The Technomancer

FAQ

Q: Can the Intel Core i5-10400F keep up with the Intel Arc B580 in The Technomancer?

A: The recorded data shows the CPU sits at the 68th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 14,185. Its multi-threaded performance, as measured by Cinebench R23, reaches 10,283 points, while single-thread performance lands at 1,451 points. The GPU, also at the 68th percentile among all tested graphics cards, posts a Passmark G3D score of 15,748. The combination delivers playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, indicating the CPU provides sufficient headroom for the GPU in this title.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware combination?

A: The data indicates 1920x1080 is the strongest resolution, with all four settings presets clearing 60 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 69 FPS, while Low reaches 138.8 FPS. At 2560x1440, the combination remains playable up to High settings with an average of 60.4 FPS, but Ultra drops to 46.7 FPS. At 3840x2160, no settings preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold, with the best result being Low at 47.9 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B580 compare to nearby GPUs in the database?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 23,021 places it within 1% of several comparable cards. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP scores 23,061 (0.2% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 22,895 (0.6% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 scores 23,172 (0.7% higher), and the NVIDIA P106-100 scores 23,249 (1% higher). These deltas are minimal, suggesting similar throughput characteristics in synthetic workloads.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce an average of 89 FPS, Medium produces 70.6 FPS, High produces 60.4 FPS, and Ultra produces 46.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 42.3 FPS, which represents a 47.5% drop in average frame rate. The step from High to Ultra alone accounts for a 13.7 FPS reduction, making Ultra the first setting tier to fall below the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-10400F more similar to workstation or consumer processors?

A: The CPU's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Xeon 6756E (0.2% higher average score), Intel Core 7 160UL (0.3% lower), AMD EPYC 7552 (0.5% higher), and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.6% lower). This spread spans server, mobile, and desktop segments, indicating the i5-10400F's balanced multi-threaded and single-threaded capabilities place it in a broad performance neighborhood rather than a narrow category.

Q: What does the combo rank suggest about this hardware pairing?

A: The combination ranks 2,780 out of 3,696 tested combos for The Technomancer, placing it in the lower third of all configurations in the database. Despite the GPU's strong Passmark G3D score of 15,748, the overall ranking reflects that many other hardware pairings deliver higher frame rates in this specific title, particularly at higher resolutions where the B580 cannot maintain playable performance.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU each have clearly identified nearest rivals in the database, which helps contextualize what other hardware might behave similarly in The Technomancer.

For the Intel Core i5-10400F, the closest match is the Intel Xeon 6756E with an average score of 14,163, just 0.2% below the i5's 14,185 average. The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14,232, which is 0.3% higher. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14,115, 0.5% lower, while the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14,277, 0.6% higher. These four processors bracket the i5-10400F within a 0.6% performance band, meaning any of them would likely produce nearly identical CPU-bound behavior in this game. The Ryzen 3 7320C is particularly notable because it achieves similar aggregate scores despite being a lower-tier product, which suggests the i5's performance profile is not unique to its core count or architecture.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B580's average score of 23,021 sits between several familiar cards. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP is 0.2% higher at 23,061, making it the closest equivalent. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 is 0.6% lower at 22,895, while the RTX 3080 is 0.7% higher at 23,172. The NVIDIA P106-100, a mining-oriented card, leads the group at 23,249, 1% higher. The tight clustering of these scores, all within 1% of each other, indicates the B580 operates in a performance class that spans multiple generations and vendors. Users with any of these GPUs would likely see similar frame rates in The Technomancer at each resolution and settings preset, assuming the CPU remains comparable.

When pairing the i5-10400F with any of these rival GPUs, the overall system behavior would shift slightly depending on which card is used. A system with the RTX 2080 would be marginally slower in pure GPU throughput, while the RTX 3080 would be slightly faster. The differences are small enough that at 1080p, where the CPU is more likely to become a factor, the frame rates would be nearly indistinguishable. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU differences would become more apparent, but the B580's position in this cluster means it does not stand out as either a bottleneck or a standout performer relative to its immediate rivals.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B580 in The Technomancer becomes clearer when examining frame rate scaling across resolutions and settings presets.

At 1920x1080, the frame rates are consistently high, ranging from 69 FPS at Ultra to 138.8 FPS at Low. The jump from Low to Medium costs 31.6 FPS (from 138.8 to 107.2), while the jump from Medium to High costs another 14.6 FPS (to 92.6). The step from High to Ultra costs 23.6 FPS (to 69). These substantial drops with each settings tier suggest the GPU is doing most of the work at this resolution, since the CPU has ample headroom to feed frames. The i5-10400F's single-thread score of 1,451 in Cinebench R23 and multi-thread score of 10,283 are sufficient to keep up with the B580's output at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the scaling pattern changes. Low produces 89 FPS, Medium drops to 70.6, High to 60.4, and Ultra to 46.7. The relative drops between settings tiers are similar to those seen at 1080p, but the absolute values are lower. This indicates the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor as pixel count increases, but the CPU is still providing enough throughput to avoid becoming the primary bottleneck. The fact that High stays just above 60 FPS while Ultra falls well below suggests the Ultra preset introduces GPU workload that exceeds what the B580 can deliver at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the picture changes dramatically. High settings drop to 30.3 FPS, Medium to 40 FPS, Low to 47.9 FPS, and Ultra to 24 FPS. Notably, the ordering is unusual: Medium (40 FPS) actually outperforms High (30.3 FPS), which suggests that at 4K, the GPU is severely overloaded and settings scaling becomes less predictable. The gap between Low and High is only 17.6 FPS, compared to a 46.2 FPS gap at 1080p and a 42.3 FPS gap at 1440p. This compression of frame rates across settings tiers at 4K signals that the GPU is saturated, and the CPU's role has diminished to near irrelevance. The i5-10400F could likely drive higher frame rates if paired with a stronger GPU, but with the B580, the 4K results are firmly GPU-bound.

The data implies that for the majority of playable configurations (1080p and 1440p), the Arc B580 is the dominant factor in determining frame rates, with the i5-10400F providing adequate support. Only at 4K does the CPU's contribution become negligible, and even then, the GPU is the clear constraint. Users seeking higher 4K performance would need to consider a more powerful GPU rather than a CPU upgrade.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the Intel Arc B580 can run The Technomancer, but the playability depends heavily on resolution and settings. The database defines 60 FPS as the playability threshold, and the measured results show this combination clears that bar at two of the three tested resolutions.

At 1920x1080, all four settings presets are playable. The Low preset averages 138.8 FPS, Medium averages 107.2 FPS, High averages 92.6 FPS, and even the most demanding Ultra preset averages 69 FPS. This resolution offers the most flexibility, allowing users to choose any settings tier without falling below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the combination remains playable for three of the four presets. Low averages 89 FPS, Medium averages 70.6 FPS, and High averages 60.4 FPS. The Ultra preset falls short at 46.7 FPS, so users at this resolution should stick with High or lower to maintain smooth gameplay. The verdict data confirms High is the best playable setting at 1440p, with an average of 60.4 FPS.

At 3840x2160, no settings preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. Low averages 47.9 FPS, Medium averages 40 FPS, High averages 30.3 FPS, and Ultra averages 24 FPS. The verdict data lists no playable settings at 4K, meaning this combination cannot deliver a smooth experience at this resolution. Users who prioritize 4K gaming would need to reduce the resolution or accept sub-60 FPS performance.

In summary, this PC runs The Technomancer comfortably at 1080p across all settings, and at 1440p up to High settings. It is not suitable for 4K gaming at acceptable frame rates.

Best Settings per Resolution

The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS varies by resolution, and the database provides exact figures for each case.

At 1920x1080, the best playable setting is Ultra, with an average frame rate of 69 FPS. This is the highest quality tier available in the game, and it still clears the 60 FPS threshold by 9 FPS. The frame rate headroom suggests that even demanding scenes with multiple enemies or heavy particle effects are unlikely to drop below the playability line. Users at 1080p can enable every visual option without concern.

At 2560x1440, the best playable setting is High, with an average frame rate of 60.4 FPS. This is a narrow margin above the 60 FPS threshold, leaving only 0.4 FPS of headroom. While the average is technically playable, users may experience occasional dips below 60 FPS in particularly demanding moments. The Medium preset offers a more comfortable 70.6 FPS average, which could be preferable for those who prioritize consistency over maximum visual fidelity. However, the recorded data identifies High as the best setting that maintains the threshold.

At 3840x2160, there is no best playable setting because no preset reaches 60 FPS. The closest option is Low at 47.9 FPS, which is 12.1 FPS below the threshold. The verdict data explicitly lists no playable settings at this resolution, so users should either lower the resolution to 1440p or accept a sub-60 FPS experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B580 combination ranks 2,780 out of 3,696 tested combos for The Technomancer. This places the pairing in the 75th percentile of all configurations in the database, meaning roughly one in four tested combos performs worse, while three in four perform better.

This ranking is somewhat surprising given the individual component percentiles. Both the CPU and GPU sit at the 68th percentile among their respective categories, which would suggest a mid-pack overall position. Instead, the combo lands in the lower third of all tested pairings. The discrepancy indicates that The Technomancer presents specific challenges that this hardware combination does not handle as well as other games or synthetic benchmarks might suggest.

The rank becomes more understandable when considering the 4K results. The complete failure to reach 60 FPS at 3840x2160, combined with the narrow margin at 1440p High, drags the overall ranking down. Many other combos in the database likely achieve playable 4K performance or maintain higher frame rates at 1440p, pushing this pairing lower in the standings.

For users who primarily play at 1080p, the ranking may understate the actual experience. The combo delivers 69 FPS at Ultra, which is a solid result. However, the database ranks combos across all resolutions, so a strong 1080p showing cannot compensate for weak 4K performance. The rank of 2,780 out of 3,696 should be interpreted as a holistic measure across all tested scenarios, not a judgment on any single resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded frame rate data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a full picture of how this combination performs across the playability spectrum.

At 3840x2160, the results are as follows: Low averages 47.9 FPS, Medium averages 40 FPS, High averages 30.3 FPS, and Ultra averages 24 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline of roughly 8 FPS per settings tier, with the exception of the Medium to High step, which drops 9.7 FPS. All four values fall below the 60 FPS threshold, and even the best case (Low at 47.9 FPS) leaves a substantial gap. The min and max frame rate data are not recorded for this resolution, so the average values represent the only available measure of performance consistency.

At 2560x1440, the results improve considerably. Low averages 89 FPS, Medium averages 70.6 FPS, High averages 60.4 FPS, and Ultra averages 46.7 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 18.4 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs 10.2 FPS. The step from High to Ultra is the most punishing, dropping 13.7 FPS and pushing the frame rate below the playability threshold. The High preset's 60.4 FPS average is the key data point for playable 1440p performance, but the margin is slim.

At 1920x1080, the results are the strongest of the three resolutions. Low averages 138.8 FPS, Medium averages 107.2 FPS, High averages 92.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 69 FPS. The frame rate deltas between tiers are 31.6 FPS (Low to Medium), 14.6 FPS (Medium to High), and 23.6 FPS (High to Ultra). Interestingly, the High to Ultra drop is larger than the Medium to High drop, which suggests the Ultra preset introduces a disproportionately heavy workload. Despite this, even the Ultra average of 69 FPS provides a comfortable 9 FPS cushion above the 60 FPS threshold.

The data shows no min or max FPS values for any resolution or settings preset, meaning the analysis relies entirely on average frame rates. This is a limitation of the recorded measurements, as it prevents assessment of frame time consistency or worst-case scenarios. However, the averages are consistent enough across settings tiers to indicate stable performance characteristics for this hardware combination.