The Technomancer

FAQ

Q: Can this system run The Technomancer at 4K resolution?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings. The measured average frame rate at 3840x2160 with Low settings is 67.1 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playability threshold. At Medium settings the average drops to 47.1 FPS, and at High it falls to 41.6 FPS. Ultra settings at 4K produce an average of 30.4 FPS, which is not playable.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 1440p for this game?

A: At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 61.5 FPS, just above the 60 FPS threshold. This makes Ultra the most demanding preset that remains playable at this resolution. The High preset averages 73.8 FPS, Medium averages 90.1 FPS, and Low reaches 118 FPS.

Q: How does the system perform at 1080p across all presets?

A: Every preset at 1920x1080 clears the 60 FPS mark. Ultra averages 92.4 FPS, High averages 116.7 FPS, Medium averages 140.4 FPS, and Low averages 175.6 FPS. The system has substantial headroom at 1080p, even with the heaviest settings enabled.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more stressed when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: The recorded data shows a progressive frame rate drop as resolution increases, which indicates the GPU becomes the dominant constraint at higher resolutions. At 1080p Ultra the system averages 92.4 FPS, at 1440p Ultra it averages 61.5 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it averages 30.4 FPS. The scaling pattern points to GPU-bound performance at 4K, while 1080p results are less pressured.

Q: What is the rank of this CPU and GPU combination for The Technomancer?

A: The combo ranks 1795 out of 3696 tested combinations in the database. This places the system in the upper half of all recorded configurations, and the measured FPS data confirms it delivers playable performance at all three resolutions, provided settings are chosen correctly.

Q: Does the system support modern graphics APIs needed for this game?

A: The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The game, released in 2016, is well within the API coverage of this hardware. The CPU uses the Intel Socket 1200 platform with DDR4 memory support.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark measurements for The Technomancer show a clear pattern: the GPU handles most of the performance burden at higher resolutions, while the CPU has more influence at 1080p. The frame rate scaling between resolutions is steep. At Ultra settings, the system produces 92.4 FPS at 1920x1080, 61.5 FPS at 2560x1440, and 30.4 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 62.9 FPS drop from 1080p to 4K, which is a 68 percent reduction in average frame rate. This magnitude of scaling is typical of a GPU-limited scenario, where each pixel increase adds direct load to the graphics processor.

The Intel Core i5-10400F has six cores and twelve threads with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its multi-threaded benchmark scores include a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 10283 and a 3DMark max threads score of 4735. The single-thread Cinebench R23 score is 1451. These numbers indicate a capable processor that can feed a modern GPU at lower resolutions. At 1080p, the system achieves 175.6 FPS on Low settings and 140.4 FPS on Medium, which suggests the CPU is not holding back the GPU at these settings. The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p is 35.2 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 23.7 FPS, and between High and Ultra it is 24.3 FPS. The setting scaling at 1080p is consistent, with each preset tier costing a similar amount of performance.

At 1440p, the pattern changes. Low settings produce 118 FPS, Medium drops to 90.1 FPS, High to 73.8 FPS, and Ultra to 61.5 FPS. The step from Medium to High is 16.3 FPS, and from High to Ultra it is 12.3 FPS. The diminishing returns from preset changes become more obvious as resolution grows, which is another sign of GPU pressure increasing. At 4K, the setting scaling is more compressed. Low averages 67.1 FPS, Medium 47.1 FPS, High 41.6 FPS, and Ultra 30.4 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 36.7 FPS, whereas at 1080p the difference between Low and Ultra is 83.2 FPS. The tighter spread at 4K means the GPU is saturated even at Low settings, and raising quality only compounds the load.

The CPU benchmark data shows the processor sits at the 68th percentile compared to all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 14185. The nearest rival with a higher average score is the Intel Core 7 160UL at 14232, which is 0.3 percent faster. The AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, 0.6 percent higher. On the lower side, the Intel Xeon 6756E scores 14163, 0.2 percent lower, and the AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, 0.5 percent lower. These close margins indicate the i5-10400F is positioned in a dense performance cluster. For a game like The Technomancer, the CPU delivers enough throughput to sustain high frame rates at 1080p, but the GPU becomes the limiting factor once resolution climbs past 1440p.

The GPU belongs to the GeForce 50-series with a Blackwell 2.0 architecture and 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus. Its memory bandwidth is 448.0 GB/s. The recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3628, and the Geekbench Vulkan score is 113321. The GPU sits at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs in the database. The nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT, scores 26011, which is 1.2 percent lower. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26553, 0.8 percent higher. These comparisons show the RTX 5060 is clustered with mid-range cards from previous generations, and its performance in The Technomancer reflects that positioning.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU each have nearby rivals in the database that would produce similar frame rates in The Technomancer. For the Intel Core i5-10400F, the closest match is the Intel Xeon 6756E, which has an average benchmark score of 14163, just 0.2 percent lower than the i5-10400F’s 14185. The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232, which is 0.3 percent higher, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, 0.6 percent higher. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, 0.5 percent lower. Any of these processors would deliver nearly identical CPU-bound performance in this game, meaning the frame rates at 1080p Low or Medium settings would be indistinguishable in practice.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 has an average benchmark score of 26331. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT scores 26011, which is 1.2 percent lower, and would produce slightly lower frame rates in The Technomancer, likely a few FPS behind at each resolution and preset. The AMD Radeon 860M scores 26401, 0.3 percent higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 26421, also 0.3 percent higher. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26553, 0.8 percent higher. These GPUs are all within a narrow performance band, so the measured FPS for the RTX 5060 would be a reliable estimate for any of these alternatives. At 1440p Ultra, where the RTX 5060 averages 61.5 FPS, a GPU that is 0.8 percent faster would produce roughly 62 FPS, while one that is 1.2 percent slower would produce roughly 61 FPS. The differences are minor and would not change the playability verdict at any resolution.

The combined CPU and GPU alternatives would behave similarly to the i5-10400F plus RTX 5060. Swapping the CPU for an AMD Ryzen 3 7320C would add 0.6 percent CPU performance, which is irrelevant at 4K where the GPU is the bottleneck. Swapping the GPU for an AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT would reduce GPU performance by 1.2 percent, which could push 1440p Ultra from 61.5 FPS down to roughly 60.8 FPS, still above the threshold. The 4K Low result of 67.1 FPS would drop to approximately 66.3 FPS with the RX 6750 XT, still playable. The 1080p results would remain far above 60 FPS regardless of which rival GPU is chosen, since even the slowest alternative is within 1.2 percent of the RTX 5060.

The Verdict

The data shows this system can run The Technomancer at all three tested resolutions, but the settings ceiling varies. At 1920x1080, every preset clears 60 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 92.4 FPS, which is well above the playability threshold. At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset averages 61.5 FPS, just barely clearing 60 FPS. All four presets at 1440p are playable. At 3840x2160, only the Low preset clears 60 FPS, with an average of 67.1 FPS. Medium at 4K averages 47.1 FPS, High averages 41.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 30.4 FPS, all below the threshold.

The verdict by resolution is straightforward. For 1080p, the system is fully capable at maximum settings. For 1440p, the system is capable at maximum settings, but with a slim margin of 1.5 FPS above the threshold. For 4K, the system is only capable at Low settings, and even then the margin is 7.1 FPS above 60. Players who prioritize visual quality at 4K would need to accept the Low preset, which still delivers a smooth experience. The GPU does not have enough headroom for higher presets at 4K, and the frame rate scaling confirms the GPU is the limiting factor there.

The CPU and GPU combination ranks 1795 out of 3696 tested configurations, which places it in the upper half of the database. That rank, combined with the measured FPS, indicates a balanced system for this game at 1080p and 1440p, with a clear limitation only at 4K Ultra. The system will deliver a playable experience for the majority of players using common display resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces the following average frame rates across presets. Low settings average 175.6 FPS, which is the highest recorded result for this system. Medium settings average 140.4 FPS, High settings average 116.7 FPS, and Ultra settings average 92.4 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 35.2 FPS, from Medium to High costs 23.7 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 24.3 FPS. Every preset at 1080p maintains an average above 90 FPS, so the system never approaches the 60 FPS threshold at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the average frame rates are 118 FPS for Low, 90.1 FPS for Medium, 73.8 FPS for High, and 61.5 FPS for Ultra. The cost of each preset step is 27.9 FPS from Low to Medium, 16.3 FPS from Medium to High, and 12.3 FPS from High to Ultra. The Ultra result is the only one close to the 60 FPS threshold, with a margin of 1.5 FPS. All other presets at 1440p have comfortable margins, with Low sitting 58 FPS above the threshold.

At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are 67.1 FPS for Low, 47.1 FPS for Medium, 41.6 FPS for High, and 30.4 FPS for Ultra. The preset cost is 20 FPS from Low to Medium, 5.5 FPS from Medium to High, and 11.2 FPS from High to Ultra. Only the Low preset clears the 60 FPS threshold, with a margin of 7.1 FPS. The Medium preset falls 12.9 FPS short, High falls 18.4 FPS short, and Ultra falls 29.6 FPS short. The minimum and maximum frame rates were not recorded in the database, so the analysis relies on averages only.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at each preset shows a consistent reduction. Low drops from 175.6 to 118 FPS, a loss of 57.6 FPS. Medium drops from 140.4 to 90.1 FPS, a loss of 50.3 FPS. High drops from 116.7 to 73.8 FPS, a loss of 42.9 FPS. Ultra drops from 92.4 to 61.5 FPS, a loss of 30.9 FPS. The absolute loss is larger at lower presets because the starting frame rates are higher, but the percentage loss is similar across presets.

The scaling from 1440p to 4K is more severe. Low drops from 118 to 67.1 FPS, a loss of 50.9 FPS. Medium drops from 90.1 to 47.1 FPS, a loss of 43 FPS. High drops from 73.8 to 41.6 FPS, a loss of 32.2 FPS. Ultra drops from 61.5 to 30.4 FPS, a loss of 31.1 FPS. The 4K results indicate the GPU is overwhelmed at medium and higher presets, with the frame rate falling below 50 FPS in all cases except Low.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra. The average frame rate at Ultra is 92.4 FPS, which is 32.4 FPS above the threshold. The system has enough headroom at 1080p Ultra that even the heaviest settings do not threaten playability.

At 2560x1440, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is also Ultra. The average frame rate at Ultra is 61.5 FPS, which is 1.5 FPS above the threshold. This is a narrow margin, and players who want a safety buffer could drop to High, which averages 73.8 FPS and sits 13.8 FPS above the threshold. The database lists Ultra as the best settings at 1440p, but the close margin suggests High is a more stable choice for consistent performance.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low. The average frame rate at Low is 67.1 FPS, which is 7.1 FPS above the threshold. No other preset at 4K reaches 60 FPS. Medium averages 47.1 FPS, High averages 41.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 30.4 FPS. Players at 4K must use Low settings to maintain playability, and even then the margin is modest.

The best settings per resolution, as recorded in the database, are Ultra at 1080p with 92.4 FPS, Ultra at 1440p with 61.5 FPS, and Low at 4K with 67.1 FPS. These results define the maximum visual quality that keeps the system above the 60 FPS threshold. The system is clearly capable at 1080p, marginally capable at 1440p with Ultra, and restricted to Low at 4K. The GPU’s 8 GB of GDDR7 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for this game, but the raw compute throughput at 4K is the limiting factor. For players targeting 4K, the Low preset is the only viable option, while 1080p and 1440p players can enjoy maximum settings without concern.