that newer titles like Lockdown Protocol will increasingly tax its capabilities.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimal settings. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 126.7 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 88.1 FPS and High at 79.4 FPS also maintain comfortable margins. Ultra at 60.7 FPS is exactly at the 60 FPS mark, making it viable for players who prioritize visual fidelity over headroom.

For 1440p, the Low preset's 93.6 FPS is the only setting that provides substantial headroom above 60 FPS. Medium at 66.6 FPS is playable but leaves little room for frame-time spikes. High at 54.6 FPS and Ultra at 41.9 FPS fall below the 60 FPS threshold, suggesting that these presets are best avoided for competitive play. The 4K resolution presents a more challenging scenario: Low at 56.4 FPS is the only setting that approaches playability, while Medium (44.8 FPS), High (36.9 FPS), and Ultra (27 FPS) all fall short of smooth performance.

The data suggests that the optimal balance for most users is 1080p Medium or High, which provides frame rates in the 79–88 FPS range while retaining visual quality. For 1440p users, Low is the pragmatic choice. 4K gaming with this combo is only feasible at Low settings, and even then, the 56.4 FPS result is marginal.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range produces the following average frame rates: Low at 126.7 FPS, Medium at 88.1 FPS, High at 79.4 FPS, and Ultra at 60.7 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 38.6 FPS drop, while Medium to High is a smaller 8.7 FPS reduction. The High to Ultra transition costs 18.7 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset introduces disproportionately heavy effects.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low at 93.6 FPS, Medium at 66.6 FPS, High at 54.6 FPS, and Ultra at 41.9 FPS. The Low to Medium drop of 27 FPS is significant, while the Medium to High reduction of 12 FPS is more moderate. The High to Ultra penalty of 12.7 FPS mirrors the pattern seen at 1080p, suggesting consistent scaling of the Ultra preset's additional demands.

At 3840x2160, the measured results are: Low at 56.4 FPS, Medium at 44.8 FPS, High at 36.9 FPS, and Ultra at 27 FPS. The Low to Medium drop of 11.6 FPS, Medium to High drop of 7.9 FPS, and High to Ultra drop of 9.9 FPS show a more linear degradation at 4K. This indicates that at this resolution, every preset level imposes nearly equal incremental costs, unlike the step-function behavior seen at lower resolutions.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D provides 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.20 GHz. Its 96 MB of shared L3 cache is a defining feature, particularly for gaming workloads that benefit from large data residency. The CPU's 3DMark results show strong scaling: 2394 in the 2-thread test, 4669 in 4-thread, 8252 in 8-thread, and 10067 in max-thread tests. This indicates efficient utilization of all cores without significant contention.

Cinebench scores reinforce the processor's capabilities: R23 multicore at 34004 and single-core at 4800. Geekbench results show 18413 multicore and 3341 single-core. Passmark single-thread at 4430 and multithread at 40009 further confirm that the CPU is not the bottleneck in this configuration. The 90th percentile standing versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37780, places it just behind the Intel Xeon 6353P (37811, -0.1% delta) and Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (37831, -0.1% delta).

Despite this CPU horsepower, the measured frame rates in Lockdown Protocol never exceed 126.7 FPS even at 1080p Low. This ceiling is imposed by the GPU, not the processor. The CPU's 8-core/16-thread configuration with 4 nm Zen 5 architecture is more than sufficient for this FPS title's threading demands. The data shows that the 9800X3D's performance headroom is largely wasted in this pairing, as the GTX 1660 Ti reaches its limits long before the CPU does. For users considering an upgrade path, the CPU would be capable of driving much faster GPUs without becoming a limiting factor.