The Technomancer

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded dataset for this combination covers four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) across three resolutions. The measurements show a clear pattern: this system is heavily constrained at higher resolutions, with only the 1080p Low preset crossing the 60 FPS playable threshold.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly below playable levels. The Low preset averages 26 FPS, Medium drops to 20 FPS with a minimum of 17 FPS and a maximum of 23 FPS, High averages 17 FPS, and Ultra falls to 13 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS threshold, and even the best-case 4K result (Low at 26 FPS) is less than half of what is needed for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, performance improves substantially but still remains below the playability line. Low averages 47 FPS, High averages 31 FPS, Medium averages 36 FPS with a recorded range of 30 to 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 24 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 23 FPS, which indicates that preset selection has a significant impact on frame delivery, but no setting reaches 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the only playable result appears. Low averages 71 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold by 11 FPS. Medium averages 55 FPS with a minimum of 47 FPS and a maximum of 63 FPS, meaning it dips below playable during demanding scenes. High averages 47 FPS, and Ultra averages 37 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 34 FPS, showing that the visual preset choice can nearly double or halve the frame rate depending on direction.

The data shows a consistent scaling pattern: moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces average FPS by roughly 34% at Low (71 to 47), 35% at Medium (55 to 36), 34% at High (47 to 31), and 35% at Ultra (37 to 24). Moving from 1440p to 4K reduces averages by roughly 45% at Low (47 to 26), 44% at Medium (36 to 20), 45% at High (31 to 17), and 46% at Ultra (24 to 13). This near-uniform percentage drop across presets suggests a resolution-bound bottleneck rather than a settings-driven one.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested combinations for The Technomancer, this CPU and GPU pairing ranks 3408 out of 3696 tested combos. That places it in the lower 8th percentile of all recorded configurations, which is consistent with the FPS measurements showing limited playability.

The GPU's individual standing explains much of this ranking. The Intel Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This is an extremely low position, indicating that the graphics solution is the dominant limiting factor in this pairing.

The CPU, by contrast, is far more capable. The Intel Core i5-12600KF sits at the 79th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27799 across the database's CPU test suite. This massive gap between CPU capability (79th percentile) and GPU capability (5th percentile) means the system is overwhelmingly GPU-bound in virtually every scenario.

The overall combo rank of 3408 out of 3696 reflects this imbalance. The processor has ample headroom for The Technomancer's computational demands, but the graphics solution cannot translate that headroom into frame rate at higher resolutions or presets. The recorded data confirms this: even at 1080p Low, where the system achieves its best result of 71 FPS, the GPU is still the component determining the outcome.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database's nearest rival comparisons for the CPU and GPU provide context for what other hardware would behave similarly in this configuration.

For the Intel Core i5-12600KF, the closest alternatives in average benchmark score are the Intel Core i9-10900K (0.3% lower score), the AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE (0.3% higher), the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U (0.3% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (0.3% lower). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning any of these processors would produce nearly identical CPU-side performance in The Technomancer. Given that the GPU is the bottleneck, swapping the CPU for any of these rivals would not meaningfully change the FPS results.

For the Intel Arc B370, the nearest GPU rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (0.2% higher score), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (0.7% higher), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (1.4% higher). These are all older or lower-tier graphics solutions, and their benchmark scores are within 1.5% of the Arc B370. In practical terms, a system with any of these GPUs paired with a similar-generation CPU would produce FPS figures close to those recorded here. The differences are small enough that the playability verdict would remain unchanged: 1080p Low only.

It is importantly the Arc B370's nearest rivals are all legacy products, which underscores how far down the GPU performance ladder this part sits. The database's GPU percentile ranking of 5 confirms that this is not a mid-range or entry-level desktop GPU; it is positioned near the very bottom of recorded GPU performance.

The Verdict

Can this PC run The Technomancer? The recorded data gives a conditional yes, but only at a single resolution and preset combination.

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves playable performance. The best result is Low at 26 FPS, which is far below the 60 FPS threshold. The verdict for 4K is that this system cannot run the game at any preset with acceptable smoothness.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains below the threshold. The best result is Low at 47 FPS, still 13 FPS short of playable. No 1440p preset is viable.

At 1920x1080, the system clears the bar with the Low preset at 71 FPS. Medium falls to 55 FPS, which misses the threshold. High and Ultra are further behind at 47 FPS and 37 FPS respectively. The verdict for 1080p is that the game is playable, but only on Low settings.

In summary, the only configuration that delivers 60 FPS or above is 1080p with Low settings. Users who want higher visual fidelity or higher resolutions would need a different GPU, as the CPU is not the limiting factor.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core i5-12600KF and the Intel Arc B370 in The Technomancer is heavily skewed toward the GPU being the performance ceiling.

The CPU's benchmark profile shows strong multi-threaded and single-threaded capabilities. In Cinebench R23, it scores 23391 multi-core and 3302 single-core. In Geekbench, it scores 12137 multi-core and 2157 single-core. Its Passmark multithread score is 27575, and its single-thread score is 3925. These are solid figures for a desktop processor and place it at the 79th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

The GPU, by contrast, has a single recorded benchmark: 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its percentile rank of 5 places it below nearly all other GPUs in the database. The FP32 throughput is 6.144 TFLOPS, and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, but these specifications do not translate into competitive game performance.

The scaling data clarifies which component matters more at each resolution. When moving from 1080p to 1440p, the FPS drops by roughly 34-35% across all presets. When moving from 1440p to 4K, the drop is roughly 44-46%. This near-constant percentage reduction regardless of preset indicates that the GPU's pixel throughput limit is being reached. A CPU bottleneck would typically show less consistent scaling across presets, because lower presets reduce GPU load and would expose CPU limits. Instead, the data shows that even at Low settings, the frame rate drops proportionally with resolution, which is the signature of a GPU-bound system.

At 1080p, the CPU has more influence because the GPU is less stressed. The difference between Low (71 FPS) and Ultra (37 FPS) at 1080p is 34 FPS, which is a settings-driven change. However, even at 1080p Low, the system only reaches 71 FPS, not a much higher figure. If the CPU were the limit, we would expect Low to produce a much larger frame rate advantage over High or Ultra. The modest 71 FPS ceiling at Low suggests the GPU is still the primary constraint.

At higher resolutions, the GPU's role becomes even more dominant. The 4K results are uniformly low (13 to 26 FPS) regardless of preset, and the 1440p results show a similar pattern. Users considering overclocking or upgrading the CPU to improve The Technomancer performance would see negligible gains, because the recorded data points to the GPU as the binding constraint at every resolution and preset tested.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run The Technomancer at 60 FPS?

A: Only at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, where the average FPS is 71. All other resolution and preset combinations fall below 60 FPS.

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

A: Low is the only preset that clears the threshold, with an average of 71 FPS. Medium averages 55 FPS, which misses the 60 FPS mark.

Q: Is 1440p playable on this system?

A: No. The best 1440p result is Low at 47 FPS, which is 13 FPS short of the playable threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra are 36, 31, and 24 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the CPU compare to similar processors?

A: The Intel Core i5-12600KF scores within 0.3% of the Intel Core i9-10900K, AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE, AMD Ryzen 7 6800U, and AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D in average benchmark score. Any of these CPUs would perform nearly identically in this game.

Q: How does the GPU compare to similar graphics cards?

A: The Intel Arc B370 scores within 1.5% of the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and AMD FirePro M2000. These are all legacy products, and the GPU sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU is the bottleneck at all resolutions. The CPU ranks at the 79th percentile while the GPU ranks at the 5th percentile. FPS drops by roughly 34-35% from 1080p to 1440p and 44-46% from 1440p to 4K across all presets, which indicates a GPU-bound system.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest recorded average is 26 FPS on Low, which is the best possible result but still unplayable.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest recorded average is 47 FPS on Low, which is the best possible result but still 13 FPS short of playable.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset is the only configuration that stays at or above 60 FPS, with an average of 71 FPS. Medium falls to 55 FPS, so it cannot be recommended as a playable setting. The recommended configuration for this system is therefore 1080p with Low settings, which delivers the only playable experience recorded in the dataset.