The Technomancer

This pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and the 12GB AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT ranks 1627th out of 3696 CPU‑GPU combinations measured in The Technomancer. The FPS data show that at 1080p the combo delivers an average of 100–161 FPS depending on preset, and at 1440p, 66–128 FPS. At 4K, performance drops to a playable range of 36–70 FPS, but only at Low settings does it stay comfortably above 60 FPS. The Ryzen 5 2600 sits near the 75th percentile of all CPUs, while the RX 7700 XT sits at the 67th percentile of all GPUs, meaning the combo is balanced enough to keep the GPU busy at lower resolutions but flags when asked to feed a 4K panel.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of the 3696 CPU‑GPU pairings analyzed in the database, this combo lands at position 1627. That places it just past the midpoint of the tested field – 56% of the combinations measure a better in‑game result, but a large part of the list falls below it too. This ranking makes sense given the relative positions of the two components: the CPU scores in the 75th percentile (beating 75% of all CPUs in the benchmark aggregate), while the GPU falls in the 67th percentile. The CPU is thus the more competitive piece relative to its peers, but the GPU is not far behind.

Because the CPU reaches its 75th percentile using an average benchmark score of 21484, its nearest rivals in synthetic tests are the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V (21440 average, 0.2% faster) and the Intel Core i9‑11900H (21367, 0.5% faster). The next‑named rival, the AMD EPYC 9454, is 1.2% slower. In practice, this means the Ryzen 5 2600 is placed right in the upper half of the CPU population, delivering sufficient thread performance to feed a mid‑range GPU but not enough headroom to let a top‑end card shine at low resolutions.

On the GPU side, the RX 7700 XT’s average score of 22549 positions it just ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 5060 Mobile (22435, 0.5% faster) and behind the RTX 4060 Mobile (22729, ‑0.8%). The spread is tiny, so the RX 7700 XT is clearly a solid mid‑range offering. Its percentile of 67 places it in the upper third of all GPUs, which corresponds logically to the measured FPS the card delivers: robust at 1080p, still playable at 1440p, and only struggle at 4K Ultra.

GPU Role

The RX 7700 XT is built around the Navi 32 chip with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192‑bit bus. The memory is clocked at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and delivers 432 GB/s of bandwidth, which is exactly the kind of throughput needed to feed a game like The Technomancer – in this 2016 Action RPG, polygon and texture loads at 1080p and 1440p ask for raw memory transfer, and this GPU has ample room.

The core clocks are also relevant. The base clock is 1435 MHz and the boost is 2544 MHz, with a game clock of 2171 MHz. In practice, the card will sit near the boost most of the time, and it explains the measurable difference between presets. For example, at 1080p, the average drops from 161 (Low) to 146 (Medium) to 128 (High) to 100 (Ultra) – a spread of 61 FPS between the two extremes. This large variation shows that the GPU is not hitting a clock wall but rather it is being pushed by the game’s settings, which increase the shader workload. The RX 7700 XT has 3456 shading units and 216 TMUs, and the corresponding geometry load from The Technomancer is obviously manageable at 1080p, but even at 4K Ultra, it still produces a 36 FPS average; that is below the 45 FPS threshold many consider playable, but the GPU is not fundamentally underpowered – it is just over‑loaded by 4K Ultra.

The 12 GB VRAM rarely becomes a bottleneck at the tested resolutions. No measured row shows VRAM‑related stutters; the Min FPS locks in not the GPU memory but the level of settings. In the Medium preset at 4K, the card shows a spread of 46–62 FPS with an average of 54, implying that the frame time is dominated by shading and pixel fill, not by bandwidth. With 432 GB/s, the RX 7700 XT can keep feeding the ROPs at 96 pixel output, as evidenced by the high pixel fill rate (244.2 GPixel/s). The measured results indicate that the GPU is the main driver of FPS differences across the preset range; the CPU is not the limit.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is a 6‑core, 12‑thread processor based on Zen+ architecture, running at a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost of 3.90 GHz. Its 16 MB shared L3 cache and dual‑channel DDR4 memory support (46.9 GB/s) are adequate for The Technomancer, which is a 2016 game with moderate CPU demands.

The CPU’s benchmark profile is strong but not top‑end. Its PassMark multi‑thread score is 13,160, while its single‑thread is 2,239. In the Cinebench R15 tests it hits 1,248 multi‑core and 157.3 single‑core. Its Geekbench scores are 5,648 (multi) and 1,154 (single). These numbers firmly land the chip in the mid‑range of the CPU spectrum, which aligns with the fact that it outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V by 0.2% in overall average score, but is 1.2% slower than the AMD EPYC 9454. That performance level is enough to keep up with a 12‑GPU card in The Technomancer, because the game at most resolutions does not require a monster CPU.

The measured FPS differential across presets further supports the idea that the CPU doesn't act as a chokehold. Notice that when we change from 1080p High (128 FPS) to 1440p High (107 FPS) to 4K High (46 FPS), the FPS scales roughly linearly with pixel count, not CPU limits. If the CPU were limiting, the FPS would drop only after a heavy load spike. The fact that the 4K Low preset (70 FPS) is still above 60 shows that the hardware can keep the frame time short – meaning the CPU disposes its work quickly. Therefore, the Ryzen 5 2600 is a competent partner, and the measured frame times are dicted by the GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920×1080, the results are:

• Low: average 161 FPS (no min/max provided)
• Medium: average 146 FPS, with a min of 124 and max of 168
• High: average 128 FPS (no min/max)
• Ultra: average 100 FPS (no min/max)

These numbers are very strong for a game of The Technomancer’s visual scope. It would only be stretched to hit a 240 Hz monitor at High settings, but for 144 Hz 1080p this is comfortable territory.

At 2560×1440, the averages are:

• Low: 128 FPS
• Medium: 98 FPS (min 84, max 113)
• High: 84 FPS
• Ultra: 66 FPS

Here, Low remains above 100 FPS, but Medium is the sweet spot for a 1440p panel with 98 FPS average. High is solid at 84 FPS and Ultra is still playable at 66 FPS, but if you want to lock 100+ FPS you need to drop to Low.

At 3840×2160, the numbers shrink:

• Low: 70 FPS
• Medium: 54 FPS (min 46, max 62)
• High: 46 FPS
• Ultra: 36 FPS

Only Low gives a 70 FPS average; Medium is 54, which is borderline for smooth gameplay, while High and Ultra stutter below 60. The min FPS for Medium (46) is on the edge of smoothness.

Resolution Scaling

Scaling from 1080p to 1440p to 4K reveals how the different presets respond. Looking at the Low preset at each resolution: 161 FPS (1080p), 128 FPS (1440p), and 70 FPS (4K). The FPS at 4K Low is exactly a fraction of the 1080p Low – about a half (70 vs 161). That ratio reflects the expected workload of roughly four times the pixels, but in practice the card doesn’t get full linear scaling due to overhead. At Medium preset: 146 at 1080p → 98 at 1440p → 54 at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is about 33% (98/146 ≈ 0.67), and from 1440p to 4K is about 55% (54/98 ≈ 0.55). So the performance decreases as the resolution increases, but the loss is larger going to 4K than to 1440p. These numbers point to the 192‑bit memory bus and the 432 GB/s bandwidth – when pixel count increases, the GPU must move more data, and the jump to 4K hits a greater constraint.

The fact that 4K Low (70 FPS) is higher than 4K Ultra (36 FPS) shows that the GPU is fill‑rate / pixel‑rate bound, not CPU bound. Since the GPU has the same memory bandwidth for all presets, the difference lies in shading work; the larger the working set, the more the GPU has to compute per pixel. This is typical for an RX 5000‑series card that is strong in 1080p and 1440p but not built to fully fill a 4K screen. The data indicates that the CPU is not hiding this scaling: the CPU maintains constant performance across resolutions, so the FPS differences are solely from the GPU.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured rows, the best experience depends on the target resolution.

At 1080p, preserving the frame rate is easy: even Ultra can maintain 100 FPS, and Medium/High give 146 and 128 FPS. The recommended preset is High since it gives 128 FPS – already above the 120 Hz mark – and looks better than Low (161 FPS) without a huge visual cost. Medium is also a fine pick if you want the tightest frame consistency, as it has a min of 124 FPS. For a pure maximum smoothness, Low is unquestionably the fastest (161 FPS), but it looks worse.

At 1440p, the ideal is Medium because it yields 98 FPS, which is above the 90 Hz threshold and close to 100. High (84 seconds) is playable but below 90; Low (128) gives a high frame rate; and Ultra (66) is on the edge of smoothness but still playable. I would recommend Medium as the balanced choice, or Low if you want full 1440p with the highest rate.

At 4K, a smooth 60 FPS target is only achievable by using Low (70 FPS). Medium averages 54 FPS, which often drops to 46 or lower, so it is borderline. High (46) and Ultra (36) are not recommended for competitive play. Therefore, the best experience at 4K is Low, which is the only preset that stays above 60. If you cannot accept the visual downgrade, you need to either reduce the resolution or use less demanding settings.

In general, for this combination, the highest performance per mip‑level is found by targeting 1080p High or 1440p Medium depending on your screen. The data clearly shows that the Ryzen 5 2600 and RX 7700 XT are capable of delivering high refresh rates at 1080p, good 60‑80 FPS at 1440p, and a comfortable 4K only at the lowest quality preset.