Lockdown Protocol

# Lockdown Protocol with Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + Intel Arc B390

Lockdown Protocol, a 2024-03-11 FPS release, exhibits demanding scaling characteristics when paired with the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Arc B390 integrated graphics. The measured data shows this combination ranks 2512 out of 2828 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 11th percentile of all system pairings. This is a configuration where the GPU's integrated nature severely constrains performance, and the benchmark results reflect a system that can handle the game at lower resolutions and settings, but struggles to maintain playable frame rates as graphical demands increase.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K reveals a steep performance cliff that is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 88 FPS average, which drops to 65 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 42 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 26.1% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, followed by a 35.4% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 52.3%, indicating that pixel throughput becomes an increasingly severe bottleneck as resolution scales.

The Medium settings row tells a similar story with slightly different magnitudes. At 1080p Medium, the system achieves 63 FPS, falling to 46 FPS at 1440p and 30 FPS at 4K. The 1440p to 4K transition here shows a 34.8% loss, nearly identical to the Low setting drop. High settings show 55 FPS at 1080p, 40 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K, with the 1440p to 4K reduction at 35.0%. This consistency across settings strongly suggests that resolution scaling is governed by the GPU's fixed shading resources rather than any setting-dependent variable.

Ultra settings exhibit the most dramatic degradation: 41 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p drop is 26.8%, and the 1440p to 4K drop is 36.7%. Notably, the 4K Ultra result of 19 FPS is barely interactive, and the 4K High result of 26 FPS is only marginally better. The data indicates that the Intel Arc B390's fillrate and shading capacity are exhausted well before 4K, with the 24 ROPs and 48 TMUs providing insufficient pixel processing for this game's visual complexity at high pixel counts.

The scaling pattern reveals that the limiting component is unambiguously the GPU. The CPU, with its 14 cores and 5.10 GHz boost clock, shows no signs of bottlenecking even at 1080p Low where frame rates reach 88 FPS. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect to see frame rates plateau across resolutions, but instead every resolution change produces a proportional FPS shift. This is textbook GPU-limited behavior, with the 1536 shading units and 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 throughput being the determining factors.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with Panther Lake chip design. Its base clock of 300 MHz and boost clock of 2500 MHz represent a significant dynamic range, but the system-shared memory configuration means bandwidth is entirely dependent on the host system's DDR5 implementation. The 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 120.0 GTexel/s texture rate are modest figures that directly explain the 4K performance collapse.

The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% ahead of the B390), GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% ahead), GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% ahead), and GT 710 (1443, 2.7% ahead). This sub-1500 score classifies the B390 among entry-level graphics solutions from over a decade ago, which aligns with the Lockdown Protocol results showing sub-60 FPS at 1440p for all settings except Low.

The 12 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support indicate the hardware is architecturally modern, but the raw throughput prevents leveraging these features in demanding scenarios. Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6 API support provide compatibility, yet the measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Ultra, the system only reaches 41 FPS average. The system-shared memory with "System Dependent" bandwidth means that at higher resolutions, the memory subsystem competes with the CPU for bandwidth, potentially exacerbating the performance degradation observed at 4K.

The GPU's 80 W TDP and IGP slot width confirm its integrated nature, with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. This is not a discrete solution, and the benchmark results reflect that limitation. The 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) figures are theoretical maxima that the Lockdown Protocol results show cannot be sustained in real workloads, particularly at 4K where the 26 FPS High and 19 FPS Ultra results indicate severe underutilization or memory bandwidth constraints.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Lockdown Protocol at 4K?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings where it achieves 42 FPS average. Medium settings drop to 30 FPS, High to 26 FPS, and Ultra to 19 FPS. The 4K Low result is playable, but higher settings are not recommended for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: 1920x1080 provides the most playable experience across all settings, with Low achieving 88 FPS, Medium 63 FPS, High 55 FPS, and Ultra 41 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low settings (65 FPS) remain above 60 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463 (1.3% lower), GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% lower), GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% lower), and GT 710 scores 1443 (2.7% lower). This places the B390 slightly ahead of these older entry-level discrete GPUs.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is definitively the limiting factor. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has a 90th percentile CPU ranking with an average benchmark score of 48995, while the GPU sits at the 9th percentile. The consistent FPS drops across resolution changes confirm GPU-bound behavior.

Q: What settings should be used for 1440p gaming?

A: Only Low settings (65 FPS) provide a frame rate above 60 FPS at 2560x1440. Medium settings achieve 46 FPS, High 40 FPS, and Ultra 30 FPS. For competitive play, Low is the only viable option at this resolution.

Q: How does the CPU performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G scores 49196 (0.4% higher), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 scores 49228 (0.5% higher), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H scores 48698 (0.6% lower), and Intel Core i5-14600K scores 48618 (0.8% lower). The CPU is competitive with these alternatives.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2512 out of 2828 tested combos in Lockdown Protocol, placing it in the bottom 11.2% of all configurations. This ranking reflects the severe GPU bottleneck, as the CPU is a high-performing component that would pair well with a discrete graphics solution. The 90th percentile CPU ranking versus 9th percentile GPU ranking creates a massive imbalance that drags the overall combo ranking down.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the 3DMark Steel Nomad benchmark — GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710 — are all legacy entry-level parts from NVIDIA's low-end lineup. The B390's 1.3% to 2.7% performance advantage over these parts translates to sub-90 FPS at 1080p Low in Lockdown Protocol, which is marginal for a 2024 FPS title. The combo's 2512th place ranking among 2828 systems indicates that the vast majority of tested configurations outperform this pairing.

The CPU's position among its rivals is notably stronger. The Core Ultra 5 245's 48995 average benchmark score is within 0.8% of the Intel Core i5-14600K and within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, showing that the processor is not the performance limiter. The 14-core, 14-thread configuration with 24 MB of shared L3 cache provides ample computational headroom, but the integrated GPU cannot translate this into playable frame rates at higher settings. The data suggests that upgrading to any discrete GPU would dramatically improve the combo's ranking, as the CPU has demonstrated it can push frame rates to 88 FPS at 1080p Low without bottlenecking.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimal settings at each resolution. At 1920x1080, Low settings achieve 88 FPS, which is the only configuration that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS. Medium settings at 63 FPS are also playable, offering improved visual quality while maintaining smooth motion. High settings at 55 FPS are borderline, and Ultra at 41 FPS is only suitable for turn-based or slow-paced play. For competitive FPS gameplay, Low settings at 1080p are recommended to maximize frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the options narrow considerably. Low settings at 65 FPS is the only configuration that maintains playability above 60 FPS. Medium drops to 46 FPS, which may be acceptable for single-player experiences but is insufficient for fast-paced multiplayer. High at 40 FPS and Ultra at 30 FPS are not recommended for any serious gameplay. Users with 1440p monitors should either accept Low settings or reduce resolution to 1080p for higher quality.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings (42 FPS) approach playability. Medium at 30 FPS, High at 26 FPS, and Ultra at 19 FPS are all below the threshold for smooth gameplay. The 4K Ultra result of 19 FPS is effectively a slideshow, and even the 4K Low result of 42 FPS will feel sluggish in action sequences. For 4K users, the recommendation is to lower resolution to 1440p or 1080p rather than compromise on settings.

The Medium settings row provides the most complete data with min/max frame ranges: at 1080p, 53-72 FPS; at 1440p, 39-53 FPS; and at 4K, 25-34 FPS. The 19 FPS spread at 1080p Medium indicates significant frame time variance, which could cause perceived stutter even when average FPS is acceptable. The 9 FPS spread at 4K Medium shows more consistent frame delivery, but at an unplayable average of 30 FPS. For the best balance of visual quality and performance, 1080p Medium is the highest setting that maintains an average above 60 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range was measured with the following average FPS results: Low achieved 88 FPS, Medium achieved 63 FPS (with 53 FPS minimum and 72 FPS maximum), High achieved 55 FPS, and Ultra achieved 41 FPS. The 25 FPS difference between Low and Ultra represents a 53.4% performance penalty for maximum visual quality. The Medium setting's 19 FPS frame time variance (53-72 FPS) suggests that this setting may exhibit occasional hitches during intense scenes.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS results were: Low at 65 FPS, Medium at 46 FPS (with 39 FPS minimum and 53 FPS maximum), High at 40 FPS, and Ultra at 30 FPS. The Low to Ultra spread narrows to 35 FPS absolute, but the percentage drop from Low to Ultra is 53.8%, nearly identical to the 1080p scaling. The Medium setting's frame range of 39-53 FPS shows a 14 FPS variance, which is proportionally similar to the 1080p Medium result.

At 3840x2160, the averages were: Low at 42 FPS, Medium at 30 FPS (with 25 FPS minimum and 34 FPS maximum), High at 26 FPS, and Ultra at 19 FPS. The Low to Ultra reduction is 23 FPS, or 54.8%, continuing the consistent pattern of approximately 53-55% performance loss from minimum to maximum settings across all resolutions. The 4K Medium frame range of 25-34 FPS shows a 9 FPS variance, which is tighter in absolute terms but represents a 30% swing relative to the average.

The scaling from 1080p Low (88 FPS) to 1440p Low (65 FPS) shows a 26.1% reduction, and from 1440p Low to 4K Low (42 FPS) shows a 35.4% reduction. For Medium settings, the corresponding reductions are 27.0% (63 to 46 FPS) and 34.8% (46 to 30 FPS). High settings show 27.3% (55 to 40 FPS) and 35.0% (40 to 26 FPS) reductions. Ultra settings show 26.8% (41 to 30 FPS) and 36.7% (30 to 19 FPS) reductions. The consistency of these percentages across all settings confirms that resolution scaling is purely GPU-limited with no CPU involvement.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2 (Arrow Lake architecture) with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its 24 MB shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth on DDR5 dual-channel support provide solid computational fundamentals. The CPU's average benchmark score of 48995 places it at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, 0.4% higher), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, 0.5% higher), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, 0.6% lower), and Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, 0.8% lower).

In Lockdown Protocol, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. The benchmark results show that even at 1080p Low with 88 FPS, the CPU is not the limiting factor. The 14 cores and 14 threads provide ample parallelism for the game's FPS workload, and the 5.10 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-threaded performance for frame scheduling. The Cinebench R23 scores of 32924 multicore and 4648 singlecore further demonstrate the CPU's capability, though these synthetic benchmarks are not directly representative of gaming performance.

The CPU's 3 nm TSMC process node and 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die indicate a modern, efficient design. The 65 W TDP and ECC memory support suggest workstation-oriented features, but the integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU provides the only display output capability in this combo. The PassMark scores — 38706 multithread, 4394 singlethread, 400942 data compression, and 30236 data encryption — show strong general-purpose performance that exceeds what Lockdown Protocol requires.

The bottleneck analysis is clear: the CPU is operating well within its capabilities in this game, while the GPU is saturated at all resolutions above 1080p Low. The 9th percentile GPU ranking versus 90th percentile CPU ranking creates a massive disparity that no game setting can overcome. Users with this CPU should strongly consider pairing it with a discrete GPU for Lockdown Protocol, as the processor has demonstrated headroom to support significantly higher frame rates than the integrated graphics can deliver.