The Technomancer

The pairing of the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT in The Technomancer yields a measured dataset across three resolutions and four settings. The combination occupies rank 2,400 out of a field of 3,696 tested combos, meaning it outperforms roughly 35% of all tested configurations. The CPU achieves an average benchmark score of 34,260 points, placing it at the 84th percentile among CPUs; the GPU averages 19,765 points, placing it at the 65th percentile among GPUs. The measured frame rates show a predictable but steep dependency on both resolution and graphics preset.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's raw rank of 2,400/3,696 positions it in the lower third of all tested pairings. With 2,399 configurations delivering higher average frame rates, this combo sits comfortably below the median. Despite that, component benchmarks are respectable: the Ryzen 7 3700X scores 34,260 average across its entire benchmark suite, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (34,222) and 0.2% faster than the AMD EPYC 4244P (34,220). The gap to the nearest rival is extremely narrow: the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H sits 0.5% lower at 34,083, while the Intel Core i5-13450HX is 0.2% higher at 34,333. This tight clustering indicates the CPU is well within the performance envelope of its contemporaries.

For the GPU, the average benchmark score of 19,765 places it at the 65th percentile. The nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m at 19,885 (0.6% higher), the AMD FirePro D300 at 19,637 (0.6% lower), the AMD FirePro W7000 at 19,905 (0.7% higher), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 at 19,602 (0.8% lower). The GPU trails the highest-scoring rival by 0.7% and beats the lowest-scoring by 0.8%. This narrow spread indicates that the RX 6650 XT performs almost exactly at the level expected for its class. The overall combo rank, lower than the CPU percentile alone would suggest, points to the GPU acting as the performance limiter in this title.

GPU Role

The RX 6600 XT contributes 8 GB of GDDR6 videoram across a 128-bit interface, providing a memory bandwidth of 2403 of a second? Actually the spec is 280.2 GB/s of the given pack, and the chip runs at a base clock of 2055 MHz, with a game clock of 2410 MHz, and a boost of 2635 MHz. The memory runs at a an effective 17.5 Gbps, delivering that bandwidth. These numbers matter because The Technomancer is a memory sensitive title: the measured FPS falls from 148 at 1080p Low to just 53 at 4K Low, a reduction of 94 frames over a four-fold increase in which resolution multiplier? Not mentioned. The combination of 8 GB VRAM and the aforementioned bandwidth allows the game to run at the lower settings, but at 4K Ultra, the average drops to 27 FPS, a 71% reduction from 1080p Low.

The GPU also claims 2048 shading units, 128 tensor? Actually no tensor cores. It has 64 ROPS and 128 TMUs. The pixel rate reaches 168.6/GTexel/520. text, and texture rate is 337.3 GTexel/s. For a 2016 action RPG, this card is comfortable at 1080p, but the data indicates that at 4K settings, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint. The average FPS falls below 60 at every 4K setting, with Low yielding 53, Medium 41, High 35, and Ultra 27. That is the GPU carrying the load.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate declines are consistent with a GPU-bound scenario. At Low preset, moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 drops the average from 148 FPS to 97 FPS, a decrease of 34.5%. Then from 1440p to 3840x2160, it goes from 97 to 53, a decline of 45.4%. Similar patterns are seen at other presets: at High, 1080p gives 97 FPS, 1440p 63 FPS (35.0% drop), 4K 35 FPS (44.5% drop from 63). At Ultra, the drop is from 76 at 1080p to 50 at 1440p (34.2%) to 27 at 4K (46.0%). The slightly higher drop at the largest resolution change (from 1440p to 4K) suggests that the pixel count rises faster than the GPU can handle, confirming that scaling is primarily limited by the GPU.

Note that the min and max FPS are only recorded for Medium settings. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 97 FPS and maximum 131; at 1440p Medium, the min is 63, max 85; at 4K Medium, min 35, max 47. Those data points indicate that the GPU never dips below its own average at lower resolutions, preserving smooth experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table lists all measured average frame rates from the dataset.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 3840×2160 | Low | 53 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 41 | 35 | 47 |

| 3840×2160 | High | 35 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 27 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 97 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 74 | 63 | 85 |

| 2560×1440 | High | 63 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 50 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Low | 148 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 114 | 97 | 131 |

| 1920×1080 | High | 97 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 76 | – | – |

At 1080p, the frame rate ranges from 76 (Ultra) to 148 (Low), meaning the lowest preset doubles the highest presets’ frame output. At 1440p, that range is 50 to 97, while at 4K it is 27 to 53. The medium preset stands out as the only setting per resolution that includes minimum FPS data, allowing us to gauge the stability of the composition. At 1080p Medium, the variance is 34 FPS (131-97), at 1440p it's 22 (85-63), and at 4K it's 12 (47-35). These fluctuations shrink as resolution grows, indicating that the GPU’s worst-case frame times are far below the average at higher official.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved by this combo?

A: The highest average is 148 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: Can this combo maintain 60 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra preset?

A: No. The measured average is 27 FPS for that resolution and preset, which is far below 60 FPS.

Q: Is the performance difference between Low and Ultra significant at 2560x1440?

A: Yes. The Low preset averages 97 FPS, while Ultra averages 50 FPS. That is a gap of 47 FPS, a relative reduction of 48.5%.

Q: At which resolution and settings does the frame rate first drop below 60 FPS?

A: At 3840x2160, every preset (Low 53, Medium 41, High 35, Ultra 27) is below 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, only the Ultra preset at 50 FPS falls below 60; Low, Medium, and High all stay above 60. At 1920x1080, all settings exceed 60 FPS.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded in the dataset?

A: The minimum FPS is 35, measured at 3840x2160 with Medium quality. This is the only setting with a recorded min for 4K, but it is the lowest min among all entries.

Settings Recommendations

If the goal is to hold at least 60 FPS at — a common floor, the data indicates the following.

• At 1920x1080, all four presets exceed 60 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 76 FPS, so even the highest quality setting runs well above the 60-parrier frame rate. The Medium preset provides a higher average, 114, and a measured min of 97, meaning it never dips below 60 and has ample headroom. If the objective is to reduce GPU load while keeping a stable 60+, Medium is the sweet spot.
• At 2560x1440, the High preset averages 63 FPS, just above the 60 threshold—but it has no recorded min. The Medium preset, at 74 average and min 63, guarantees a 60 FPS floor, making it the safer choice. Ultra drops to 50 FPS and should be avoided if you wish to stay in fluid.
• At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low yields an average of 53 and thus gives the least compromise; Medium averages 41. For a better frame rate, the user should prefer Low, accepting the larger gap to Ultra.

Since there is no ultra-wide, the recommendations are based on the measured average and min.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 7 3700X has 8 cores and 16 threads, with the base clock of 3.6 GHz and the boost clock of 4.4 GHz. The 32 MB L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4-3200 (51.2 GB/s) provide ample memory bandwidth. Benchmarks show the CPU’s multi-threaded strength: the Cinebench R15 multi-core score is 2092 and single-core 204. The 7 nm, 3,800 million transistor chip has a 84th-percentile rating, and its average score of 34,260 is within 0.1%–0.2% of the closest rivals.

In The Technomancer, the CPU is clearly capbable of driving the frame rates. At 1080p Low, the average is 148 FPS, a figure that relies on the CPU's ability to feed the IGP (since the GPU would be the bottleneck if it could go higher). As resolution scales up, the GPU's role grows; at 4K Ultra, the average falls to 27 FPS, a situation where the CPU probably has spare capacity. The combination of 84th CPU percentile and 65th GPU percentile indicates that the CPU is the relative stronger part, yet the game's tasks at 1080p are so light that the GPU also manages high rates.

The PassMark multi-thread score of 22,458 and single-thread 2,656 corroborate this. At 1080p Low, the average 148 is higher than any single-thread score would suggest, but the CPU's the 16-thread design enables high throughput. Overall, the data show this CPU pair is not limiting in this title until the GPU is overloaded.