Lockdown Protocol

== Resolution Scaling ==

The measured FPS data for Lockdown Protocol shows a consistent, steep drop as render resolution climbs from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 145 FPS at 1080p to 106 FPS at 1440p and then to 69 FPS at 4K. The Medium preset follows a similar trajectory: 103 FPS, 76 FPS, and 49 FPS for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K respectively. High settings produce 90, 66, and 43 FPS across the same three resolutions, while Ultra moves from 67 FPS at 1080p to 49 FPS at 1440p and finally 32 FPS at 4K.

This pattern indicates that the rendering load scales heavily with pixel count—the GPU is clearly the component under the most strain as resolution increases. At the two highest settings, the percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is nearly half the original value: High falls from 90 to 43, Ultra from 67 to 32. Even the Low preset, which probably relies on more compute-light shaders, cannot maintain framerates above 70 at 4K, dropping to 69. Notice that the gap between Low and Ultra widens as resolution increases: at 1080p the difference is 78 FPS (145 vs 67), at 1440p it is 57 FPS (106 vs 49), and at 4K it is 37 FPS (69 vs 32). The shrinking absolute difference at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU's raw pixel throughput becomes the limiting factor before the graphics settings have a chance to take effect.

The data does not show any scenario where the frame rate doubles when dropping from 4K to 1080p—instead we see about a 2.1x increase in average FPS across all settings. That ratio is consistent with a GPU-limited workload that scales linearly with pixel count. There is no sign of CPU thrashing or a single-thread barrier; even the lowest FPS recorded at 1080p with Medium (minimum 88 FPS) is far above the typical 30–60 FPS targets.

In practical terms, a gamer wanting 1440p smoothness will need to stay at Medium or Low, while 4K demands either the Low preset (69 FPS) or a different graphics card. The measured range of 32 to 145 FPS pegs this combination as a solid 1080p performer that begins to struggle at higher resolutions, and the steep drop from 145 to 106 to 69 across Low presets shows that each resolution step costs about 45% of the previous frame rate.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 is a six-core, twelve-thread processor with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. It has an 18 MB shared L3 cache, uses the DDR4 or DDR5 memory interface (dual-channel), and is rated with a 65 W TDP. It was released in January 2022 and its overall benchmark percentile is 72% of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms about 72% of desktop and mobile processors. Its average benchmark score is 18,683, which places it close to the AMD EPYC 7643 (difference of -0.1%), the Intel Core i7-1355U (-0.3%), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 (-0.7%), and the Intel Core i3-14100F (+0.9%). Those near‑same deltas indicate the i5-12400 sits in a densely packed midfield for this generation.

In single‑thread workloads, the i5-12400 scores 2,257 in Cinebench R23 and 1,848 in Geekbench. The multithread results are heavy: Cinebench R20 6,715, R23 15,989, and PassMark multi‑thread 18,747. A 3DMark test on 16 threads returns 5,873. These numbers show a processor that can handle current multi‑threaded titles, but in Lockdown Protocol the actual frame rates are what matter. At 1080p Low, the average frame rate reaches 145 FPS; this is high enough to suggest that the CPU is not a bottleneck in those low‑graphics cases. The 1080p Medium minimum is 88 FPS, so even when a single frame hits that value the core rationale is likely the GPU.

No measured FPS data at any CPU‑bound scenario—there is no time trial or low‑GPU test in the dataset. Therefore the CPU role is defined by the ceiling it places. Given that the RTX 2060 keeps the GPU well below its critical load at 1080p, the i5-12400 which fires 6 cores, 12 threads and boost to 4.40 GHz is more than sufficient to feed frames up to the values we see. The percentile ranking shows it is a typical mainstream part that has no direct effect on the lockstep scaling we see across resolutions.

The launch MSRP of this CPU is $199.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is a Turing‑based graphics card with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192‑bit bus, giving a total bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. It runs with a base clock of 1365 MHz, boost clock of 1680 MHz, and has 1,920 shading units (CUDA cores) as well as 48 ROPs. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. Its TDP is 160 watts, and the board consumes 229 mm by 4‑inch dimension. The card has 30 RT cores and 240 tensor cores. Its manufacturing process is TSMC 12 nm and packs 10.8 billion transistors.

Benchmark results for the RTX 2060 show a PassMark G3D score of 14,111, a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,242, and Geekbench OpenCL performance of 65,014. Also Vulkan score is 65,846. Its overall average benchmark is 15,290, which puts it at a percentile of 58% among all GPUs. It is statistically identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (delta 0.0%), the AMD Radeon 680M (+0.1%), the RTX 3050 OEM (+0.6%), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (+0.8%). Only the RX 7600, an intended budget card, is slightly ahead—these driven results indicate a card that has somehow crossed into the 20‑series generation but retains old‑school headroom.

In the measured game, the 6 GB VRAM and 336 GB/s bandwidth are likely enough for 1080p and 1440p, but the overall raw shader throughput becomes the limiting factor. The FPS at 4K is 69, 49, 43, and 32 for Low–Ultra, reinforcing that the RTX 2060 is not a 4K champion. Pairing with the i5‑12400, the GPU is actually the weaker link—its 58th percentile rank versus the CPU’s 72nd percentile means the CPU is capable of handling more than this card can output. That asymmetry explains why the resolution scaling drops so evenly: at 1080 the GPU still produces 145 FPS, forcing the CPU to handle high refresh, but at 4K FPS falls below 70 on every preset, which is purely a pixel‑fill issue and not a matter of thread starvation.

The launch MSRP for the RTX 2060 is 349 USD.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p on High settings for this combo?

A: The average is 90 FPS.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 1440p with Medium quality?

A: The minimum FPS recorded is 64.

Q: Which preset at 1080p produces more than 120 FPS on average?

A: Only the Low preset achieves this, with an average of 145 FPS.

Q: In the benchmark database, what is the performance rank of this CPU‑GPU pair among all tested combos in Lockdown Protocol?

A: It ranks 2,941 out of 3,714 items processed.

Q: Does the CPU single‑core performance help in this game?

A: The measured FPS scaling is heavily resolution‑dependent, and at 1080p Low the average reaches 145 FPS, which is higher than most monitors refresh rates; the CPU’s single‑core scores (e.g., Geekbench 1,848, Cinebench R23 2,257) are in line with many modern parts and, from the data, do not appear to limit performance.

Q: How does the RTX 2060’s average benchmark score compare to the AMD Radeon RX 7600?

A: The RTX 2060 is 0.8% ahead of the RX 7600 in average score, meaning they are essentially tied.

Measured FPS Breakdown

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 3840x2160 | High | 43 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 69 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 49 | 41 | 56 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 32 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | High | 66 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 106 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 76 | 64 | 87 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 49 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | High | 90 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 145 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 103 | 88 | 119 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 67 | – | – |

Settings Recommendations

The measured row originates as a practical guide. At 1080p, every preset runs above 60 FPS on average: Low 145, Medium 103, High 90, Ultra 67. The same is true even for the most demanding Ultra setting, so a player who values picture quality can run Ultra with an average of 67 FPS, which is plenty for competitive play. However, if the goal is to hit a consistently high refresh rate, the Low or Medium presets (145 and 103 FPS) are ideal; Medium also delivers a minimum of 88 FPS, so it rarely stumbles. The sweet spot for cost‑effective visuals is High, which retains the 90 FPS average and still looks better than Low.

Should the user zoom to 1440p, the situation tightens. Low stays at 106 FPS, Medium at 76 (with a minimum of 64), and High at 66; Ultra drops to 49, which is below the expected 60 FPS threshold. The best balance is Medium: it cranks the details compared to Low while still producing an average above 75 and a minimum just under 64. Low is an alternative if competitive frame rates are king, but at 1440p the jump to Medium is modest.

At 4K, only Low hits the veil: 69 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra produce 49, 43, and 32 FPS, respectively. Therefore, for a 4K experience, the Low preset is the only option that guarantees playable performance above 60FPS. If 30‑49 FPS is tolerable, that just now the data shows the comfort – but for a single‑player campaign or slower phases, Medium (49 FPS) and High (43 FPS) might be acceptable, but those do risk becoming borderline.

A composite approach: 1080p users can enjoy High or Ultra presets; 1440p users with a steady hand should use Medium (76 FPS) and sacrifice some sharpness; 4K owners must accept Low (69 FPS) or drop the resolution entirely. The dataset does show the scaling at the High vs Low gaps, so the higher presets can be reserved for screens with lower pixel density. Ultimately, the strong point of this pairing stays at 1080p, while 1440p holds with medium settings, and 4K is only viable at Low.