The Technomancer

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 delivers playable performance in The Technomancer only at 1080p with Low or Medium settings, and the data clearly identifies the GPU as the primary bottleneck across all resolutions. At 4K, the combination falls below playable thresholds even on Low, with frame rates dropping to single digits on Ultra, making this setup strictly a 1080p or modest 1440p pairing for this Action RPG.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and consistent with a GPU-bound scenario. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 46.4 at 1920x1080 to 31.6 at 2560x1440 and then to 16.1 at 3840x2160 — a reduction of roughly 65% from 1080p to 4K. This steep decline indicates that the GTX 1650’s rendering pipeline is saturated as pixel count increases, with the CPU (a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 part with a 5.10 GHz boost clock) having ample headroom to feed frames.

The scaling pattern is even more telling at Low settings: 66.2 FPS at 1080p drops to 45.6 at 1440p and 23.1 at 4K. The proportional drop from 1440p to 4K (about 49% lower) is nearly identical to the drop from 1080p to 1440p (about 31% lower), which is typical of a GPU that is memory-bandwidth limited — the GTX 1650 has a 128-bit bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, which becomes a wall at higher pixel counts.

At Ultra settings, the results are brutal: 35.1 FPS at 1080p, 25.2 at 1440p, and 11.9 at 4K. The gap between Medium and Ultra widens as resolution increases, suggesting that the 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is also a limiting factor at higher settings, not just the shader throughput. The 4K Ultra result of 11.9 FPS is essentially a slideshow, confirming that this resolution is outside the practical envelope for this combo.

Settings Recommendations

For a smooth experience, the data points to Low settings at 1080p as the only fully playable configuration, with 66.2 FPS average. This is the only measured row that exceeds the 60 FPS threshold, and it does so by a comfortable margin. Medium at 1080p is a strong alternative at 53.2 FPS, offering a better visual quality per the game's presets while staying above 50 FPS — a reasonable trade-off for those who prioritize fidelity over raw headroom.

High settings at 1080p (46.4 FPS) are borderline but workable for slower-paced exploration, though action sequences may dip below 40 FPS. Ultra at 1080p (35.1 FPS) is not recommended, as the visual uplift rarely justifies a 34% drop from Medium. At 1440p, only Low (45.6 FPS) approaches playability; Medium (35.7 FPS) and High (31.6 FPS) are marginal, while Ultra (25.2 FPS) is too choppy. At 4K, no preset is viable — the best result is Low at 23.1 FPS, which is below playable standards.

The verdict is clear: run Low at 1080p for the most consistent experience, or Medium at 1080p if you can tolerate occasional dips. Avoid 1440p Ultra and all 4K presets entirely.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run The Technomancer at 60 FPS?*

A: Yes, but only at 1080p with Low settings, where the average FPS is 66.2. At Medium settings, the average drops to 53.2 FPS, which is below 60.

Q: What is the playable resolution for this setup?

A: 1080p is the only resolution where any preset reaches 45+ FPS. At 1440p, the highest average is 45.6 FPS on Low, which is borderline; at 4K, even Low only achieves 23.1 FPS.

Q: How much performance is lost going from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: The average FPS drops from 46.4 at 1080p to 16.1 at 4K, a reduction of about 65%. This indicates the GPU is the primary limiting component.

Q: Is Ultra settings ever viable with this GPU?

A: At 1080p, Ultra averages 35.1 FPS, which is below smooth playability. At 1440p and 4K, Ultra averages 25.2 and 11.9 FPS respectively, making it unusable.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck this GPU in this game?

A: No. The Ryzen 5 7600 has 6 cores, 12 threads, and a 5.10 GHz boost clock, which is far more capable than the GTX 1650 needs. The FPS scaling with resolution confirms a GPU bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination ranks 1585 out of 1656 tested combos in The Technomancer, placing it in the bottom 5% of all configurations. That ranking reflects the GTX 1650’s modest standing in the broader GPU landscape — it sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8713. The GPU’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (deltaPct -0.4), AMD Radeon 550X (-0.4), NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (+0.5), and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (-0.5), all of which are within a fraction of a percent in raw score.

The CPU, by contrast, is a high-performing part: it ranks at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26617. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (+0.2), Intel Core i9-12900HK (-0.2), AMD EPYC 8024P (+0.2), and Intel Core i9-11900K (+0.3). The CPU is clearly not the limiting factor here.

The low combo rank is almost entirely attributable to the GPU. In a game like The Technomancer, which is not particularly CPU-intensive, the 1585th rank out of 1656 indicates that nearly every other tested combination either has a stronger GPU or a more balanced pairing. This combo is only suitable for low-resolution, low-settings play, as the measured FPS data confirms.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture part (TU117 chip) built on a 12 nm process, with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. It operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, with a memory clock of 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus. The 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth.

In The Technomancer, the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM is a hard constraint at higher settings and resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS collapses to 11.9, which is not just a compute limitation but also a memory capacity issue — the game is likely exceeding the frame buffer at that preset. Even at 1440p Ultra (25.2 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (35.1 FPS), the performance drops suggest that texture and geometry data are spilling over.

The boost clock of 1665 MHz is modest by modern standards, and the FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS is low for a 2019-era card. The GPU’s synthetic benchmarks reflect this: it scores 7880 in Passmark G3D and 3048 in Passmark GPU Compute, with DirectX 11 (58) and DirectX 12 (35) scores that are below many competitors. Notably, the DirectX 10 score is 39, and DirectX 9 is 124, indicating that older APIs run relatively better — which aligns with The Technomancer’s 2016 release.

The GPU’s 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 8713, places it in the lower-mid tier. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.5% in average score, showing that the GTX 1650 is at the very edge of a performance cluster — any upgrade to a card with even 10% more performance would move it into a different league.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows a clear progression: Low averages 66.2 FPS, Medium 53.2 FPS, High 46.4 FPS, and Ultra 35.1 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs about 20% performance, while the step from Medium to Ultra costs about 34% more. This is a typical curve for a GPU with limited memory bandwidth — each preset level adds measurable load, but the biggest hit comes from the Ultra preset.

At 2560x1440, the numbers are: Low 45.6 FPS, Medium 35.7 FPS, High 31.6 FPS, and Ultra 25.2 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is about 45%, which is smaller than at 1080p (47%). This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is already so saturated that preset changes have a relatively smaller absolute impact.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low 23.1 FPS, Medium 17.9 FPS, High 16.1 FPS, and Ultra 11.9 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 4.2 FPS, confirming that the GPU is completely overwhelmed. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low (66.2 to 23.1) represents a 65% loss, which is exactly the same relative loss as at High settings (46.4 to 16.1), indicating a consistent memory-bandwidth and fill-rate ceiling.

There are no min or max FPS values in the measured data, so the averages alone must be used for judgment. The lack of minimum frame data means stutter cannot be assessed, but the low averages at 1440p and above suggest that frame pacing would be poor in busy scenes.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Zen 4 (Raphael) architecture, built on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3. It supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s.

In synthetic tests, the 7600 scores 22992 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 3246 in single-core, with a Passmark multithread score of 27058 and a single-thread score of 3910. These are strong numbers, placing it at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.3% in average score, including the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (deltaPct 0.2) and Intel Core i9-11900K (0.3).

For The Technomancer, the CPU is not a limiting factor. The game’s FPS scales almost directly with resolution and settings, which is the signature of a GPU bottleneck. The 7600’s 3DMark scores — 999 single-thread, 1938 for 2 threads, 3686 for 4 threads, and 6503 for max threads — indicate that even lightly-threaded workloads are handled with ease. The game, released in 2016, would struggle to utilize more than a few cores, and the 7600’s high per-core performance (Cinebench R15 single-core 327, R20 1363) ensures that no CPU-side stalls are introduced.

The launch MSRP of the 7600 is $229, and it was released in January 2023, well after the game’s 2016 release. Its 5 nm process and 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die make it an extremely efficient part, but none of that matters in this game — the GTX 1650 caps the experience. The data shows that the CPU is never the reason for low FPS; the GPU is.