The Technomancer

The Technomancer is an Action RPG that was released on 2016-06-27. The benchmark data examined here pairs an AMD Ryzen 5 2600 CPU with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 GPU, giving a combination slot that ranks at 807 out of 3,696 recorded combos in this game's database. Measured frame rates exist for three resolutions and four settings presets, and this analysis walks through what those numbers indicate about the choice of CPU and GPU, which component drives the frame rate at each resolution, and how to read the measured dataset.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate at 1920x1080 is the high point of the set. At the Low preset, the measured average is 161 FPS; at Medium it's 146 FPS, at High 138 FPS, and at Ultra 127 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 the same presets average 140, 127, 120, and 110 FPS respectively. At 3840x2160 the values fall further to 114, 91, 77, and 61 FPS. The scaling pattern is consistent across all four presets — each resolution step lowers the average, but the rate of that drop changes with setting severity.

The 1080p-to-1440p reduce is relatively modest on the Low and Ultra ends. The Low preset goes from 161 to 140 FPS, a gentle slip as the pixel count increases. The Ultra preset changes from 127 to 110 over the same step. The larger fall occurs when moving from 1440p to 4K. The Low preset decreases from 140 to 114, Medium from 127 to 91, High from 120 to 77, and Ultra from 110 to 61. This big non-linear drop between the two highest resolutions indicates that the game becomes much more dependent on GPU work as the render target expands. At 1080p, the distance between 161 Low and 127 Ultra is just 34 FPS, but at 3840x2160 the value distance between 114 on Low and 61 on Ultra grows, showing that the two extreme presets diverge far more at 4K than they do at 1080p.

The fact that the 4K Ultra result averages 61 FPS while 1440p Ultra can maintain 110 FPS is a signal that the 4K workload is pushing the hardware to its limits in a way that 1080p and 1440p do not. The same CPU and GPU can clearly sustain high rates at lower pixel counts, but the 4K tier exposes heavier shading, memory, or G-scale-bound lifts; the GPU is making that resolution possible but at little to spare.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured combo sits at rank 7 — to be precise, rank 807 out of 3,696 combinations used in the game's development of the benchmark. The rank is obtained from the complete set of in-game tests. The, standing, indicates the pair sits in the top portion of the database, but it is not the leading combination.

Context comes from the component-level positions. The Ryzen 5 2600 exists at the 75th percentile of all tested CPUs. Its overall benchmark average is 21,484, and its nearest-Rivals data shows: an Intel Core Ultra 5 228V at average 21,440 (0.2% ahead), Intel Core i9-11900H at 21,367 (0.5%), Intel Xeon D-1746TER at 21,635 (-0.7%), and AMD EPYC 9454 at 21,223 (0.8%). The CPU is clearly near the middle of its own field. The RTX 4090 is at the 88th percentile of all tested GPUs, with a broader margin to its own competitors. Its nearest rivals, Intel Arc Pro A60 (0.0%) and AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (-2.5%), are well within a few percentage points of the average score. In the game's ranking, the combo being at 807 overall implies that the CPU's lower position versus the GPU's higher position defines the combined ability.

The game's rank of 807 of 3,696 combos is not a reflection of the GPU being weak — the card is in the top tier of all tested products. The constraint sits more on the CPU's per-core bandwidth. A six-core, 12-thread processor released on the older Zen architecture is not sufficient to fully branch the RTX 4090 in every part of this game, and the resulting frame limits are visible at lower resolutions where the CPU has more influence. Thus the ordering places this combo well inside the top quarter of all tested combos.

Settings Recommendations

Nobody setting is right everywhere, but the data points to a clear grading by resolution. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset sits at only 61 FPS average. That is still a playable figure for a 60 Hz class of pointing monitor, but it is close to the edge of a 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset, on the other hand, delivers 91 FPS at the same resolution, which gives the most headroom at 4K; High hits 77 FPS, sitting between Medium and Ultra. If one has any 144Hz speakers, the preferred choice at 4K would likely be Medium, as even the High preset (77) is at the upper bound of its available range. The Medium preset also provides the measured minimum and maximum spans: 77 and 104, respectively, giving range of the values at 4K Medium.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts. The Ultra preset averages 110 FPS, and every preset meets or exceeds 110 FPS. The Low and Medium presets push 140 and 127 FPS. At 1440p Ultra is comfortable for 90–120 Hz displays, and the overall benefit of increasing to Ultra over High (which settles at 120) is small at nearly 11 — the Ultra-to-High gap is small when both are smooth.

At 1920x1080, the entire set exceeds 120 FPS. The lowest output, the Ultra, is still at 127 FPS average, and the High preset runs 138. Since the ceiling is likely the CPU, not the GPU, more presets margins do not add as much; the 1080p resolution shifts from 127 (Ultra) to 161 (Low) — only the difference is extra, the game is not GPU-bound at 1080p. The sensible recommendation for 1080p is the High or Ultra preset, as the maximum rate falls in above the High's 138; the user picks the visual smoothness without radical FPS change.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rate table, in exact figures:

• 3840x2160 / Low: average 114 (min and max not available).
• 3840x2160 / Medium: average 91, minimum 77, maximum 104.
• 3840x2160 / High: average 77.
• 3840x2160 / Ultra: average 61.
• 2560x1440 / Low: average 140.
• 2560x1440 / Medium: average 127, minimum 108, maximum 146.
• 2560x1440 / High: average 120.
• 2560x1440 / Ultra: average 110.
• 1920x1080 / Low: average 161.
• 1920x1080 / Medium: average 146, minimum 124, maximum 168.
• 1920x1080 / High: average 138.
• 1920x1080 / Ultra: average 127.

The row shows clear hierarchical order: for every resolution, Low > Medium > High > Ultra. The drop between Low and Ultra is with the largest at 4K, where the 114 figure drops by 53 points from Low to Ultra. At 1080p the same Low-to-Ultra gap is 34 FPS, making the scaling reflect that 4K costs almost twice as much percent when you step from Low to Ultra as it does at 1080p. The Medium preset outliers at each res have added the lowest observed 1% figure: 77 FPS at 4K, 108 at 1440p, and 124 at 1080p, with maximums reaching 168 at 1080p.

Note that the min 77 FPS at 4K Medium and the average of 61 FPS at 4K Ultra are below the 1080p Low's 161 FPS by a large multiplier. The numbers make it plain that the 4K stack is the hard boundary for this combo. At 1920p and 1440p, the combo stays well within the range of high fresh rate monitors.

GPU Role

The GeForce RTX 4090 is the engine in this pair. It ships with a bridge of 24 GB GDDR6X, a 384-bit memory bus, and a memory bandwidth of 1.01 TB/s. Its base clock is 2235 MHz, the boost reaches 2520 MHz, and the memory runs at 1313 MHz with an effective 21 Gbps note. The chip contains 16,384 shading units, and 512 texture units, 176 raster output cells, 128 ray tracing cores, and 512 tensor cores. Its pixel fill rate is 443.5 GPixel/s and its texture rate gl is 1,290.2 GTexel/s, while FP32 power is listed at 82.58 TFLOPS. The card connects via a PCIe 4.0 x16, draws its power from a single 16-pin connector, has a TDP of 450 W and an suggested PSU of 850 W.

The GPU's raw strength shows in its 88th percentile rank. On the measured way, this is the component that allows 4K High to hold 77 FPS and 4K Ultra to stay above 60. Its role within this benchmark is clear when reviewing the 4K data columns — as soon as runtime pressure steps to 3840x2160, the average rates are forced down by 91 to 114 to 77 overall between Low and High settings, indicating that the GPU raster and fill take over from the CPU. At the same time, the 1080p lines show its strength is not the limiting factor: there, the same part delivers 123–161 FPS across presets, which suggests at low pixel counts the CPU does not offer enough to hold the GPU at its peak