The Technomancer

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for The Technomancer on this configuration shows a clear pattern: playable performance exists only at 1080p with the Low preset, while every other resolution and settings combination falls short of the 60 FPS threshold. The Intel Arc B370, with its 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs, is the limiting factor throughout these measurements.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. The Low preset delivers an average of 26 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium drops to 20 FPS average, with a measured range of 17 FPS minimum and 23 FPS maximum. High manages only 17 FPS on average, while Ultra falls to 13 FPS. None of these numbers approach the 60 FPS playable threshold, and even the minimum frame rate at Medium is 17 FPS, indicating consistent sub-30 FPS gameplay throughout.

Moving to 2560x1440 improves matters but not enough for comfortable play. Low settings produce an average of 47 FPS, still 13 FPS short of the target. Medium averages 36 FPS with a range of 30 to 41 FPS, meaning even the peak frame rate falls well below 60. High averages 31 FPS, and Ultra averages 24 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at this resolution is 11 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is only 5 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns as settings climb.

At 1920x1080, the configuration finally reaches the playable threshold, but only on the Low preset. Low averages 71 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS mark by 11 FPS. Medium averages 55 FPS, with a minimum of 47 FPS and a maximum of 63 FPS, so it occasionally touches the target but cannot sustain it. High averages 47 FPS, and Ultra averages 37 FPS. The progression from Low to Medium costs 16 FPS, from Medium to High costs 8 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 10 FPS. Interestingly, the minimum frame rate at Medium (47 FPS) matches the average frame rate at High (47 FPS), highlighting how much headroom is lost at each settings step.

The data shows that this hardware combination ranks 3408th out of 3696 tested combinations for this game, placing it in the bottom 8 percent of all configurations. The GPU's 5th percentile standing among all GPUs corroborates this, while the CPU sits at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, a stark contrast that explains the performance ceiling.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run The Technomancer at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: No. The Medium preset at 1920x1080 averages 55 FPS with a minimum of 47 FPS and a maximum of 63 FPS. While the maximum briefly exceeds 60 FPS, the average and minimum both fall short of the playable threshold.

Q: What is the best playable settings combination for this hardware?

A: According to the verdict data, only the Low preset at 1920x1080 is playable, with an average of 71 FPS. No settings at 2560x1440 or 3840x2160 reach the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How much performance is lost going from Low to Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low averages 47 FPS while Ultra averages 24 FPS, a drop of 23 FPS or roughly half the frame rate. The step from Low to Medium costs 11 FPS, Medium to High costs 5 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 7 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the performance ceiling?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The Intel Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F sits at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs. The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600T and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, all within 0.3 percent of its average score, indicating a capable processor paired with a very weak graphics solution.

Q: Does 4K performance leave any usable settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the best average is 26 FPS on Low, with Ultra at 13 FPS and High at 17 FPS. Even the Medium preset, which has recorded minimum and maximum values, only ranges from 17 to 23 FPS.

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

A: The Arc B370's average benchmark score of 1184 is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2 percent faster), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5 percent faster), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7 percent faster), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, 1.4 percent slower). This places it in direct competition with hardware from over a decade ago.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F demonstrate that the CPU is not the constraining factor in this configuration. The Intel Core i5-14600T scores 32707 on average, just 0.1 percent behind the Ryzen 5 7400F's 32750. The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H scores 32697, 0.2 percent behind. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scores 32812, 0.2 percent ahead. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 scores 32662, 0.3 percent behind. All four rivals sit within a 0.5 percent band, meaning any of these processors would produce nearly identical frame rates in The Technomancer when paired with the same GPU.

For the Intel Arc B370, the nearest GPU rivals paint a very different picture. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, a 0.2 percent advantage over the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5 percent ahead. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7 percent ahead. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4 percent behind. These rivals are all legacy mobile or entry-level desktop parts from previous generations, and the single benchmark result for the Arc B370 (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 1184) suggests that any of these alternatives would deliver essentially the same playability profile: playable at 1080p Low, marginal at 1080p Medium, and unplayable at higher resolutions.

Users considering alternatives should understand that swapping the CPU for any of its nearest rivals would change nothing in practice, since the GPU bottleneck dominates. Swapping the GPU for any of its nearest rivals would likewise produce nearly identical results, given the maximum 1.4 percent delta between them. The performance envelope is defined by the graphics solution, not the processor.

The Verdict

This PC can run The Technomancer only at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, where it averages 71 FPS. That is the sole combination in the entire measured dataset that clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. At every other resolution and preset, the frame rate falls short.

At 2560x1440, no settings are playable. The best result is 47 FPS on Low, which is 13 FPS below the target. Medium at 36 FPS, High at 31 FPS, and Ultra at 24 FPS all fail to reach playable levels. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse: Low averages 26 FPS, Medium averages 20 FPS, High averages 17 FPS, and Ultra averages 13 FPS. The verdict data confirms this, listing no playable settings for either 1440p or 4K, while listing only Low at 1080p as playable.

The configuration ranks 3408th out of 3696 tested combinations for this game, placing it in the bottom tier of systems. The GPU's 5th percentile standing among all GPUs is the primary reason, as the CPU's 83rd percentile standing indicates ample processing headroom. For a game released in 2016, this level of performance is surprisingly low, but the data is unambiguous: 1080p Low is the ceiling.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and the Intel Arc B370 is heavily skewed toward the GPU being the limiting factor. The CPU ranks at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 32750, while the GPU ranks at the 5th percentile with an average score of 1184. This 78 percentile point gap means the processor is operating far below its potential, waiting on the graphics solution.

The scaling between resolutions confirms this interpretation. From 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 71 to 47 FPS, a 34 percent reduction. From 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 on Low, the average drops from 47 to 26 FPS, a 45 percent reduction. This steep degradation as pixel count rises is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the render resolution directly dictates throughput. If the CPU were the bottleneck, resolution scaling would show much smaller differences.

Settings scaling tells the same story. At 1920x1080, the spread from Low to Ultra is 34 FPS (71 down to 37). At 2560x1440, the spread is 23 FPS (47 down to 24). At 3840x2160, the spread is 13 FPS (26 down to 13). The absolute differences shrink as resolution rises because the GPU is already saturated at lower settings, leaving less headroom for quality increases to extract additional performance. The CPU's role is largely irrelevant here; any of its nearest rivals, all within 0.3 percent of its average score, would produce the same frame rates.

At 1080p, the CPU has more room to influence results, but the GPU still dominates. The jump from Low at 71 FPS to Medium at 55 FPS represents a 16 FPS cost, and the minimum at Medium is 47 FPS, identical to the High preset average at the same resolution. These numbers indicate that even at the lowest resolution tested, the graphics solution cannot sustain 60 FPS at Medium, leaving no scenario where CPU performance becomes the deciding factor.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The best available average is 26 FPS on Low, but this falls 34 FPS short of the playable threshold. Medium averages 20 FPS, High averages 17 FPS, and Ultra averages 13 FPS. The database records no playable settings for this resolution, so there is no recommended configuration.

At 2560x1440, the same conclusion applies. No preset reaches 60 FPS. Low averages 47 FPS, Medium averages 36 FPS, High averages 31 FPS, and Ultra averages 24 FPS. Even the best case, Low, misses the target by 13 FPS. The verdict data lists no playable settings here either.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset is the only playable option, averaging 71 FPS. This clears the 60 FPS threshold by 11 FPS, providing a modest margin for demanding scenes. Medium averages 55 FPS and cannot be recommended, despite its maximum of 63 FPS, because the average and minimum both fall below the target. High averages 47 FPS and Ultra averages 37 FPS, both firmly unplayable by the 60 FPS standard.

The recommended configuration is therefore 1920x1080 with the Low preset, yielding 71 FPS average. Users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate could experiment with Medium, which occasionally reaches 63 FPS, but the data shows that sustained 60 FPS gameplay is not achievable at that setting. For a stable experience at or above the playable threshold, Low at 1080p is the only choice supported by the measurements.