The Technomancer

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the Intel Arc B570 ranks 2972 out of 3696 tested combos for The Technomancer. This places the configuration in the lower 20% of all tested hardware pairings, which is a surprisingly weak result given the individual component standings. The CPU sits in the 93rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU lands in the 65th percentile among all graphics cards. The discrepancy between component-level strength and game-level ranking indicates that The Technomancer presents a demanding workload that this combo handles only modestly.

The measured frame rates confirm this middling position. At 1920x1080, the setup delivers 80 FPS on High settings and 62 FPS on Ultra. At 2560x1440, performance drops to 52 FPS on High and 41 FPS on Ultra. The 4K results are outright poor, with High settings producing only 29 FPS. These numbers place the combo well below what faster configurations would achieve, but the system does clear the 60 FPS playable threshold at 1080p across all settings and at 1440p on Low and Medium. The rank reflects a system that is playable at mainstream resolutions but not competitive with higher-tier hardware.

The data shows a clear performance ceiling. The Arc B570's 65th percentile standing among GPUs suggests mid-range capability, and the measured FPS aligns with that positioning. The Core Ultra 7 265's high CPU percentile does not translate into game dominance because The Technomancer appears to lean heavily on GPU throughput at higher resolutions. The combo rank of 2972 out of 3696 indicates that roughly 700 other tested configurations outperform it in this specific title.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, at 1920x1080, all four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) clear 60 FPS, with the Ultra preset averaging 62 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low and Medium achieve 60 FPS or better, with Medium averaging exactly 61 FPS. At 3840x2160, no settings preset reaches 60 FPS; the best result is 44 FPS on Low.

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

A: The verdict data lists Medium as the best playable setting at 2560x1440, with an average of 61 FPS and a minimum of 52 FPS. High settings drop to 52 FPS average, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640. Its closest rival, the AMD EPYC 4464P, scores 64823, which is 0.3% higher. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 64438, 0.3% lower. The AMD EPYC 7343 scores 64202, 0.7% lower, and the AMD EPYC 9124 scores 65104, 0.7% higher.

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

A: The Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20556. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534, which is 0.1% lower. The Intel Arc A750 scores 20582, 0.1% higher. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480, 0.4% lower, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662, 0.5% higher.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings average 121 FPS, while Ultra settings average 62 FPS. This represents a 59 FPS drop, meaning Ultra delivers roughly half the frame rate of Low.

Q: Does the combo perform better at 1440p Medium or 1080p Ultra?

A: The 1440p Medium preset averages 61 FPS with a minimum of 52 FPS and maximum of 70 FPS. The 1080p Ultra preset averages 62 FPS. Both are nearly identical in average frame rate, but 1080p Ultra lacks min/max data, so the 1440p Medium result provides more variability context.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals a shifting balance between CPU and GPU influence across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the system produces 121 FPS on Low, 93 FPS on Medium, 80 FPS on High, and 62 FPS on Ultra. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 59 FPS reduction, which is a 48.8% drop. This steep decline indicates that GPU load increases substantially with settings, but the CPU remains capable enough to feed the GPU at lower settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates become 79 FPS on Low, 61 FPS on Medium, 52 FPS on High, and 41 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 38 FPS, or 48.1%. Compared to 1080p, the Low setting loses 42 FPS when moving from 1080p to 1440p, while Ultra loses 21 FPS. The proportional loss is similar, but the absolute numbers show that the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

At 3840x2160, the results collapse to 44 FPS on Low, 33 FPS on Medium, 29 FPS on High, and 22 FPS on Ultra. The Low-to-Ultra spread is 22 FPS, a 50% reduction. The 1080p-to-4K transition on Low settings drops from 121 FPS to 44 FPS, a 63.6% loss. This massive reduction points directly at the GPU as the bottleneck. The CPU's 93rd percentile standing does not rescue performance at 4K because the Arc B570's 65th percentile GPU capability cannot sustain high pixel throughput.

The pattern is clear: at 1080p, the CPU has enough headroom to let the GPU express its full range across settings. At 1440p, the GPU starts to strain, and at 4K, the GPU is overwhelmed. The data indicates that The Technomancer scales predictably with resolution, and the GPU is the dominant constraint in all configurations above 1080p Low.

The Verdict

This PC can run The Technomancer, but only under specific conditions. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS playable threshold on every settings preset. The Ultra preset averages 62 FPS, making it the best visual option that still maintains playability. At 2560x1440, the combo achieves playable frame rates on Low (79 FPS) and Medium (61 FPS), but High (52 FPS) and Ultra (41 FPS) fall short of the 60 FPS target. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS; the best result is 44 FPS on Low, which is below the playable threshold.

The verdict by resolution confirms that 1080p is the sweet spot for this hardware. All four settings presets at 1080p produce average frame rates above 60 FPS, with Low reaching 121 FPS and Medium at 93 FPS. At 1440p, users must choose between Medium at 61 FPS or High at 52 FPS, and the 4K resolution is effectively unplayable for smooth gameplay.

The Arc B570's 10 GB of GDDR6 memory and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for 1080p and 1440p workloads in this title, but the 160-bit memory bus limits higher-resolution performance. The Core Ultra 7 265's 20 cores and 5.30 GHz boost clock provide ample CPU headroom, as evidenced by the strong 1080p Low result of 121 FPS. The verdict is straightforward: play at 1080p with any preset, or at 1440p with Low or Medium settings. Avoid 4K entirely.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals show that several processors deliver nearly identical compute performance. The AMD EPYC 4464P scores 64823, just 0.3% above the Core Ultra 7 265's 64640. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 64438, 0.3% below. The AMD EPYC 7343 scores 64202, 0.7% lower, and the AMD EPYC 9124 scores 65104, 0.7% higher. Any of these CPUs would produce effectively the same frame rates in The Technomancer, as the differences are within 1% of each other.

On the GPU side, the Arc B570's nearest rivals are similarly clustered. The Intel Arc A750 scores 20582, 0.1% higher than the B570's 20556. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534, 0.1% lower. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480, 0.4% lower, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662, 0.5% higher. These delta percentages are all under 1%, meaning users with any of these GPUs would experience nearly identical performance in this game.

For a system builder seeking equivalent behavior, swapping the Core Ultra 7 265 for an AMD EPYC 4464P or EPYC 9124 would yield statistically identical results. Similarly, replacing the Arc B570 with an Arc A750 or RTX 3070 Mobile would produce frame rates within a rounding error of the measured data. The Quadro M4000M and Radeon R9 M390X are older designs that nonetheless match the B570's average score, but their driver and feature support may differ in practice.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured frame rates are as follows: Low settings average 44 FPS, Medium averages 33 FPS with a minimum of 28 FPS and maximum of 39 FPS, High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 22 FPS. No min or max values are provided for Low, High, or Ultra at this resolution, so only the Medium preset offers variability data. The spread from 44 FPS to 22 FPS across settings shows a 50% performance cost for moving from Low to Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the results improve substantially. Low settings average 79 FPS, Medium averages 61 FPS with a minimum of 52 FPS and maximum of 70 FPS, High averages 52 FPS, and Ultra averages 41 FPS. The Medium preset's min/max range of 52 to 70 FPS indicates noticeable frame pacing variance, but the average stays above the 60 FPS threshold. The Low-to-Ultra drop of 38 FPS represents a 48.1% reduction in performance.

At 1920x1080, the system performs best. Low settings average 121 FPS, Medium averages 93 FPS with a minimum of 79 FPS and maximum of 107 FPS, High averages 80 FPS, and Ultra averages 62 FPS. The Medium preset shows a 28 FPS spread between minimum and maximum, which is the largest variability recorded in the dataset. The Ultra average of 62 FPS barely clears the 60 FPS playable threshold, while Low at 121 FPS provides nearly double the frame rate.

The data shows consistent scaling: each resolution step down from 4K to 1080p roughly doubles the average frame rate at equivalent settings. The 1080p Low result of 121 FPS is the highest recorded value, while the 4K Ultra result of 22 FPS is the lowest. The Medium presets at each resolution provide the only complete min/max data, showing frame time variability that increases as resolution rises.