The Technomancer

The pairing of an AMD Ryzen 7 9700F with an Intel Arc B390 is an unusual one for gaming analysis: a modern eight-core Zen 5 desktop processor attached to an integrated graphics solution that sits in just the 9th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Technomancer, a 2016 action RPG, is not a demanding title by modern standards, yet the recorded data shows the GPU side of this combination is the limiting factor at every resolution tested. The results below make clear where the frame rate ceiling lies.

FAQ

Q: Can the Ryzen 7 9700F and Arc B390 run The Technomancer?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080. Medium settings average 61 FPS and Low settings average 79 FPS, both at or above the 60 FPS playability threshold. At 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: What is the highest preset that stays at or above 60 FPS?

A: Medium at 1920x1080, with an average of 61 FPS. Ultra at the same resolution drops to 40 FPS, well below the threshold.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck in this pairing?

A: The GPU. The Ryzen 7 9700F ranks in the 94th percentile of all CPUs with a single-thread score of 4691 and a multithread score of 36470, while the Arc B390 ranks in just the 9th percentile of all GPUs with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. The frame rate collapses as resolution rises, which is the signature of GPU limitation.

Q: How does this CPU-GPU combination rank against other tested combos in this game?

A: It ranks 3285 out of 3696 tested combinations, placing it near the bottom of the field for The Technomancer.

Q: How strong is the Ryzen 7 9700F relative to rival CPUs?

A: Very strong. Its average benchmark score of 69996 sits within a fraction of a percent of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (0.2 percent delta), the Intel Core i7-14700KF (-0.2 percent), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (0.7 percent), and the Intel Core i7-14700K (0.9 percent).

Q: How capable is the Arc B390 compared to nearby GPUs?

A: Its score of 1482 is only marginally ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1.3 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1.5 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (2.7 percent). These are all entry-level graphics solutions, which frames the B390's position accurately.

Best Settings per Resolution

• 1920x1080: Medium, at 61 FPS average. This is the only resolution and preset combination in the entire dataset that clears the 60 FPS threshold. Low is faster at 79 FPS, but Medium is the most demanding preset that remains playable.
• 2560x1440: None. Even Low settings only manage 52 FPS average, falling short of the threshold.
• 3840x2160: None. Low reaches just 28 FPS, and it deteriorates from there, down to 15 FPS at Ultra.

The pattern is unambiguous: the moment the pixel count rises beyond 1080p, the Arc B390 cannot hold the line. The gap between 1080p Low (79 FPS) and 1440p Low (52 FPS) is severe, and a further drop to 28 FPS at 4K Low confirms the GPU is out of headroom.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data tells a lopsided story. The Ryzen 7 9700F is a high-percentile desktop processor, 8 cores and 16 threads on the Zen 5 architecture, boosting to 5.50 GHz with 32 MB of shared L3 cache. Its 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs means processor-side throughput is essentially never the constraint in this game.

The Arc B390, by contrast, is an integrated Xe3-LPG graphics solution with 1536 shading units, 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and system-shared memory. Its 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it firmly in entry-level territory. The evidence in the frame data: raising resolution from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 cuts the Medium preset from 61 FPS to 22 FPS, roughly a third of the original rate, and even the lightest Low preset falls from 79 FPS to 28 FPS across that same span. Raising settings at fixed resolution also costs heavily, from 79 FPS at 1080p Low to 40 FPS at 1080p Ultra.

When frame rates scale this steeply with both resolution and preset, the GPU is doing the limiting. A CPU bottleneck would instead show flat frame rates as resolution climbs, and nothing in this dataset resembles that.

Similar Performance Alternatives

On the CPU side, the Ryzen 7 9700F is effectively interchangeable with several stronger-class parts. The database shows it scoring within a fraction of a percent of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (delta 0.2 percent), the Intel Core i7-14700KF (delta -0.2 percent), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (delta 0.7 percent), and the Intel Core i7-14700K (delta 0.9 percent). Any of these processors paired with the same graphics would deliver essentially identical results in The Technomancer, because the game's frame rate is not CPU-limited here.

On the GPU side, the nearest rivals are all modest NVIDIA offerings: the GeForce GT 520MX (1.3 percent behind), the GeForce 800M (1.5 percent behind), the GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5 percent behind), and the GeForce GT 710 (2.7 percent behind). A system built around any of these graphics solutions would be expected to land within a few percent of the Arc B390's results, meaning the same verdict: playable at 1080p Medium or below, and nothing more.

The Verdict

This PC can run The Technomancer, but only in a narrow window. The recorded verdict data shows exactly one playable configuration: 1920x1080 at Medium settings, averaging 61 FPS, with Low settings at 79 FPS as the more comfortable alternative. At 2560x1440 there are no playable settings, with the best result being 52 FPS at Low. At 3840x2160 there are likewise no playable settings, topping out at 28 FPS at Low.

For a game released in mid-2016, that is a surprisingly poor showing, and it underlines how consequential the GPU choice is. The Ryzen 7 9700F has enormous headroom going to waste, while the Arc B390 sets the performance ceiling at every turn.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3696 tested CPU-GPU combinations in The Technomancer, this pairing ranks 3285. That places it deep in the lower portion of the field, and the reason is not hard to find: the 94th-percentile CPU is paired with a 9th-percentile GPU. Most combinations ranked above this one will simply have stronger graphics. The ranking also implies that even a title nearly a decade old separates combinations sharply, and that a powerful CPU cannot compensate for a weak graphics solution in a game whose demands fall almost entirely on the GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160:

• Low: 28 FPS average
• Medium: 22 FPS average (min 19, max 25)
• High: 34 FPS is not available at this resolution; recorded High is 19 FPS average
• Ultra: 15 FPS average

Correction of ordering aside, the full 4K ladder is: Low 28, Medium 22 (with frame time spread from 19 to 25), High 19, Ultra 15. Nothing here approaches playability; the best case is less than half the 60 FPS threshold.

2560x1440:

• Low: 52 FPS average
• Medium: 40 FPS average (min 34, max 46)
• High: 34 FPS average
• Ultra: 26 FPS average

Low at 1440p is the closest miss in the dataset, 8 FPS shy of the threshold. Every step up the preset ladder costs roughly 6 to 8 FPS, a steady linear decline that again points at graphics-side saturation.

1920x1080:

• Low: 79 FPS average
• Medium: 61 FPS average (min 52, max 70)
• High: 52 FPS average
• Ultra: 40 FPS average

The Medium result is the pivotal number: an average of 61 FPS, but with a minimum of 52 and a maximum of 70. That spread means dips below 60 occur during a session, so players sensitive to frame drops may prefer Low at 79 FPS for consistency. High at 52 FPS and Ultra at 40 FPS both fall short of the threshold and are not recommended.

Across all twelve measurements, only two entries reach 60 FPS, both at 1080p. The dataset is internally consistent: min/median-style spreads at Medium (19-25 at 4K, 34-46 at 1440p, 52-70 at 1080p) show the averages are representative rather than inflated by outliers, and the resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K roughly halves frame rates at every preset. The conclusion for this hardware pairing is therefore a firm one: 1080p Medium is the ceiling, and everything above it, in either resolution or settings, is out of reach.