The Technomancer

The Technomancer, a 2016 action RPG, presents no real challenge to a pairing of the Intel Core i5-10400F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080. The recorded data shows this configuration clearing the 60 FPS playable threshold at every tested resolution, and at 1080p and 1440p it does so even on the Ultra preset. The following analysis breaks down where the ceiling sits, which component governs performance, and how this combination ranks against others in the database.

Best Settings per Resolution

The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS varies sharply with resolution:

• 1920x1080: Ultra, averaging 144 FPS. This is the top preset in the database and it clears the threshold by a wide margin.
• 2560x1440: Ultra, averaging 100 FPS. The same maximum preset remains playable, though the headroom shrinks from 84 FPS above threshold at 1080p to 40 FPS above it at 1440p.
• 3840x2160: High, averaging 70 FPS. Ultra at 4K drops to 55 FPS and falls below the threshold, so High is the most demanding playable preset. The next step down, Medium, averages 82 FPS with a recorded minimum of 70 FPS.

In short, the only setting this pairing cannot hold at 60 FPS anywhere is Ultra at 4K.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling data points to a GPU-bound profile at every resolution, which is expected given the hardware gap between the two components. The RTX 4080 sits in the 86th percentile of all GPUs in the database with an average benchmark score of 54247, while the i5-10400F sits in the 68th percentile of CPUs with an average score of 14185.

At 1080p, moving from Low (183 FPS) to Ultra (144 FPS) costs 39 FPS, a drop tied directly to graphics load. That spread narrows as resolution climbs but never reverses into a CPU plateau: 1440p ranges from 159 FPS on Low to 100 FPS on Ultra, and 4K spans 107 FPS on Low down to 55 FPS on Ultra. The fact that average FPS continues to fall substantially with each resolution step, rather than pinning at a fixed ceiling, indicates the six-core, twelve-thread i5-10400F is not the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the 1080p High figure of 157 FPS would match the 1440p High figure instead of exceeding it by 29 FPS.

The CPU's own benchmark results support this. Its single-thread results (Cinebench R23 at 1451, Geekbench at 1420, Passmark single thread at 2541) are modest by modern standards, but a 2016 title does not demand enough per-frame CPU work to expose that ceiling. The 3DMark scaling figures (1350 points on 2 threads, 2560 on 4, 3929 on 8, 4748 on 16) show solid thread scaling, yet none of it is saturated here.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All figures below are recorded measurements for this exact combination.

1920x1080

• Low: 183 FPS average
• Medium: 166 FPS average, 141 minimum, 191 maximum
• High: 157 FPS average
• Ultra: 144 FPS average

Even the worst recorded number at this resolution, the Medium preset's 141 FPS minimum, sits well over double the playable threshold.

2560x1440

• Low: 159 FPS average
• Medium: 144 FPS average, 123 minimum, 166 maximum
• High: 128 FPS average
• Ultra: 100 FPS average

The Medium preset's minimum of 123 FPS confirms consistent frame delivery, with a tight 43 FPS spread between minimum and maximum.

3840x2160

• Low: 107 FPS average
• Medium: 82 FPS average, 70 minimum, 94 maximum
• High: 70 FPS average
• Ultra: 55 FPS average

This is the only resolution with a failure point. Ultra at 55 FPS misses the threshold, though only by 5 FPS. Medium provides a comfortable compromise at 82 FPS average with a 70 FPS minimum, meaning even the slowest recorded frames stay at the threshold exactly.

Across the full grid, the largest single jump comes from Low to Medium at 4K (107 to 82 FPS, a 25 FPS cost), while High to Ultra costs the least at 1440p (128 to 100 FPS, a 28 FPS cost at a higher base). Preset costs are relatively uniform, suggesting no single setting is disproportionately expensive.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the database lists the i5-10400F's nearest rivals by aggregate score. The Intel Xeon 6756E (average score 14163, 0.2 percent behind), the Intel Core 7 160UL (14232, 0.3 percent ahead), the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115, 0.5 percent behind), and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277, 0.6 percent ahead) all sit within less than one percent of it in overall throughput. Since this game is GPU-bound, any of these processors would produce essentially identical Technomancer results when paired with the same graphics card.

On the GPU side, the closest match is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER at an average score of 54209, just 0.1 percent off the RTX 4080's 54247, making it a near-drop-in equivalent for this title. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54828, 1.1 percent ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698, 2.6 percent ahead), and the AMD Radeon 8060S (55757, 2.7 percent ahead) round out the neighborhood. Because the RTX 4080 is the constraint on frame rates here at higher resolutions, substituting any of these GPUs would shift Technomancer results by only a few percent, with the two Radeon parts actually scoring marginally higher in aggregate.

How This Combo Ranks

Against the full field of tested hardware combinations for The Technomancer, this pairing ranks 656 out of 3696 combos. That places it in the top fifth of the database, consistent with a modern high-end GPU doing the heavy lifting while a mid-tier CPU tags along. The rank also reflects the game's age: a 2016 title cannot differentiate between elite and merely strong hardware as sharply as modern releases can, which compresses the field and explains why a top-percentile GPU does not push this combination higher.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC runs The Technomancer comfortably. The verdict data is unambiguous:

• 1080p: fully playable on all presets. Best is Ultra at 144 FPS average.
• 1440p: fully playable on all presets. Best is Ultra at 100 FPS average.
• 4K: playable on Low, Medium, and High. Best is High at 70 FPS average. Ultra at 55 FPS is the one configuration that misses the mark, and only narrowly.

The practical takeaway: at 1080p and 1440p there is nothing left to enable, every preset is on the table. At 4K, dropping one preset tier from Ultra to High restores playability, and dropping two tiers to Medium delivers 82 FPS average with a 70 FPS floor.

FAQ

Q: Can the i5-10400F and RTX 4080 run The Technomancer at 4K?

A: Yes, on Low, Medium, and High settings. High averages 70 FPS. Ultra at 4K averages 55 FPS, which falls short of the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best-looking playable setting at each resolution?

A: Ultra at 1920x1080 (144 FPS average), Ultra at 2560x1440 (100 FPS average), and High at 3840x2160 (70 FPS average).

Q: Is this game CPU-limited or GPU-limited with this hardware?

A: GPU-limited. Average FPS continues to drop as resolution rises (for example, 157 FPS on High at 1080p versus 128 FPS on High at 1440p), which would not happen if the CPU were capping performance. The RTX 4080 ranks in the 86th percentile of GPUs while the i5-10400F ranks in the 68th percentile of CPUs.

Q: How close is the RTX 4080 SUPER to the RTX 4080 in this context?

A: Nearly identical. The RTX 4080 SUPER's average database score of 54209 sits just 0.1 percent below the RTX 4080's 54247, so Technomancer performance would be effectively the same.

Q: How does this combination rank among all tested setups for this game?

A: It ranks 656 out of 3696 tested combinations, placing it in the top fifth of the database for The Technomancer.

Q: Does frame rate stay stable at the playable presets?

A: The recorded min/max data at Medium settings indicates yes: 141 to 191 FPS at 1080p, 123 to 166 FPS at 1440p, and 70 to 94 FPS at 4K. Even the 4K minimum meets the 60 FPS threshold.