The Technomancer

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti lands at rank 168 out of 1656 tested combinations in The Technomancer. This places the combo comfortably in the top 10.1% of all tested systems, a strong showing for a mid-generation processor paired with a current-generation graphics card. The ranking reflects a system that is clearly capable of high-refresh gaming at most resolutions, though the data reveals interesting nuances about where the bottleneck lies.

The CPU itself sits at the 79th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 21,765. Its nearest rivals in the aggregated CPU benchmark data are the Intel Xeon D-1746TER (0.6% higher score), the AMD EPYC 9554P and EPYC 9534 (both 0.6% lower), and the Intel Core i7-11700F (0.9% lower). These deltas are remarkably tight, meaning the Ryzen 5 5600's compute performance is essentially on par with a broad range of enterprise and desktop parts. The Ryzen's 6 cores and 12 threads, based on Zen 3 architecture, deliver strong single-threaded results—a 3DMark single-thread score of 882 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,584—which is critical for older game engines like the one powering The Technomancer.

For the GPU side, the RTX 5070 Ti holds an 87th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 52,086. Its nearest rivals are remarkably close: the RTX 4080 scores identically (0.0% delta), while the AMD Radeon RX 7700S is 0.8% lower, the NVIDIA RTX A1000 is 2.5% lower, and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M is 2.5% higher. This clustering indicates the 5070 Ti sits in a well-populated performance tier. The card's 16 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which proves ample for the texture-heavy scenes of this 2016 Action RPG.

The combination of a 79th-percentile CPU and an 87th-percentile GPU yields a top-10% overall rank. The data suggests the GPU is the more dominant contributor to the final ranking, but the CPU's strong single-thread performance prevents it from dragging the combo down in a game that is known to be sensitive to per-core throughput. In essence, this is a balanced pairing where neither component severely handicaps the other, though resolution scaling tests reveal where the limits lie.

FAQ

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems in The Technomancer?

A: It ranks 168th out of 1,656 tested combos, placing it in the top 10.1% of all configurations evaluated for this game.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between settings at a given resolution?

A: At 4K, the gap between Low (102.2 FPS) and Ultra (53.6 FPS) is 48.6 FPS, representing a 47.6% drop. The most extreme gap across all resolutions is at 1440p, where Low (186.4 FPS) to Ultra (96 FPS) represents a 90.4 FPS difference.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the limiting factor?

A: The GPU appears to be the primary limiter. At 1080p Ultra, the combo still achieves 146 FPS, but the scaling from 1080p to 4K at each setting shows a consistent ~65% performance drop, which is typical of GPU-bound scenarios. The CPU's 79th-percentile standing and high single-thread scores suggest it can feed the GPU adequately at lower resolutions.

Q: Can this combo maintain 60+ FPS at 4K?

A: Yes, but only at Medium settings or lower. At 4K High, the average is 66.1 FPS, which is above 60, but 4K Ultra drops to 53.6 FPS. For a locked 60 FPS experience at 4K, Medium (77.4 FPS) provides comfortable headroom.

Q: How does the RTX 5070 Ti compare to the RTX 4080 in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The two GPUs are statistically identical in average benchmark score, with a delta of 0.0%. The 5070 Ti scores 52,086 versus the 4080's 52,085, making them effectively interchangeable in synthetic testing.

Q: What is the best resolution for high-refresh-rate monitors?

A: At 1080p, all settings exceed 146 FPS, with Low hitting 232.1 FPS. At 1440p, only Ultra dips below 120 FPS (96 FPS), while High (121.9 FPS) and Medium (142.1 FPS) clear the 120 FPS threshold. For 144Hz displays, 1440p High is the safest choice.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at High settings, performance drops from 185.7 FPS to 121.9 FPS, a reduction of 34.4%. Going from 1440p to 4K at High, the drop is from 121.9 FPS to 66.1 FPS, a further 45.8% reduction. The total scaling from 1080p to 4K at High is 64.4%—the frame rate falls to roughly one-third of its starting value.

This scaling behavior is consistent across all four settings presets. At Low, the 1080p-to-4K drop is from 232.1 FPS to 102.2 FPS (56.0% reduction). At Medium, it goes from 214.1 FPS to 77.4 FPS (63.8% reduction). At Ultra, the drop is from 146 FPS to 53.6 FPS (63.3% reduction). The consistency of these percentages—all in the 56-64% range—strongly indicates that the GPU's pixel throughput is the binding constraint as resolution increases.

The CPU's role becomes visible at lower resolutions where frame rates exceed 200 FPS. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 232.1 FPS, which is near the practical ceiling for many game engines of this era. The Ryzen 5 5600's 3DMark 2-thread score of 1,737 and single-thread score of 882 suggest it can sustain high draw-call throughput, but the data shows diminishing returns past 200 FPS. At 1440p Low, the system still hits 186.4 FPS, indicating the CPU is not a significant barrier at this resolution.

The 4K results are particularly telling. Even at Low settings, the system must render four times the pixels of 1080p, and the 102.2 FPS result at 4K Low versus 232.1 FPS at 1080p Low shows the GPU struggling to maintain the extreme frame rates possible at lower resolutions. The 16 GB frame buffer and 896.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are sufficient for this game's assets, but the raw pixel fill rate becomes the limiting factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its highest frame rates across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 232.1 FPS, which represents the peak measured performance in this dataset. Medium follows at 214.1 FPS, High at 185.7 FPS, and Ultra at 146 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 86.1 FPS, meaning Ultra runs at 62.9% of Low's frame rate. All 1080p results comfortably exceed 144 FPS, and even Ultra clears the 120 FPS threshold by 26 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance hierarchy remains consistent but shifts downward. Low delivers 186.4 FPS, Medium drops to 142.1 FPS, High to 121.9 FPS, and Ultra to 96 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra widens to 90.4 FPS at this resolution, with Ultra now running at 51.5% of Low's speed. The 1440p results show that High and Medium both clear 120 FPS, while Ultra falls just short of the 100 FPS mark.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates compress significantly as the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck. Low produces 102.2 FPS, Medium 77.4 FPS, High 66.1 FPS, and Ultra 53.6 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread narrows to 48.6 FPS, but the relative penalty for Ultra is steeper: Ultra runs at 52.4% of Low's frame rate. Notably, 4K Low is still faster than 1440p Ultra by 6.2 FPS, demonstrating how resolution scaling and settings interact in unexpected ways.

The data shows a consistent pattern: each settings tier costs roughly 15-20% performance at a given resolution. From Low to Medium at 4K, the drop is 24.3%; from Medium to High, 14.6%; from High to Ultra, 18.9%. At 1440p, the corresponding drops are 23.8%, 14.2%, and 21.3%. At 1080p, they are 7.8%, 13.3%, and 21.4%. The Low-to-Medium penalty grows with resolution, while the Medium-to-High penalty remains stable, and the High-to-Ultra penalty is consistent across all resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data supports a clear hierarchy of recommendations based on display capabilities and frame rate targets. For 1080p displays, Ultra settings at 146 FPS provide the best visual experience without sacrificing smoothness—this frame rate is above the 144Hz refresh rate of common gaming monitors, and the visual uplift from High to Ultra is substantial in a game with The Technomancer's detailed environments. If a player prioritizes maximum frame rates for competitive play or has a 240Hz display, Medium at 214.1 FPS is the sensible choice, as it delivers 47% more frames than Ultra while still looking significantly better than Low.

For 1440p, High settings at 121.9 FPS represent the optimal balance. This configuration clears the 120 FPS threshold that many 1440p high-refresh monitors target, while Medium at 142.1 FPS offers additional headroom if the display supports 144Hz. Ultra at 96 FPS is playable but drops below the 100 FPS mark, which may introduce perceptible judder on higher refresh displays. The data suggests that High is the "sweet spot" at this resolution—it maintains high frame rates while preserving most of the visual fidelity that the Ultra preset adds.

At 4K, the recommendations depend heavily on whether the display supports VRR (variable refresh rate). For standard 60Hz displays, High at 66.1 FPS is the best choice—it provides a 10% margin above 60 FPS and includes most of the visual enhancements. Medium at 77.4 FPS offers more headroom for scenes that might cause frame dips, while Ultra at 53.6 FPS falls below the 60 FPS target and is not recommended for smooth gameplay. For 120Hz 4K displays, Medium at 77.4 FPS is the highest playable preset, though it still falls short of the 120 FPS target.

The overall best experience, balancing visual quality and performance across all measured metrics, is 1440p High. This configuration delivers 121.9 FPS, which exceeds the refresh rate of most standard monitors, while the resolution provides a significant sharpness improvement over 1080p. For users with 4K displays who prioritize frame rate, 4K Medium at 77.4 FPS is the recommended preset—it avoids the sub-60 FPS territory of Ultra while maintaining acceptable visual quality. The data consistently shows that Ultra settings provide diminishing returns relative to their performance cost, particularly at higher resolutions where the GPU's pixel throughput is already strained.