The Technomancer

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 3408 out of 3696 tested combinations in The Technomancer, placing it in the bottom 8 percent of all tested systems. This is a very low standing, indicating that this specific pairing struggles significantly with this title.

The CPU component itself is far more capable than the overall combo ranking suggests. The i5-13400F sits in the 77th percentile among all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25292. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (average score 25284, essentially identical at 0% delta), the Intel Core 5 120 (average score 25362, 0.3% faster), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (average score 25365, 0.3% faster), and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (average score 25201, 0.4% slower). These are all tightly clustered results, meaning CPU performance is not the limiting factor here.

The Intel Arc B370, however, is an extremely weak performer in this context. It ranks in the 5th percentile among all tested GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186, 0.2% faster), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190, 0.5% faster), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192, 0.7% faster), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (score 1168, 1.4% slower). The B370 is effectively at parity with a set of graphics solutions that are over a decade old. The data shows a stark imbalance: a modern mid-range CPU is being paired with a GPU whose measured performance places it among the slowest components in the entire database.

Because the GPU is so weak, the combo rank is dragged down dramatically. The recorded data indicates that this pairing is at the very bottom of the performance distribution for The Technomancer, which is a demanding title for graphics hardware. The i5-13400F cannot compensate for the B370's limitations, and the result is a system that is only marginally usable under the most restrictive settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results show a clear pattern where the GPU dominates the performance ceiling, and the CPU's role is largely relegated to enabling the game to run at all.

At 1920x1080, the lowest tested resolution, the gap between preset levels reveals the GPU's constraint. Low settings deliver 71 FPS average, while Medium drops to 55 FPS, High falls to 47 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 37 FPS. This is a classic GPU-bound scaling curve: as the graphical workload increases, frame rates drop almost linearly. The i5-13400F, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, has ample headroom to feed the B370 at this resolution, but the B370 simply cannot render the scene faster regardless of CPU availability.

Scaling from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 shows the GPU becoming even more of a bottleneck. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 71 to 47, a 34% reduction. At High settings, the average drops from 47 to 31, a similar 34% reduction. At Medium, the drop is from 55 to 36, a 35% reduction. These consistent percentage drops across all presets confirm that the rendering load is the sole determinant of performance; the CPU is not introducing any variability.

Moving to 3840x2160, the situation becomes dire. At Low settings, the average FPS is only 26. At Medium, it is 20 FPS, at High it is 17 FPS, and at Ultra it falls to 13 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is severe: Low drops from 47 to 26 (45% reduction), High drops from 31 to 17 (45% reduction), and Medium drops from 36 to 20 (44% reduction). This linearity across resolutions and presets points to a GPU that is completely overwhelmed by pixel count and shading work, with the CPU playing no measurable limiting role in any scenario.

The data indicates that the i5-13400F is never the constraint. Its single-thread and multi-thread scores, such as a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3191 and multi-core score of 22604, are far beyond what this game needs. The B370, with its 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, is the definitive performance limiter at every tested resolution and preset combination.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the Intel Core i5-13400F, the nearest rivals in the database are all within a 0.4% performance delta. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS and AMD Ryzen 7 6800H are laptop-class processors that match the i5-13400F's average score of 25292 almost exactly, with the 6900HS at 25284 and the 6800H at 25201. The Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D are slightly faster at 25362 and 25365 respectively, a 0.3% margin that is negligible in real-world gaming. Any of these CPUs would behave identically to the i5-13400F in The Technomancer, as the game is not CPU-sensitive based on the measured data.

For the Intel Arc B370, the nearest rivals paint a grim picture. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, and AMD Radeon HD 7650M are all within 0.7% of the B370's score, while the AMD FirePro M2000 is 1.4% slower. These are all legacy discrete graphics solutions from the early 2010s. In practical terms, a user with any of these GPUs would see the same frame rates in The Technomancer as they would with the B370, within a margin of one or two frames per second. The B370's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 is essentially interchangeable with these older parts.

The practical implication for system builders is that swapping the i5-13400F for any of its listed rivals would produce no measurable change in this game. Swapping the B370 for any of its listed rivals would also produce no measurable change. The performance class is defined entirely by the GPU's low standing, and none of the nearby alternatives offer a path to better frame rates. The only way to improve performance would be to move to a GPU several tiers above the B370, which is not represented in the nearest rival data.

The Verdict

The recorded data provides a clear answer: this PC can run The Technomancer, but only at 1920x1080 with Low settings, and nowhere else.

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The highest average is 26 FPS at Low settings, which is far below the playable threshold of 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, the situation is equally poor. The best result is 47 FPS average at Low settings, which still misses the 60 FPS target. The verdict data confirms that both 4K and 1440p have no playable settings at all.

At 1920x1080, only the Low preset clears 60 FPS, with an average of 71 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall short, with averages of 55, 47, and 37 FPS respectively. This means the system is technically playable, but only at the absolute lowest visual quality and the most common resolution. There is no headroom for higher settings or higher resolutions.

The combination of the i5-13400F's strong CPU performance and the B370's very weak GPU performance results in a system that is usable only in a narrow window. The data shows that 1080p Low is the sole configuration that meets the 60 FPS playability standard. Users who prioritize smooth frame rates over visual fidelity can run the game, but anyone expecting to use Medium or higher presets, or any resolution above 1080p, will be disappointed. The verdict is unambiguous: 1080p Low only.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured averages are as follows. Low settings produce 26 FPS, Medium produces 20 FPS with a recorded minimum of 17 and maximum of 23, High produces 17 FPS, and Ultra produces 13 FPS. No minimum or maximum values are recorded for Low, High, or Ultra, but the averages are all far below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, Low settings deliver 47 FPS, Medium delivers 36 FPS with a minimum of 30 and maximum of 41, High delivers 31 FPS, and Ultra delivers 24 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 30 FPS indicates that even the average result is near the lower bound of playability, and the overall picture is one of consistent sub-60 FPS performance across all settings.

At 1920x1080, Low settings achieve 71 FPS, which is the only measurement in the entire dataset that exceeds 60 FPS. Medium settings produce 55 FPS with a minimum of 47 and maximum of 63, meaning the game can occasionally dip below 50 FPS even at Medium. High settings produce 47 FPS, and Ultra produces 37 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 34 FPS, showing how quickly the B370's performance degrades as graphical complexity increases.

The data reveals that the B370 is only capable of hitting 60 FPS in the most favorable conditions: 1080p with the lowest possible settings. Every other configuration falls short, and the higher resolutions show a complete collapse in performance. The minimum FPS values, where recorded, confirm that the game is not just averaging below 60 FPS but also experiencing frame drops that would be noticeable to the user.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, there are no settings that reach 60 FPS. The best available preset is Low, which averages 26 FPS, but this is still 34 FPS below the playable threshold. The data records no playable settings at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, no settings reach 60 FPS either. The best preset is Low, averaging 47 FPS, which misses the target by 13 FPS. The verdict data confirms that 1440p is not playable with this hardware.

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 71 FPS. This is the only configuration in the entire dataset that meets the playability standard. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS, with averages of 55, 47, and 37 FPS respectively. The recommendation is unambiguous: 1080p Low is the only viable choice for a smooth experience.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings, where it averages 71 FPS. All other tested resolutions and presets fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best performance this combo can achieve at 1440p?

A: The best result at 2560x1440 is 47 FPS average on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. No settings at 1440p are considered playable.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The B370 scores 1184 in the database's benchmark. It is within 0.7% of the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, and AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and 1.4% faster than the AMD FirePro M2000. All of these perform nearly identically.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is entirely the limiting factor. The i5-13400F ranks in the 77th percentile among CPUs, while the B370 ranks in the 5th percentile among GPUs. Frame rates scale consistently with resolution and preset changes, indicating GPU-bound performance.

Q: What is the highest resolution this system can handle at 60 FPS?

A: The highest resolution that reaches 60 FPS is 1920x1080, and only at Low settings. Neither 2560x1440 nor 3840x2160 achieves 60 FPS at any preset.

Q: How does the i5-13400F compare to nearby CPUs in the database?

A: The i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25292. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS scores 25284 (0% delta), the Intel Core 5 120 scores 25362 (0.3% faster), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25365 (0.3% faster), and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H scores 25201 (0.4% slower). All are effectively equivalent in performance.