The Technomancer

The Technomancer’s 2016 release predates both the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and the Intel Arc B570 by several years, yet this pairing of a modern six-core Zen 5 processor with Intel’s Battlemage-generation GPU produces a measurable performance profile that is well-documented across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions. The data shows a system that handles the game’s action-RPG demands with clear scaling patterns, though the combo’s overall standing among 2,825 tested configurations is notable for its position rather than its dominance.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Intel Arc B570 combination ranks 2,256th out of 2,825 tested combos for The Technomancer, placing it in the lower-mid tier of all possible pairings. This percentile position—roughly the 20th percentile—reflects a system that can run the game but does not lead the pack. The ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU’s overall capability, as the Arc B570 sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU ranks higher at the 81st percentile among all processors. This discrepancy suggests the graphics card is the limiting factor in this pairing.

When comparing the CPU to its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 9600X’s average benchmark score of 29,713 is nearly identical to several competitors. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE trails by just 0.2 percent, while the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H is 0.5 percent behind, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT is 0.6 percent behind, and the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS is 0.8 percent behind. These minuscule deltas indicate that the 9600X’s processing power is essentially interchangeable with those four chips for this game’s workload. Similarly, the Arc B570’s average benchmark score of 20,556 places it within 0.1 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, 0.1 percent ahead of the Intel Arc A750, 0.4 percent ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, and 0.5 percent behind the AMD Radeon R9 M390X. The GPU’s performance is thus tightly clustered with those four rivals, meaning the combo rank would likely shift little if any of those cards were substituted.

The measured FPS data confirms this mid-tier placement. At 1080p Ultra, the combo produces 62 FPS, which is playable but far from the high refresh rates that top-tier systems achieve. At 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 22 FPS, firmly in unplayable territory. The rank of 2,256 reflects a system that struggles at the highest settings and resolutions, yet the 1080p Low result of 121 FPS shows it can deliver smooth gameplay when settings are reduced. The data indicates that this combo is best suited for 1080p or modest 1440p gaming, and that expectation aligns with its overall ranking among all tested combinations.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture, specifically the Battlemage generation for the Arc 5 series, using TSMC’s 5 nm process. The chip, designated BMG-G21, contains 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 72.1 million per square millimeter. The GPU operates with a base clock of 2500 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, meaning it runs at a constant frequency without dynamic variation. Memory runs at 2375 MHz, translating to 19 Gbps effective, across a 160-bit bus. This configuration yields 10 GB of GDDR6 memory with a bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s.

For The Technomancer, the GPU’s memory capacity and bandwidth are adequate for the game’s demands, but the compute resources tell a clearer story. The Arc B570 has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 80 raster operation units, along with 18 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 200.0 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 360.0 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is rated at 11.52 TFLOPS for FP32 and 23.04 TFLOPS for FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. These specifications place the card at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, which explains why the combo rank is modest.

In terms of measured performance, the GPU shows clear scaling with settings. At 1080p, the Arc B570 delivers 121 FPS on Low, 93 FPS on Medium, 80 FPS on High, and 62 FPS on Ultra. At 1440p, the same settings yield 79, 61, 52, and 41 FPS respectively. At 4K, performance falls to 44 FPS on Low, 33 FPS on Medium, 29 FPS on High, and 22 FPS on Ultra. The GPU’s 10 GB VRAM is not a limiting factor in these tests, as the game’s textures and effects do not appear to exceed that capacity at any setting. The 380.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for the measured frame rates, and the constant 2500 MHz clock means there is no boost variance to consider.

The Arc B570’s nearest rival, the Intel Arc A750, scores nearly identically in average benchmarks (20,582 vs. 20,556, a 0.1 percent delta), which suggests that The Technomancer’s performance would be essentially unchanged with that card. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile also sits within 0.1 percent, indicating that laptop-class performance from that GPU matches this desktop card. The data shows that the Arc B570 is a competent mid-range card for this game, but its 65th percentile ranking means it cannot push high frame rates at demanding settings.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is a six-core, twelve-thread processor from the 9000 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Granite Ridge codename. It uses TSMC’s 4 nm process and contains 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die. The base clock is 3.90 GHz, and the boost clock reaches 5.40 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The CPU supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and it includes ECC support. Cache is organized as 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The processor operates on the AMD Socket AM5 platform with PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, offering 24 lanes from the CPU.

For The Technomancer, the CPU’s single-thread performance is particularly relevant. The 3DMark single-thread score is 1,253, while the Cinebench R23 single-core score is 2,183.5. The Geekbench single-core score is 2,923, and the PassMark single-thread score is 4,570. These numbers place the 9600X at the 81st percentile among all CPUs, indicating strong per-core performance that benefits a game from 2016, which likely relies on a few heavily threaded tasks rather than scaling across many cores.

Multi-threaded performance is also solid. The 3DMark 16-thread score is 7,585, and the max-threads score is 7,590, showing that the six cores with simultaneous multithreading scale well. Cinebench R23 multicore is 17,528.5, and Geekbench multicore is 14,438. The PassMark multithread score is 30,027. These results show that the CPU has ample headroom for the game’s demands, and the measured FPS data supports this—at 1080p Low, the system reaches 121 FPS, which is likely near the CPU’s limit for this title. At higher resolutions, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, as evidenced by the frame rate drops.

The CPU’s nearest rivals all score within 0.8 percent of the 9600X, meaning that swapping in an AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE, Ryzen 7 7840H, Ryzen 7 5800XT, or Ryzen 7 8845HS would produce nearly identical results in The Technomancer. The 9600X’s 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR5 support are sufficient for this game, and the 32 MB L3 cache helps with repetitive access patterns common in action RPGs. The data shows no CPU-bound stutters or frame drops in the measured rows, as the minimum FPS values (e.g., 79 FPS at 1080p Medium, 52 FPS at 1440p Medium, 28 FPS at 4K Medium) track closely with the averages, suggesting consistent frame pacing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings levels, providing a complete picture of performance. At 1920x1080, the combo achieves 121 FPS on Low, 93 FPS on Medium, 80 FPS on High, and 62 FPS on Ultra. The Medium setting includes minimum and maximum values of 79 and 107 FPS, respectively, showing a tight range that indicates stable performance. The gap between Low and Ultra is 59 FPS, which is substantial but expected given the graphical demands.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates drop to 79 FPS on Low, 61 FPS on Medium, 52 FPS on High, and 41 FPS on Ultra. The Medium setting again has recorded minimum and maximum values of 52 and 70 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across settings—roughly 35-40 percent lower—which suggests the GPU is becoming more stressed. The 1440p Ultra result of 41 FPS is playable but not smooth for a fast-paced action RPG.

At 3840x2160, performance falls further to 44 FPS on Low, 33 FPS on Medium, 29 FPS on High, and 22 FPS on Ultra. The Medium setting shows a minimum of 28 FPS and a maximum of 39 FPS, indicating that even the average frame rate is borderline, and dips below 30 FPS are common. The 4K Ultra result of 22 FPS is effectively unplayable, and the 4K High result of 29 FPS is not much better. Only 4K Low, at 44 FPS, approaches a playable threshold, and even that is marginal.

Comparing settings across resolutions, the scaling is linear. At 1080p, Ultra is 51 percent of Low’s performance (62 vs. 121 FPS). At 1440p, Ultra is 52 percent of Low (41 vs. 79 FPS). At 4K, Ultra is exactly 50 percent of Low (22 vs. 44 FPS). This consistency indicates that the GPU is the primary limiter across all resolutions, as the CPU’s performance does not change with resolution. The lack of minimum FPS data for most settings means we cannot assess worst-case frame dips, but the available data (Medium settings at each resolution) shows that minimums are typically 10-15 percent below averages, which is acceptable.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling. At Low settings, the frame rates are 121 FPS at 1080p, 79 FPS at 1440p, and 44 FPS at 4K. This represents a 34.7 percent drop from 1080p to 1440p (from 121 to 79 FPS) and a further 44.3 percent drop from 1440p to 4K (from 79 to 44 FPS). The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 63.6 percent.

At Medium settings, the progression is 93 FPS at 1080p, 61 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 34.4 percent, and from 1440p to 4K is 45.9 percent. At High settings, the numbers are 80, 52, and 29 FPS, with drops of 35.0 percent and 44.2 percent. At Ultra, the progression is 62, 41, and 22 FPS, with drops of 33.9 percent and 46.3 percent.

The consistency of these percentage drops—roughly 34-35 percent for the 1080p to 1440p transition and 44-46 percent for the 1440p to 4K transition—indicates that the limiting component is the GPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would not drop as much at higher resolutions, because the CPU workload remains constant. Instead, the GPU must render more pixels, and the Arc B570’s 11.52 TFLOPS of FP32 performance becomes the constraint.

The 4K results are particularly telling. At 4K Ultra, the system produces 22 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS threshold for playability. Even at 4K Low, the 44 FPS result is marginal, and the minimum FPS at 4K Medium is 28 FPS, meaning the game will visibly stutter. The data suggests that this combo is not suited for 4K gaming in The Technomancer, regardless of settings. The resolution scaling analysis points to the GPU as the primary limiter, and the CPU’s high percentile ranking (81st) means it has ample headroom to handle the game’s logic and physics at any resolution.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, the data shows that Ultra settings provide 62 FPS, which is smooth for an action RPG. The High setting at 80 FPS offers a better safety margin for combat sequences, while Medium at 93 FPS is even smoother. The Low setting at 121 FPS exceeds the refresh rate of most standard monitors, but the visual quality trade-off is steep. For 1080p, High settings at 80 FPS strike the best balance—the game remains visually detailed, and the frame rate is well above the 60 FPS target.

At 1440p, the choices are more constrained. Ultra delivers 41 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold and may feel sluggish during intense encounters. High at 52 FPS is playable but not ideal, as it hovers near the edge of smoothness. Medium at 61 FPS meets the 60 FPS target, making it the recommended setting for 1440p. The Medium preset also shows a minimum FPS of 52, which means even the worst-case frame rate remains above 50 FPS. Low at 79 FPS is the smoothest option, but the reduced visual fidelity may not be worth the extra frame rate. For 1440p, Medium settings at 61 FPS are the best choice.

At 4K, no setting provides a consistently smooth experience. Ultra at 22 FPS is unplayable, High at 29 FPS is borderline, Medium at 33 FPS is still below 60 FPS, and Low at 44 FPS is the only setting that approaches playability. The Medium setting has a minimum of 28 FPS, which means the game will drop below 30 FPS during heavy scenes. For 4K, the data suggests that Low settings at 44 FPS are the only viable option, but even that is marginal. Most users would be better served by running the game at 1440p Medium or High instead of 4K Low.

The measured FPS rows also show that the Medium preset at any resolution provides the most stable frame pacing, as it is the only setting with recorded minimum and maximum values. At 1080p Medium, the range is 79-107 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 52-70 FPS; and at 4K Medium, it is 28-39 FPS. This consistency suggests that the Medium preset avoids the spikes and dips that can occur at Ultra settings, while still offering a reasonable visual upgrade over Low.

In summary, the best experience per the measured rows is 1080p High at 80 FPS, which balances visual quality with performance. For users with 1440p monitors, Medium at 61 FPS is the recommended preset, as it maintains a 60 FPS average with acceptable minimums. The 4K resolution should be avoided unless the user is willing to accept Low settings at 44 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. The combo’s rank of 2,256 out of 2,825 reflects these limitations—it is a capable 1080p machine, a decent 1440p machine with reduced settings, and a poor 4K machine. The data clearly shows that the Intel Arc B570, despite its modern architecture and 10 GB of VRAM, is the primary constraint, and the Ryzen 5 9600X has more than enough processing power for this 2016 title.