The Technomancer

This pairing of an AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 sits at 1630th place out of 3,696 tested combos in The Technomancer, a result that lands it below the half-way point of all configurations. The CPU itself holds a 75th placement percentile among all tested CPUs with an average benchmark score of 21,484, while the GPU sits at a 61st percentile among all GPUs with its own average score of 17,208. In the game’s own measured runs it is a capable setup: at 1920x1080 it clears 144 frames per second on Low, and even at 4K Ultra it reaches a playable 35 FPS. The CPU carries a launch MSRP of $199, and the GPU listed at launch with a 499 USD price. Those numbers are just reference points from their initial rollouts. The real story is in how this 6-core, 12-thread desktop chip with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost of 3.90 GHz drives the 8 GB Ampere graphics board from one resolution to the next.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured rank for this combination is 1630th out of 3696 total tested setups in The Technomancer. That places it in the lower half of all pairings, but the numbers behind the rank show a specific weakness. The CPU’s own aggregate performance is close to a cluster of rivals. Its average benchmark sum of 21,484 is nearly identical to the Intel Core Ultra 228? Actually, the field shows a 0.2% faster score for the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V and a 0.5% faster score from the Intel Core i9-11900H, both with avg scores of 21,440 and 21,367 respectively, against the 21,484 of the Ryzen 2600. Two other processors appear on the list as well: the Intel Xeon D‑1746TER scores 21,635 (–0.7% slower than the 2600), and the AMD EPYC 9454 scores 21,223 (1.2% slower). So the Ryzen 5 2600 sits within a 2% band of those four server and mobile parts. Against all CPU parts in the database it lands in the 75th percentile, meaning it outperforms 75% of all known CPUs.

The GPU side shows a bit more headroom but also a tighter grouping with a different set of rivals. The RTX 3070, with its average benchmark sum of 17,208, is 0.7% behind the RX 7600 XT (17,083) and 1% behind the GTX 690 (17,037). On the other side, the Radeon HD 7970M is 1.1% faster (17,019), and the Tesla K40c calls itself 1.5% faster (17,468). So the RTX 3070’s raw score is respectable, but the gap between its 61st percentile and the CPU’s 75th percentile shows a combo in which the processor is actually the lower of the two components in relative standing. The game’s measured FPS results, though, tell a different story about which part is the actual limit under load.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with Medium quality on this combo?

A: The measured result shows an average of 146 FPS at 1920x1080 Medium, with a minimum of 124 and so a maximum of 168.

Q: Is this combo able to reach 60 years

A: At 1440p on High the average is 82 FPS, at 1440p Medium it’s 96 FPS, and at 1440p Low it reaches 125. The minimum cut on Medium at 1440p is 82 FPS, so it can hold above 60 in the most limited row given.

Q: What is the best setting to sustain a high frame rate on a 1440p display?

A: The data shows that Medium gives 96 FPS, High gives 82, and Ultra gives 64. Low setting yields the highest– at 125 – but any of these is above 60, while Ultra sits right at that threshold.

Q: How far does the frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K for this same at High?

A: The High preset yields 125 115 125 FPS at 1080p, 185 82 FPS at 1440p, and 45 FPS at 4K. That’s a drop of 43 from 1080p to 1440p, and another 37 from 1080p to 4K.

Q: What is the ranking of this CPU among all CPUs?

A: The Ryzen 5 2600 is in the 75th percentile, with an average benchmark sum of 21,484.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the GPU and how fast is its VRAM?

A: The RTX 3070 has 8 GB of GDDR6, a 256‑bit bus, and a memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. The memory runs at 1750 MHz, and the 14 Gbps effective, according to the official specs.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

Inside this 30‑series card sits the GA104 die on Samsung’s 8‑nm process. The core clocks 1500 MHz base and 1725 MHz boost. Its memory controller uses an 8 GB GDDR6 pool over a 256‑bit bus, feeding flat 448.0 GB/s. The GPU’s shading workload is 5,888 CUDA cores, and it packs 184 TMUs and 96 ROPs. For the The Technomancer, that memory asymmetry is regularly accessed. The game is from 2016, so it predates the card by a few years, but it still contains heavy textures and lighting that push the memory footprint high.

We observe the results in the measured FPS table. At 1920x1080 low, the card yields 161 FPS, and at 4K low it gives 69 FPS. That drop is too steep for an 8‑GB GPU if the 8‑GB capacity were a cap; the game likely fits within the limit, given the data shows no fall to single‑digit frame rates at any setting. The boost clock of 1725 MHz on another card holds up as the pace is low. In 4K Ultra, the average is only 35 FPS, which signals that the GPU is the heavy resource in that environment, and the 8‑GB amount becomes a secondary factor. Nonetheless, the memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s is well matched to the resolution range. The GPU’s nearest rivals in raw score—the RX 7600 XT and GTX 690—differ by only 1–2%, but the RTX 3070 is a generation apart in features, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and ray tracing cores that this older game doesn’t use. The measured FPS at Medium intervals hint, though, that the memory capacity is not the limiting component: at 4K Medium the card maintains a 53 FPS average, only 8 FPS below the low of 69 it holds at that resolution, while at 4K Ultra it drops 18 from that.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The table below is the direct output of the test runs. Min/max values are only provided for the Medium preset at each resolution.

| Resolution | Settings | Average | Min | Max |

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

| 3840×2160 | High | 45 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 69 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 53 | 45 | 61 |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 35 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | High | 82 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 125 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 96 | 82 | 110 |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 64 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | High | 125 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Low | 161 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 146 | 124 | 168 |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 98 | – | – |

Grid the numbers into a pattern. The only interval that reports a fluency range is the Medium setting. At 1080p Medium the average is 146, with a 124 minimum and 168 maximum. That 124 to 168 band is one of the stronger ones across all combos, proof of a stable run under that preset. At 1440p Medium emits 96 average with min 82, max 110; at 4K Medium 53 average with min 45, max 61. The lack of min/max for the other preset rows means the data only shows what it shows—no extra guarantee.

Resolution Scaling

Frames per second fall consistency as resolution climbs. Look at the High preset: 1080p 125, 1440p 82, 4K 45. That’s a 43‑frame drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 37‑frame drop from 1440p to 4K. For Low, the numbers are 161, 125, and 69 – a fall of 36 then 56. The Medium row runs 146, 9496, 53, and Ultra at 98 / 64 / 53.

The most telling statistic is the 4K gap. At 4K Low the average is 69, only 56 below the 1080p Low. But as soon as you step up to Medium the 4K number is 53, and at High it’s 36, Ultra 35. This is the signature of a GPU‑bound scenario where the way the memory bandwidth (448 GB/s) is far too narrow to feed an 8‑billion‑pixel frame at high detail – each 4‑bit per‑pixel cost eats the data. At 1080p, though, the CPU and GPU have enough leeway: even at Ultra the 98 average is well above 144p refresh, and the low setting peaks at 161 locked simply because the display output is on a 120‑Hz screen it doesn’t exceed.

The same scaling pattern underlines which part is the limit. From 1080p Low (161) to 1440p Low (125), the drop of 14% (actual numbers stored) is moderate, indicating the GPU still has headroom, but at 4K Low (69) the interpolation slopes severely. This combination in 4K is clearly GPU bound, while at 1080p it alternates between the two. Out of all four resolutions, 1080p Low is the only one where the 2600’s boost of 3.90 GHz can feed the GPU fast enough to go above 1569? The measured 161 max is the highest recorded. The FPS at 4K Ultra (35) is the lowest, so the GPU is the bottleneck on that end; there the CPU, with 6 cores 12 threads on AM4, has nothing to do.

--Settings Recommendations

The most balanced settings per resolution, based on measured averages, are as follows.

At 1920×1080, choose Medium for the budget. The data shows 146 FPS average, only 15 FPS below Low (161), but significantly higher than Ultra (98). The minimum is still 124, so long You get a solid 144 Hz experience with one eye on a high refresh rate. If you need exactly 165+ FPS, Low holds 161, but you lose quality. The Ultra set, 98, is still above 90 and acceptable, but it is a clear visual drop from Ultra.

At 2560×1440, pick Medium. It delivers 96 FPS average, a smooth upgrade from High’s 82. That’s near the 1440p 240‑Hz class. The Medium frame range goes from 82 to 110, which is wide but still stable. If you prefer constant 100+, Low is your friend (125). Ultra (64) is playable on a 60‑Hz monitor, but the step down from 144Hz is noticeable; nothing prevents you from using it.

At 3840×2160, it’s a crisp fuse. Here Low is the only . It runs 69 FPS, which is better than Medium’s 53. High is –45 and Ultra is 35. On a 4K display you should almost always set to Low, because the frame hit from Medium is only 53 – about half of 69, while the visual gain is little in motion. The Medium frame minimum of 45 might cause drops on a game like that, so Low is the safer approach. If Medium can withstand 45–61, it’s tight but ready for some 4K images; the average is 53, which is only a fraction above 48.

As an experienced PC suggests, the balanced spot for the whole table is 1080p Medium (146 average) and 1440p Medium (96). The combo of Ryzen 5 2600 and RTX 3070 is shown to strong at those points, and at 4K the 2600 sets a floor of 69 FPS at the lowest settings. The data confirms this is a resource that puts its best framerates at 1080 and 1440, not on 4K ultra setting.