The Technomancer

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-10400F sits in a well-populated performance tier. Its average benchmark score of 14,185 places it within a tight cluster of processors, with the nearest rival being the Intel Xeon 6756E at an average score of 14,163, a difference of just 0.2%. The AMD EPYC 7552 trails by 0.5%, while the Intel Core 7 160UL and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C lead by 0.3% and 0.6% respectively. In practical terms, a system using any of these four CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in The Technomancer, provided the graphics card remains the same.

For the graphics side, the Intel Arc B390 is an outlier in its class. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,482 places it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, meaning roughly nine out of ten graphics cards outperform it. The nearest rivals are all older NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX scores 1,463 (1.3% slower), the GeForce 800M scores 1,460 (1.5% slower), the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1,446 (2.5% slower), and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1,443 (2.7% slower). These deltas are small enough that swapping between any of these GPUs would produce nearly indistinguishable performance in this game. The Arc B390 is effectively a low-end integrated graphics solution, sharing system memory and offering no dedicated VRAM, which directly impacts its ability to handle The Technomancer at higher resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data shows a clear pattern: the GPU is the dominant constraint across all tested resolutions, while the CPU provides sufficient headroom even at its modest performance tier. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 79 FPS average. Dropping to Medium reduces that to 61 FPS, and High further lowers it to 52 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra (40 FPS) represents a 49% performance loss, which is characteristic of GPU-bound workloads where increasing graphical fidelity directly taxes the rendering pipeline.

Moving to 2560x1440, the same setting progression shows 52 FPS at Low, 40 FPS at Medium, 34 FPS at High, and 26 FPS at Ultra. The resolution increase from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 34% performance at Low settings (79 to 52 FPS), and the gap widens at higher presets. At 3840x2160, the numbers collapse further: 28 FPS at Low, 22 FPS at Medium, 19 FPS at High, and 15 FPS at Ultra. The 4K Low result is less than half of the 1080p Low result, confirming that pixel throughput is the limiting factor.

The CPU's role becomes apparent when considering that the i5-10400F, with six cores and twelve threads, delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10,283 and a single-core score of 1,451. These figures place it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, indicating it is more than adequate for a 2016 Action RPG like The Technomancer. The game's engine, released in 2016, does not demand modern multi-threaded scaling. The bottleneck is entirely on the Arc B390's 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, which are simply insufficient for higher resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the GPU still manages 61 FPS, suggesting the CPU is not holding back even at the playable threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B390 ranks 3,285 out of 3,696 tested combinations for The Technomancer. This places it in the bottom 11% of all systems, a position that aligns with the GPU's 9th percentile standing. The CPU's 68th percentile rank is effectively irrelevant here; the Arc B390 drags the entire combo down.

What this ranking means in practice is that this system performs like a budget laptop or an entry-level desktop with integrated graphics. The 3,696 combos ahead of it include virtually any discrete GPU from the past decade, as well as modern integrated solutions with faster memory bandwidth. The rank also suggests that if a user were to upgrade only the GPU, the CPU would not become a limiting factor until far beyond the Arc B390's performance level. The i5-10400F's PassMark multi-thread score of 12,115 and single-thread score of 2,541 indicate it can sustain high frame rates in older titles when paired with a capable graphics card.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run The Technomancer at 1920x1080?

A: Yes, but only at Low or Medium settings. The measured data shows 79 FPS average at Low and 61 FPS average at Medium, both above the 60 FPS playable threshold. High settings drop to 52 FPS, which falls below playable.

Q: Is 2560x1440 playable with this hardware?

A: No. The best result at 1440p is 52 FPS average at Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra produce 40, 34, and 26 FPS respectively, all unplayable.

Q: What about 4K resolution?

A: The system cannot maintain playable frame rates at 3840x2160 under any setting. The highest average is 28 FPS at Low, with Ultra dropping to 15 FPS. This resolution is not viable for this combo.

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

A: The Arc B390 leads its closest competitors by small margins. It is 1.3% faster than the GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% faster than the GeForce 800M, 2.5% faster than the GeForce GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% faster than the GeForce GT 710. These differences are negligible in real-world gaming.

Q: Is the CPU holding back performance?

A: The data indicates no. The i5-10400F ranks in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals (within 0.6% performance) span both server and mobile parts. The frame rate scaling across resolutions and settings is consistent with GPU limitation.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1080p?

A: Medium settings at 1920x1080, which delivers 61 FPS average with a minimum of 52 FPS and maximum of 70 FPS. This is the highest preset that stays at or above 60 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database contains measured frame rates for three resolutions and four quality presets. All values represent the average FPS unless otherwise noted, with min and max figures recorded for Medium settings only.

At 3840x2160, the system produces 28 FPS on Low, 22 FPS on Medium, 19 FPS on High, and 15 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset has a recorded range of 19 to 25 FPS. No setting at 4K approaches the 60 FPS threshold, and the frame times would be inconsistent enough to cause noticeable stutter.

At 2560x1440, Low settings yield 52 FPS, Medium yields 40 FPS, High yields 34 FPS, and Ultra yields 26 FPS. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 12 FPS (23% loss), while the jump from High to Ultra costs 8 FPS (24% loss), indicating diminishing returns at higher presets.

At 1920x1080, the results are: Low at 79 FPS, Medium at 61 FPS, High at 52 FPS, and Ultra at 40 FPS. Medium settings have a min of 52 FPS and max of 70 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 39 FPS, a 49% reduction. Notably, the High preset at 1080p (52 FPS) performs identically to the Low preset at 1440p (52 FPS), showing that the resolution increase and quality increase have similar costs for this GPU.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 3840x2160, there are no playable settings. The best average FPS is 28 at Low, which is far below the 60 FPS threshold. The system should be set to the lowest resolution possible if 4K output is required for desktop use, but gaming at this resolution is not feasible.

For 2560x1440, similarly, no settings achieve 60 FPS. The best result is 52 FPS at Low, which falls short by 8 FPS. Users at this resolution would need to accept sub-60 frame rates or reduce to 1080p.

For 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, delivering 61 FPS average. This is the optimal configuration for this system. Low settings also work at 79 FPS, but Medium offers better visual quality while remaining playable. The High preset at 52 FPS and Ultra at 40 FPS are not recommended, as the frame rate drops below the playable threshold.

The verdict data confirms this analysis: the only playable settings across all resolutions are Low and Medium at 1920x1080, with Medium being the best overall choice. The system's 3,285 rank among 3,696 combos reflects its position as a low-end configuration, suitable for 1080p gaming at modest settings but nothing more demanding.