Lockdown Protocol

Lockdown Protocol, a first-person shooter released on February 2024, was measured on a platform featuring the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB. The data reveals average frame rates across four resolutions and four quality presets, along with a performance percentile and ranking metrics. This analysis interprets those measurements, placing the combo relative to other tested combinations and examining the CPU and GPU workload characteristics.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a consistent pattern of frame rate decline as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, but the rate of decline differs by preset. At Low settings, the average drops from 193 FPS at 1080p to 141 FPS at 1440p (a 27% loss), then to 91 FPS at 4K (a 35% loss from 1440p). Medium settings start at 137 FPS at 1080p, fall to 100 FPS at 1440p (27% lower), and end at 65 FPS at 4K (35% lower from 1440p). High settings follow the same trend: 120 → 88 → 57 FPS (27% then 35%). Ultra presets show 90 → 66 → 42 FPS (27% and 36%). The consistency across presets implies the bottleneck is predominantly the GPU at higher resolutions, because relative frame losses align closely with the pixel-count increase (1080p to 1440p is ~1.78× pixels, but FPS drops only 27–36%). At 1080p, especially on Low, the CPU can deliver more headroom (193 FPS), but even then the GPU still limits at 4K. The scaling pattern suggests that the system is not CPU-bound at any resolution—the frame rate falloff is smooth and uniform, indicating the GPU is the active limiter. At 1080p Low, the 193 FPS mark is the highest observed; increasing resolution to 1440p cuts it to 141, and 4K halves it further to 91. The data does not show a sudden cliff, which would indicate a CPU ceiling; rather, each step lowers FPS by roughly the same ratio, confirming that the GPU's pixel throughput governs performance.

How This Combo Ranks

According to the dataset, this combination of CPU and GPU ranks 1897th out of 3714 tested system combos in Lockdown Protocol. This position places it in the upper 49% of all tested pairings. To put it in context, the median combo would sit at rank 1857 (since 3714/2 = 1857). This combo is 40 ranks below that median point, meaning it performs slightly worse than half of the tested systems. While rank alone indicates relative standing, the underlying scores from the individual components shed light on why the rank is mid-pack. The GPU's average benchmark score is 4093 (3DMark Steel Nomad, DX12), which places it in the 24th percentile among all GPUs. That low percentile is driven by a 3DMark score that is exceptionally low compared to typical discrete GPUs—and indeed the nearest rivals for the GPU include the Intel HD Graphics 630 (score 4075, delta +0.4%), the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (score 4151, delta -1.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (score 4033, delta +1.5%), and the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (score 4170, delta -1.8%). These rivals have average scores within a few percent of each other, indicating that the RX 9060 XT sits in a very narrow bandwidth of performance in 3DMark. The CPU, in contrast, has a much higher percentile: it falls in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 70,879. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6511P (score 71,051, delta -0.2%), Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 (score 71,370, delta -0.7%), the Intel Core i7-14700KF (score 70,163, delta +1%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (score 69,996, delta +1.3%). The CPU is substantially faster than the GPU in purely centroided terms, but the measured FPS does not reflect the CPU's strength because the GPU is the performance wall. The composite ranking (1897 of 3714) is the result of the GPU's lower tier, while the CPU's high percentile does not compensate.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 322.3 GB/s. It runs at a boost clock of 3130 MHz (game clock 2530 MHz), with a base of 1700 MHz. It has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, and connects via a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus. The GPU power draw is 150 W and it requires a 450 W power supply, using a single 8-pin connector. In terms of measured performance, the GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad score is 4093, placing it in the 24th percentile among all GPUs, and a look at its nearest rivals shows that it sits within a 1–2% range of iGPU-class parts, such as the Intel HD Graphics 630 and the AMD Radeon R5 M330, that typically represent integrated or very low-end discrete solutions. This positions the GPU as fundamentally a low to mid‑range part for gaming despite its official name and RDNA 4.0 architecture. The 8 GB VRAM is often sufficient for 1080p, but as resolution rises to 4K, the GPU lacks the processing power to sustain high frame rates. At Ultra settings, beyond the simple pixel load, the shader-based features consume the GPU's 2048 ALUs heavily. The frame rates we observe, from 42 FPS at 4K Ultra to 193 FPS at 1080p Low, illustrates the GPU's weak floor. The high CPU headroom from the Intel chip—20 cores with a boost to 5.5 GHz—does not overcome the GPU's limitations; in fact, the drop from 1080p Low (193 FPS) to 1080p Ultra (98 FPS) shows that settings, not resolution, can move FPS by 52%. The GPU's performance is further evidenced by the min and max frame deltas in Medium presets: at 1440p Medium the min–max is 85–116 FPS and at 1080p Medium it is 116–158 FPS. These ranges show variance of 31–36% of the average, which is typical for a GPU that is already hitting its limits. The GPU's memory subsystem (128‑bit bus, 322.3 GB/s) might be a constraint at 4K High/Ultra, but the FPS drop patterns are consistent with a GPU that is compute-limited rather than bandwidth-limited because the frame rates fall in near-perfect proportion to pixel counts.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K packs 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost of 5.50 GHz. It draws 125 W TDP and is built on a 3 nm process from TSMC, having 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The cache layout includes 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and a shared 30 MB L3. Memory is DDR5 dual-channel with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and it supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The CPU's benchmark results are excellent: Cinebench R23 multi‑core scores 35,850, single‑core 2020, and its Geekbench multi‑core is 23,085. The PassMark multi-thread score is 58,594, and single-thread 4928. These numbers place the CPU in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an avg score of 70,879, and its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6511P (which scores essentially the same, delta -0.2%) and the Core i7-14700KF (delta +1%). In Lockdown Protocol, the CPU’s high processing power is not the limiting factor. The game is GPU-bound as seen in the resolution scaling, meaning the CPU has ample headroom. Even at 1080p Low, the GPU produces 193 FPS—far above the CPU’s typical frame-rate ceiling for competitive shooters. The CPU’s 20 cores/20 threads and high clock speed ensure that physics, AI, and scene logic are handled quickly, but they are not exercised to their limit because the GPU cannot raise the frame rate further. When comparing to rival CPUs, the Core Ultra 7 265K beats the i7‑14700KF by about 1% (the nearest rival of nearly equal) but trails the Xeon Platinum 8270 by 0.7% and leads the Ryzen 7 9700F by 1.3% in the composite average benchmark— but these margins are tiny. The single‑thread performance is particularly strong: Cinebench R20 single‑core 2953 and Geekbench single‑core 2713 are high for gaming, but it does not translate into a visible FPS advantage because the bottleneck is the GPU. The CPU's clock boost to 5.30 GHz ensures that even if called upon, a fast core is available, but the current measured FPS values (max 193 at 1080p Low) prove that the CPU easily feeds the GPU. The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is independent of the game's frame output; the CPU does not need more. The PCIe Gen5 interface is future-proof, but Lockdown Protocol's frame rate does not hinge on it.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data offers clear guidance for this combo. For 1080p gaming, the best settings to achieve smooth play depend on the target refresh rate. At 1080p Low, the system delivers 193 FPS, which is ideal for high-or even 360 Hz monitors. If the user prefers medium quality without sacrificing much, 1080p Medium produces 137 FPS (a 30% drop from Low) but still above the 144 Hz threshold. For 1080p High, the FPS is 120, which slightly dips below 144 Hz. At 1080p Ultra, the system lands at 90 FPS—still playable but with reduced frame consistency. To get consistently above 144 FPS, Low or Medium are the best presets at 1080p, because both exceed 130 FPS. For 1440p, Low offers 141 FPS, just under the 144 Hz line, while Medium (100 FPS) and High (88 FPS) are far lower. Ultra at 1440p is only 66 FPS, not enough for many monitors. At 4K, the same pattern: Low gives 91 FPS (borderline for 90 Hz), Medium reports 65 FPS, High 57, and Ultra 42. The sweet spot for 4K is Low or Medium if a 60 FPS minimum is needed. The only settings that provide both a measured average high and a reasonable visual fidelity are 1080p Medium (137 FPS) and 1440p Medium (100 FPS). Since the GPU is weak, users seeking the highest visual quality must trade resolution. The Ultra preset at any resolution is costly: 48% fewer FPS than Low at 1080p, 47% fewer at 1440p, and 54% fewer at 4K. The data indicates that medium settings (which offer a balance between image details and speed) are the top recommendation across all resolutions, yielding 137 FPS at 1080p, 100 FPS at 1440p, and 65 FPS at 4K. For those with a 144 Hz monitor, 1080p Low or 1440p Medium are the only presets that come close. There is no single scream for every resolution; the choice depends on target FPS and whether the monitor is 1080p, 1440p, or 4K. Since Low settings at 4K produce 91 FPS, that is better than Medium at 4K (65) and High (57) and Ultra (42).

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following tables lists all recorded frames (average, min, max) from the benchmark runs.

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

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

| 3840x2160 | High | 57 | n/d | n/d |

| 3840x2150 | Low | 91 | n/d | n/d |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 65 | 55 | 75 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 42 | n/d | n/d |

| 2560x1440 | High | 88 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 141 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 100 | 85 | 116 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 66 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | High | 120 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 193 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 137 | 116 | 158 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 90 | – | – |

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo can achieve in Lockdown Protocol?

A: The peak recorded average is 193 FPS at 1920×1080 with Low settings.

Q: At 4K, which preset yields a playable 60 FPS?

A: At 3840×2160, Low delivers an average of 91 FPS, which exceeds 60 FPS. Medium provides 65 FPS, also above 60, but High (57) and Ultra (42) fall below that threshold.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its closest rivals based on benchmark scores?

A: The GPU has a 3DMark Steel Nomai score of 4093. Its nearest rivals are the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075), NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151), GeForce GT 760M (4033), and AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170). The differences are 0.4%, -1.4%, 1.5%, and -1.8% respectively.

Q: Which resolution has the largest FPS difference between Low and Ultra?

At 1080p, the gap is 193–90 = 103 FPS; at 2560x1440 it is 141–66 = 75 FPS; at 4K it is 91–42 = 49 FPS. Thus, 1080p Low versus Ultra produces the largest spread.

Q: Are the CPU's performance margins over its rivals significant for this game?

A: The CPU scores 70,879 (average) and leads the Core i7-14700KF by 1%, but falls behind the Xeon Platinum 8270 by 0.7% and trails the Xeon 6511P by 0.2%. For Lockdown Protocol, the CPU is never the limiting factor, so these small margins do not affect FPS.

—­—­— (continued) — The combo’s ranking (1897th of 3714) places it just below the midpoint, a consequence of the GPU’s low percentile. The CPU’s high mark is twenty cores, and the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM is enough for the game. For a balanced experience that keeps the frame above 60 at 4K, Low is the only preset; at 1440p, Medium (100 FPS) offers a solid compromise; at 1080p, Medium (137 FPS) is excellent for 144Hz monitors. Users should prioritize the GPU on this platform, as it will be the sole performance limiter.