The Technomancer

The Technomancer, an Action RPG released on 2016-06-27, is measured here with an AMD Ryzen 5 2600 processor and an AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT graphics card. The database contains twelve measured FPS rows, covering four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) at 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160. The combination ranks 1821st out of 3696 tested GPU/CPU pairs for this game, meaning it sits just above the halfway mark of the chart. The CPU falls at the 75th percentile against all other CPUs, and the GPU at the 71st percentile, so the pair performs about as expected for their individual positions. Data is marked as actually measured, not inferred from these hardware pieces.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS values for each preset and resolution form a clear picture of how this system handles the game’s quality tiers. At 1920x1080, every preset is playable: Low rating 161 frames per second, Medium 138 FPS, High 117 FPS, and Ultra 92 FPS. The step from High to Ultra costs 25 FPS, but the jump from Medium to High only 21 FPS, so Ultra still stays close enough. As a result, 1080p Ultra gives the its initial desirable experience without giving away much speed and will flat out keep any 60 FPS monitor fully fluid.

At 2560x1440, the average values drop to 77 FPS at High, and Ultra drops further to 60 FPS. Meanwhile Medium is barely at 90 FPS and Low adds up to 117 FPS. The table, if you have a 1440p display, High offers 77 FPS and can be used as worry‑free due to no minimum row recorded; Ultra still holds at an average of exactly 60 FPS, which is perfectly stable for a typical 60 Hz refresh. For a smoother, more responsive feel, Medium with 90 FPS and a reported minimum of 76 FPS is a sensible choice, as that lower bound states you won’t often sink below 76.

On 3840x2160, the picture becomes compromised. Low is the only setting with an average above 60 (64 FPS). Medium averages 49 FPS and reports a minimum of 42, High only 42, and Ultra 33. So at 4K the compromise is between accepting a low preset that maintains a playable 64 FPS or trying Medium and dealing with dips into the 40s. Given that the game’s exact Ultra visuals only yield 33 FPS, you would be better off staying at 1440p or using Low at 4K. Alternatively, if sharpness matters more, Medium gives almost 50 FPS for a much richer image – though it falls short of a 60 FPS ideal. The data shows only the Medium preset supplies min/max numbers, so the 4K Medium minimum of 42 is the only minimum at that resolution.

Across all resolutions, the pattern holds: the reduction from Low to Ultra costs on average roughly 40–50 FPS at 1080p, 50 at 1440p, and 31 at 4K. For best overall quality and framerate, a 1440p host with High settings (77 FPS) or 1080p Ultra (92 FPS) are the two measures rows that balance image detail and frame rate. When resolution exceeds 1440p the system is rewarded by using Medium settings in 4K only if 60 FPS is irrelevant, and Low if you need suavemp.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 6750 XT is a RDNA 2 part with 2560 shading units, 160 texture units, 64 ROPs, and 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192‑bit bus. Memory bandwidth is 432 GB/s, memory clocks run at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), and the core boost is 2600 MHz with a conservative base of 2150 MHz. These resources prove to be the primary driver in this game: the FPS differences, especially at higher resolutions, follow the GPU settings rather than the CPU.

At lower quality, the GPU has headroom. For example, at 1920x1080 Low, the change from Low to Ultra reduces FPS from 161 to 92, a delta of 69. This is consistent with a workload where texture and drawcall size matter, and 12 GB of memory is far from being exhausted. There is no sign that the 12 GB buffer is a limitation – the game launch in 2016 with a modest requirements, and even today these assets will fit easily. Likewise, the 432 GB/s bandwidth plus the boost clock allow The Technomancer to maintain frame pacing when load goes up.

According to the global metrics, this GPU sits at the 71st percentile, with a 3DMark score of around 20700 in Passmark G3D. The closest rival cards in the database (other benchmark values) are the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (average 25891, deltaPct 0.5%), an AMD FirePro W7100 (25856, deltaPct 0.6%), and an AMD FirePro D700 (25842, deltaPct 0.7%). All of those GPUs position near the same average, indicating that the RX 6750 XT is in that performance class. The GPU’s own bandwidth and shader count put it into a position where it can handle the Technomancer’s full range of effects. The game itself is typically scaled by display resolution, and the measured FPS shows that it is the VRAM and the compute pipes that determine how fast the card can redraw each pixel, not the CPU (more on that in the CPU Role).

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data allow a clear view of how the workload scales as the pixel count grows. At each preset, stepping from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 reduces the average FPS by a somewhat large but consistent amount, and then to 3840x2160 reduces further. In the Ultra preset, the chain is 92, 60, and 33 frames per second. For High, it’s 117, 77, and 42. For Medium, it runs 138, 90, and 49. For Low it’s 161, 117, and 64.

The drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 25% at Ultra (92 to 60) and around 34% at High (117 to 77); the drop from 1440p to 4K is always larger, in lines of 45% or close to 50% – High 77 to 42, and Medium 90 to 49. This pattern indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor from 1440p upward. At 1920x1080 the CPU presumably has comparatively little work to do, because the GPU renders more pixels than the Rest can manage; however, when the bottleneck shifts to Graphics, you see the FPS become much more uniform across the quality preset. The Low preset at 4K still reaches 64 FPS, while the High to Low drop shows a margin of – that GPU still has how many pixels to fill.

Importantly, at 1080p 161 FPS vs 92 FPS the Scaling is entirely attributable to game settings; each pixel is being rendered identically in terms of resolution, so the workload changes only with the level of shading, texture filtering, and post‑processing. The fact that the 1080p number reaches 161 suggests that a stronger GPU would push even higher, but the CPU might then become a boundary. The sharp delta for 4K – 33 vs 64 FPS on Low – shows the framerate is purely rasterizing. Therefore, if the user wants to maintain 60 FPS at higher resolutions they must use Low.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table lists all measured combinations for the Technomancer with this CPU‑GPU pair.

| Resolution | Preset | Average FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|-----------|--------|-------------|---------|---------|

| 3840x2160 | High | 42 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 64 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 49 | 42 | 57 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 33 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | High | 77 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 117 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 90 | 76 | 103 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 60 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | High | 117 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 161 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 138 | 117 | 158 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 92 | – | – |

Only the Medium setting at any resolution provides minimum and maximum numbers. At 1080, Medium’s min 117 and max 158 show a relatively tight frame window, leaving little risk of spikes. The 1440p Medium min is 76, and the max 103; that represents a more variable but still acceptable range. At 4K, Medium manages 49 average with a minimum of 42 fps and peak of 57, so the game can dip into the low 40s occasionally. In contrast, all other presets lack min/max data, so their stability is not measured. The average numbers alone give a good view, but the return from the Medium preset is especially important: it is the only measure that proves the system keeps a min FPS above 75 at 1080p and above 46 at 1440p.

The 64 FPS average at 4K Low and the 117 FPS average at 1440p Low are the fastest results listed; the 33 FPS result at 4K Ultra represents the heaviest frame that the GPU can produce. This box tells a straightforward story: at 1080p the GPU can saturate even a running 144 Hz monitor with the High settings (117) and only drops below 100 at Ultra (92). At 1440p, the ideal target is the Medium (90) or High (77) presets, while staying away from Ultra unless you accept 60 FPS as the for exactly. And for 4K, even the lowest quality preset delivers a playable 64 FPS, while any Quality boost pushes it firmly into 40‑something average range.

How This Combo Ranks

In the Technomancer’s benchmarking record, the Ryzen 5 2600 + RX 6750 XT combination achieves rank 1821 out of 3696. That places it near the middle of all combos (in the lower middle, to be precise), which is consistent with the percentile of its components. The CPU sits at the 75th percentile globally, while the GPU is at the 71st percentile independently. These are not the positions of a high‑end flagship or a budget part; they are precisely mid‑range. Because the game is heavily graphics oriented, the two pieces pull the pair’s ranking to about the middle.

The nearest rivals of the CPU in the overall average‑score standings are the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V (avg score 21440, delta vs the 2600 of 0.2), the Core i9-11900H (21367, deltaPct 0.5), the Xeon D-1746TER (21635, deltaPct -0.7), and the AMD EPYC 9454 (21223, deltaPct 1.2). These rivals are less than 1.2% from the 2600’s average, so the CPU is entering the same league as a wide price range of /epyc and mobile chips. For the GPU, the closest matches are AMD Radeon R9 M395X (avg score 25891, delta 0.5), AMD FirePro W7100 (25856, deltaPct 0.6), and AMD FirePro D700 (25842, deltaPct 0.7), confirming that the GPU is neither a high outlier nor a stretch.

The overall rank indicates that for The Technomancer specifically, this pairing is not enough to compete with the top tenth, but it will still produce better than 49% of all tested 3696 combos. Since the data uses measured results, it represents actual performance rather than predicted values. The position is a consequence of the 6700XT’s modest 26-bit bandwidth compared to higher‑end cards, but for a 6‑treaded CPU and a 12 GB card, the ranks agree with how much headroom exists in the game’s engine.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is a 6‑core, 12‑thread part built on the 12nm Zen+ architecture (codename Pinnacle Ridge). Its base clock is 3.4 GHz, boost 3.9 GHz, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. In this game, the CPU’s contribution is to feed the GPU quickly enough that the composite does not sit at a high speed at low resolution. The 1080p Low 161‑fps result, for instance, is so high that a CPU core would only be a bottleneck if game limitations allowed. The data for 1080p vs 1440p at the same graphics shows that when the resolution increases, the FPS goes down, indicating the core influences may silently be overwhelmed.

The CPU does have good baseline benchmarks: Cinebench R15 multi‑ and single‑core scores of 1248 and 157.3, Geekbench multicore 5648 and single 1154, and a PassMark single‑thread of 2239 with a multithreaded 13160. It is not the fastest modern processor, but for a 2019 game the realize quads carefully limited. The 6‑core layout is also more than adequate for a lightly threaded engine; twelve switching threads might be overkill, but they do not hurt.

The exact effect of CPU on frame pacing can be observed only by inference: At 1080p Low, the game outputs 161 FPS, which is close to the GPU’s total capacity on that workload. At 4K Low, the output is 64 FPS, a reduction that can only happen because the GPU is doing much more pixel work. The CPU timing remains the same; the FPS at Low, which has minimal simulation overhead, is still the row fastest measured and is still the highest average at each of the resolutions. That suggests that the CPU is not the constraint in any of the tested scenarios. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the 1080p Low FPS would be much lower than it is, because it would already run into the core bounds. The fact that gaming almost even — 1080p Low 161, 1440p Low 117, 4K 64 — lines up close with the GPU compute scaling.

Another indicator that the CPU handles everything fine comes in the Medium preset's minimum values. At 2560x1440, the minimum is 76 FPS while the median average is 90; at 1080p, the min is 117 and max is 158. Frame wrapping is a sign that the CPU is adequately feeding the GPU, staying not falling below 75 FPS in the middle resolution. Given the boost clock 3.9 GHz, the 6‑core and 12‑thread package supplies far more execution than this Action RPG demands. There is no record of any other component in the test system, so the assumption that CPU performs is solely based on those numbers.

It is importantly in the database rankings the CPU is in the 75th percentile by average score, with nearest rivals that include a notebook i9 (11900H) and an EPYC server processor. That is a wider performance basket that reflects the processor’s ability to handle any generation. When inserted into The Technomonant’s FPS runs, the CPU is servient to the grand resolution load, but it never appears to be a source of serious frame drops, as every measured combination shows a high framerate as soon as the preset is lowered. So, if a user is targeting 1080p with a capped 144 Hz display, the Ryzen 5 2600 will not stand in the way; even at its worst (Ultra), the rate is 92 FPS, leaving some CPU headroom there. At 1440p Ultra (60 FPS) the CPU is even less stressed. The conclusion from the data is that the RX 6750 XT and the Ryzen 5 2600 form a fine balance when the game is set to High at 1440p or below, to the point where the GPU is the sole staff to adjust for frameending.