The Technomancer

# The Technomancer with AMD Ryzen 5 4600G + AMD Radeon RX 9060

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 delivers a broadly playable experience in The Technomancer across most resolution and settings combinations, but the data reveals a system that begins to strain at 4K Ultra. The combo ranks 1632nd out of 2825 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database—a position that reflects a capable 1080p and 1440p performer that falls short of high-refresh or 4K ambitions. The measured frames per second show a clear pattern: the CPU provides sufficient headroom at lower resolutions, while the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus become limiting factors as pixel counts rise.

FAQ

Q: What is the combo's overall ranking in The Technomancer?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G + AMD Radeon RX 9060 combination ranks 1632nd out of 2825 tested combos in this game, placing it in the 57th percentile of the database.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves?

A: The highest measured average is 157 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At the same resolution, Medium delivers 120 FPS and High delivers 103 FPS.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this combination?

A: 4K performance is marginal. At 3840x2160, only Low settings reach 56 FPS average, while Medium drops to 43 FPS, High to 37 FPS, and Ultra falls to 29 FPS—below smooth playability thresholds.

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

A: The Ryzen 5 4600G scores 17507 in average benchmark, sitting within 0.8% of the Intel Core i3-14100T (17648) and 0.6% above the Intel Core 7 150U (17395). It is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE (17482, 0.1% difference).

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

A: The RX 9060 scores 16014 average benchmark, trailing the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16129) by 0.7% but leading the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15852) by 1% and the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15862) by 1%.

Q: What is the difference between 1080p High and 1080p Ultra?

A: At 1920x1080, High settings produce 103 FPS average while Ultra produces 80 FPS—a 23 FPS drop for the visual upgrade, representing roughly a 22% performance penalty.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G brings six cores and twelve threads to The Technomancer, built on the Zen 2 architecture with Renoir codename. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz provide the computational foundation for this Action RPG's world simulation, NPC logic, and physics calculations. The CPU's 8 MB shared L3 cache and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth on dual-channel DDR4 represent the memory subsystem feeding those cores.

Benchmark data shows the 4600G's multi-threaded capability is its strength: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 13593 while single-core scores 1919, and 3DMark max-thread scores reach 4889 versus 726 single-thread. This disparity suggests the CPU can leverage all twelve threads effectively when a game scales well—and The Technomancer, as a 2016-era title, may not fully utilize that parallelism. The PassMark multithread score of 15992 against a single-thread score of 2653 reinforces this pattern: the chip is built for throughput across many threads rather than exceptional per-core speed.

In the context of this game's measured results, the CPU appears sufficient at 1080p where frame rates reach 157 FPS at Low settings—a figure that suggests the processor is not the primary bottleneck at lower resolutions. However, the 4600G's single-thread performance, with its 3DMark single-thread score of 726 and PassMark single-thread of 2653, may limit minimum frame rates in scenes with heavy AI or scripted sequences. The CPU's 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it is a mid-pack performer, and its nearest rivals—all within 0.8% in average score—confirm it sits in a tightly contested tier.

The 65W TDP and 7nm process node indicate an efficient chip, but efficiency does not translate directly to gaming headroom. The 4600G's integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics are irrelevant here since a discrete RX 9060 is present, but the CPU's PCIe Gen 3 interface (20 lanes) could theoretically limit GPU communication bandwidth—though this appears not to manifest as a measurable problem in the FPS data. What the data suggests is that at 1440p and 4K, the CPU has ample headroom, and the GPU becomes the limiting factor.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the newer component in this pairing, built on RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 44 chip on a 4nm process. Its specifications are substantial for a mainstream card: 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a modest figure for the resolution demands of modern gaming.

Clock speeds are a highlight: the base clock runs at 1700 MHz, game clock at 2400 MHz, and boost reaches 2990 MHz. This aggressive boost behavior explains why the card's FP32 throughput reaches 21.43 TFLOPS with a pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 334.9 GTexel/s. These numbers place the RX 9060 in a competitive position against its nearest rivals—the RTX 3060 Ti (0.7% higher average score) and RX 7700 (1% lower)—but the 59th percentile ranking among all GPUs shows it is not a top-tier performer.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is the most likely culprit for the 4K performance collapse. At 3840x2160, the card delivers 56 FPS on Low but only 29 FPS on Ultra—a 48% reduction that suggests texture memory pressure. The 128-bit memory bus and 288 GB/s bandwidth may also struggle with the data throughput required at 4K resolutions. The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 compliance mean it can handle modern rendering features, but The Technomancer's 2016 engine may not fully exploit these capabilities.

In the measured results, the GPU's role becomes clearer when examining the scaling from 1080p to 4K. At 1080p High, the combo produces 103 FPS; at 1440p High, 67 FPS; at 4K High, 37 FPS. This near-linear drop with pixel count indicates the GPU is the dominant constraint at higher resolutions, while the CPU has leftover capacity. The RX 9060's PassMark G3D score of 17631 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 88183 quantify its compute potential, but real-world gaming performance in this title falls short of those synthetic metrics suggest for 4K Ultra.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combination performs strongly across all settings. Low settings produce 157 FPS average, which is exceptionally high and indicates the game is well within the hardware's comfort zone. Medium settings deliver 120 FPS with minimums of 102 FPS and maximums of 138 FPS—a tight range suggesting consistent frame pacing. High settings drop to 103 FPS average, still comfortably above 60 FPS. Ultra settings yield 80 FPS average, which remains smooth for most displays. The 1080p data shows no setting pushes this combo below playable thresholds, and even the most demanding Ultra preset maintains a 77 FPS margin above 60 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance picture shifts. Low settings achieve 102 FPS average, a 35% reduction from 1080p Low. Medium settings produce 79 FPS with minimums of 67 FPS and maximums of 90 FPS—the minimums still clear 60 FPS but with less headroom. High settings drop to 67 FPS average, which is right at the edge of smooth gameplay. Ultra settings fall to 52 FPS average, dipping below the 60 FPS threshold and indicating that max settings at 1440p require compromises. The 1440p results show a pattern of diminishing returns: each settings tier costs roughly 15-20% performance, with the gap between Low and Ultra reaching 50 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles. Low settings produce 56 FPS average, which is playable but not ideal. Medium settings drop to 43 FPS with minimums of 37 FPS and maximums of 50 FPS—this range shows significant frame variance that could cause stuttering. High settings manage only 37 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 29 FPS average, which is below acceptable playability for an Action RPG requiring responsive combat. The 4K data reveals a steep cliff: even Low settings cannot maintain 60 FPS, and the difference between Low and Ultra is 27 FPS, representing a 48% performance penalty.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1632 out of 2825 tested combinations places it in the 57.8th percentile of the database. This positioning suggests that while the hardware is not exceptional, it outperforms a slight majority of tested combos in The Technomancer. The ranking reflects a system that can handle the game at mainstream resolutions but does not excel at enthusiast-level settings.

Interpreting this rank requires context from the component-level data. The CPU sits at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, which is respectable for a 4000-series chip. The GPU, however, sits at the 59th percentile among all GPUs, pulling the overall combo ranking down. The combination of a slightly-above-average CPU with an average GPU produces a system that is greater than the sum of its parts at 1080p but less than expected at 4K.

The nearest CPU rivals—AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE (0.1% higher), Intel Core 7 150U (0.6% lower), AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE (0.6% lower), and Intel Core i3-14100T (0.8% lower)—all cluster within 1% of the 4600G's average score. This tight grouping suggests the CPU is not a differentiator in this game; any of these processors would yield similar results. The GPU rivals are similarly close: RTX 3060 Ti (0.7% higher), R9 370X (1% lower), RX 7700 (1% lower), and Pro W5500 (2.1% lower). The RX 9060's position in this pack means GPU choice matters more than CPU choice for this game.

The rank of 1632 suggests that many other hardware combinations deliver better performance, likely including those with higher-tier GPUs. However, the combo's 1080p results—with 157 FPS at Low and 80 FPS at Ultra—show that for gamers targeting 1080p, this pairing is more than adequate, and its ranking understates its practical utility at that resolution.

Settings Recommendations

For 1920x1080 displays, the data supports using High settings as the optimal balance. At 103 FPS average, High delivers a 28% performance increase over Ultra (80 FPS) while providing most of the visual fidelity. The 23 FPS difference between High and Ultra does not justify the visual gains for most users, especially in a fast-paced Action RPG where frame consistency matters. Medium at 120 FPS is the choice for competitive play or high-refresh-rate monitors, but High offers the best compromise between image quality and smoothness.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings are the recommended starting point. The 79 FPS average with a 67 FPS minimum ensures the frame rate rarely drops below playable levels. High settings at 67 FPS average are borderline—playable but with less headroom for demanding scenes. Ultra at 52 FPS falls below the 60 FPS target and should be avoided unless the user prioritizes visual fidelity over responsiveness. Low at 102 FPS is viable for those seeking maximum smoothness, but Medium provides a better visual experience with only a 23 FPS penalty.

At 3840x2160, the data suggests Low settings as the only viable option for consistent gameplay. The 56 FPS average is below the ideal 60 FPS target but remains playable. Medium at 43 FPS and High at 37 FPS introduce noticeable stutter, and Ultra at 29 FPS is not recommended for an Action RPG requiring precise timing. Users with 4K displays should consider lowering resolution or accepting Low settings, as the 128-bit memory bus and 8 GB VRAM cannot sustain higher presets.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is clear: the gap between Low and Ultra grows with resolution, from 77 FPS at 1080p to 50 FPS at 1440p to 27 FPS at 4K. This indicates that the GPU's memory subsystem becomes progressively more strained as pixel count increases, making lower settings more attractive at higher resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the bottleneck dynamics of this combination. At High settings, the progression is 103 FPS (1080p) → 67 FPS (1440p) → 37 FPS (4K). This represents a 35% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 45% drop from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is not linear with pixel count—1440p has 1.78x the pixels of 1080p but performance only drops by 35%, while 4K has 2.25x the pixels of 1440p and performance drops by 45%. This suggests the GPU's memory bandwidth becomes increasingly constrained at higher resolutions, with the 288 GB/s bandwidth unable to keep pace with the data demands.

At Low settings, the scaling is 157 FPS (1080p) → 102 FPS (1440p) → 56 FPS (4K), showing drops of 35% and 45% respectively—the same pattern as High settings. This consistency indicates the bottleneck is resolution-dependent rather than settings-dependent. The fact that Low settings at 4K (56 FPS) barely outperform High settings at 1440p (67 FPS) in terms of frame time suggests the GPU's pixel throughput is the limiting factor, not texture memory or shading complexity.

The Ultra preset scaling tells a slightly different story: 80 FPS (1080p) → 52 FPS (1440p) → 29 FPS (4K), with drops of 35% and 44%. The similar percentage drops across all settings tiers confirm that resolution scaling is the dominant variable. The CPU's role in this scaling is minimal—at 1080p Low with 157 FPS, the CPU is likely near its limit, but at higher resolutions the GPU takes over as the primary constraint.

The data implies that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, with 1440p being a secondary option at Medium settings or lower. The 4K results, while technically playable at Low, do not provide the experience most gamers expect from an Action RPG. The limiting component is clearly the GPU's memory subsystem—the 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus—rather than the CPU or any other system component. Users seeking 4K performance would need to upgrade the GPU, while those satisfied with 1080p can maximize settings without concern.