The Technomancer

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and Intel Arc B370 pairing in The Technomancer produces a heavily GPU-limited experience, with the CPU offering far more headroom than the integrated graphics can utilize. The data shows a clear pattern: frame rates are consistently low across all tested settings, and the Arc B370’s performance ceiling is the primary constraint in this Action RPG. This analysis breaks down the measured results, contextualizes them against rival components, and provides practical guidance for squeezing playable performance out of this combination.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 4 (Raphael) architecture using a 5 nm process at TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 32 MB L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, delivering 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and the chip communicates via PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes. Integrated Radeon Graphics are present, though they are not the focus of this gaming analysis.

Benchmark data shows this CPU is a strong performer in absolute terms. It scores 6,503 in 3DMark Max Threads, 12,735 in Cinebench R23 Multi-Core, and 1,852 in Cinebench R23 Single-Core. Its average benchmark score is 26,324, placing it in the 78th percentile among all CPUs. Against its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 7600 is virtually tied with the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX (deltaPct 0.2), the AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS (deltaPct -0.3), the Intel Core i9-11900KF (deltaPct 0.4), and the AMD Ryzen 5 8540U (deltaPct 0.5). These deltas are all under 1%, meaning the 7600 offers no meaningful advantage or disadvantage over these competitors in synthetic workloads.

In the context of The Technomancer, the CPU’s role is largely passive. The game’s frame rates do not scale with the CPU’s capabilities. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 71 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire dataset. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect frame rates to collapse at lower resolutions or with graphics settings reduced, since that shifts the load toward the processor. Instead, the data shows that even at 1080p Low, the frame rate is only 71 FPS, which is modest for a CPU with this much single-threaded horsepower (3DMark Single Thread score of 999). The 6-core, 12-thread configuration is far more than this 2016-era Action RPG needs, and the processor is never the limiting factor in any measured scenario. The 5.10 GHz boost clock and 32 MB L3 cache provide ample headroom, but the game simply does not demand that much from the CPU.

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

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture (Panther Lake chip) on Intel’s 3 nm process. It has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. The base clock is 300 MHz, with a boost clock of 2,400 MHz. Memory is system shared, with bus width and bandwidth listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS. The TDP is 25 W, and the slot width is IGP, meaning it uses no dedicated power connectors.

The Arc B370’s benchmark presence is minimal. Its only recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1,184, which places it in the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (avgScore 1,186, deltaPct -0.2), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (avgScore 1,190, deltaPct -0.5), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (avgScore 1,192, deltaPct -0.7), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (avgScore 1,168, deltaPct 1.4). These are all older or entry-level parts, and the Arc B370 is statistically indistinguishable from them in raw 3DMark performance. This is a clear signal that the GPU is the limiting component.

In The Technomancer, the GPU’s role is dominant. The measured FPS data shows that frame rates are consistently low, even at 1080p. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the combo averages 13 FPS, which is virtually unplayable. At 1920x1080 Ultra, it only reaches 37 FPS. The Arc B370’s 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 20 ROPs are simply not enough to drive this game at high settings. The system-shared memory architecture means performance is also dependent on system RAM, adding another layer of variability. The 2,400 MHz boost clock is decent for an iGPU, but the small number of shading units and low ROP count severely limit fill-rate-bound scenarios, which is exactly what The Technomancer presents. The data indicates that this GPU is operating near its absolute ceiling even at the lowest settings tested.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling pattern is a textbook example of a GPU-bound workload. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 and then to 3840x2160 produces proportional frame rate drops that align with the increase in pixel count, not with CPU limitations.

At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 71 at 1080p, to 47 at 1440p, to 26 at 4K. That is a drop of 33.8% from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 44.7% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 63.4%. Pixel count increases by 2.25x from 1080p to 1440p and by 4x from 1080p to 4K. The measured FPS drops are close to, but slightly less than, what pure pixel-count scaling would predict (71 FPS at 1080p would theoretically yield ~31.5 FPS at 4K if perfectly scaled; the measured 26 FPS is lower, indicating some additional overhead).

At High settings, the pattern is similar: 47 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 34%, and from 1440p to 4K is 45.2%. At Medium settings, the figures are 55 FPS at 1080p, 36 FPS at 1440p, and 20 FPS at 4K, with drops of 34.5% and 44.4% respectively. At Ultra settings, the numbers are 37 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K, representing drops of 35.1% and 45.8%.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings is revealing. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would see frame rates plateau at lower resolutions, with 1080p and 1440p showing similar FPS. Instead, every resolution step produces a significant FPS loss, which is the signature of a GPU that is fully saturated at all tested resolutions. The Ryzen 5 7600 is capable of feeding frames far faster than the Arc B370 can render them, and the resolution scaling confirms that the integrated GPU is the sole limiting factor.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2,603 out of 2,825 tested combos in The Technomancer. This places it in the bottom 7.9% of all systems tested, which is a poor result for any gaming configuration. The rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU’s 5th percentile performance ranking, while the CPU sits in the 78th percentile. This mismatch is stark: a high-end CPU paired with an entry-level integrated GPU produces a system that is effectively only as fast as its weakest link.

Contextualizing this rank against the nearest rivals helps explain the score. The Arc B370’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,184 is within 1.4% of the AMD FirePro M2000 (1,168) and within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1,192). These are all parts that would struggle with any modern game, and The Technomancer is no exception. The combo rank of 2,603 out of 2,825 means there are only 222 tested combos that perform worse, and those are likely to feature even older or lower-end GPUs. For a system with a Ryzen 5 7600, this rank is a severe underperformance, as the CPU alone would typically place in the top quarter of any benchmark. The data suggests that this pairing is fundamentally unbalanced for gaming, with the GPU dragging the entire system down to near-bottom-tier status.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, there is no settings preset that delivers a consistently smooth 60 FPS experience at any resolution. The best-case scenario is 1080p Low, which averages 71 FPS. This is the only configuration that exceeds the 60 FPS threshold, and it does so with a comfortable margin. However, the minimum FPS at 1080p Low is not recorded, so there is no guarantee of frame stability.

For a playable experience, 1080p Medium is the highest settings preset that remains in a playable range, averaging 55 FPS with a minimum of 47 FPS and a maximum of 63 FPS. The minimum of 47 FPS is below 60, but it is still within a range that many players would find acceptable for a slower-paced Action RPG. At 1080p High, the average drops to 47 FPS, which is playable but with noticeable dips. At 1080p Ultra, the average falls to 37 FPS, which is marginal.

At 1440p, the situation worsens. 1440p Low averages 47 FPS, which is playable but not smooth. 1440p Medium averages 36 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS, which is at the edge of playability. 1440p High averages 31 FPS, and 1440p Ultra averages 24 FPS, both of which are too low for a comfortable experience.

At 4K, no settings are recommended. 4K Low averages 26 FPS, 4K Medium averages 20 FPS, 4K High averages 17 FPS, and 4K Ultra averages 13 FPS. All of these are below playable thresholds.

The best experience per the measured rows is 1080p Low, which is the only preset to break 60 FPS. For users who prioritize visual quality over raw frame rate, 1080p Medium at 55 FPS is a reasonable compromise, offering better visuals while staying mostly within a playable range. The data clearly indicates that this combo should be run at 1080p with the lowest settings to achieve the most consistent performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following is the complete measured FPS data for the AMD Ryzen 5 7600 + Intel Arc B370 in The Technomancer.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows. Low settings produce an average of 71 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Medium settings produce an average of 55 FPS, with a minimum of 47 FPS and a maximum of 63 FPS. High settings produce an average of 47 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Ultra settings produce an average of 37 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded.

At 2560x1440, the results show a clear step down. Low settings produce an average of 47 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Medium settings produce an average of 36 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 41 FPS. High settings produce an average of 31 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Ultra settings produce an average of 24 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded.

At 3840x2160, the results are the lowest in the dataset. Low settings produce an average of 26 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Medium settings produce an average of 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 FPS and a maximum of 23 FPS. High settings produce an average of 17 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Ultra settings produce an average of 13 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded.

The data shows a consistent pattern of frame rate degradation as resolution and settings increase. The only row with a recorded minimum and maximum is Medium settings, which appears at all three resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the range is 47 to 63 FPS, a spread of 16 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 30 to 41 FPS, a spread of 11 FPS. At 4K Medium, the range is 17 to 23 FPS, a spread of 6 FPS. This narrowing range at higher resolutions further confirms the GPU-bound nature of the workload, as the frame time variance decreases when the GPU is fully saturated. The overall takeaway from the measured FPS breakdown is that this combo is only viable at 1080p with Low or Medium settings, and any attempt to push higher resolutions or quality presets results in a sub-30 FPS experience.