The Technomancer

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X pairs an 8-core, 16-thread Zen 2 design with a 3.60 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost clock. For a 2016 Action RPG like The Technomancer, this processor’s 32 MB of L3 cache and 51.2 GB/s dual-channel memory bandwidth provide ample headroom. The CPU sits at the 85th percentile against all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 28631. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-12600, scores 28654, a negligible 0.1% difference, indicating that in compute-heavy tasks, this Ryzen 7 is effectively on par with a modern mid-range Intel part. However, the measured frame rates in this game tell a story where the CPU is rarely the limiting factor.

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

The Ryzen 7 3700X’s specifications suggest it should handle The Technomancer’s CPU demands without breaking a sweat. With 8 physical cores and 16 threads, it offers parallel processing capabilities far beyond what a 2016 title would typically require. The 4.40 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-thread performance, which is often more critical for game logic and physics. In Cinebench R23, this CPU scores 19087 multi-core and 2694 single-core, placing it firmly in the upper echelon of desktop processors.

Given these numbers, one might expect the CPU to dominate the gaming experience. Yet the benchmark data shows a different pattern. At 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 69.3 FPS, but this is likely where the GPU begins to cap performance. The CPU’s nearest rivals — the Intel Core i5-12600H and AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT — post average scores of 28666 and 28591, respectively, with deltaPct values of -0.1% and +0.1%. This clustering implies that the Ryzen 7 3700X is not a bottleneck in any meaningful sense.

What the data suggests is that The Technomancer is not CPU-intensive enough to differentiate between top-tier processors. The 16 threads remain largely underutilized, as the game’s engine likely relies on fewer cores. The 65W TDP and 7nm process node make this an efficient part, but efficiency does not translate to higher frame rates when the GPU is the constraining factor. In lower resolutions where frame rates are higher, the CPU’s role becomes slightly more pronounced, but the measured FPS deltas between settings are driven more by GPU load than CPU capability.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in The Technomancer?

A: The highest measured average is 69.3 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that breaks the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that high refresh rate play is only possible at the lowest preset.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 3700X compare to its closest rival in raw compute?

A: The CPU’s average benchmark score is 28631, which is 0.1% lower than the Intel Core i5-12600’s 28654 and 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT’s 28591. These differences are effectively negligible in real-world gaming.

Q: Is the GTX 1650’s performance consistent with its overall GPU percentile?

A: The GPU sits at the 43rd percentile against all GPUs, with an average score of 8713. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8746, a 0.4% difference, showing the GTX 1650 is a mid-range part that struggles at higher settings.

Q: What happens to frame rates when moving from Ultra to Low at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Ultra yields 23.7 FPS, while Low produces 46.5 FPS. This 22.8 FPS gap represents a 96% performance uplift, demonstrating how drastically settings impact this GPU.

Q: Does the combo rank well among all tested configurations?

A: No, it ranks 1572 out of 1656 combos, placing it in the bottom 5% of all tested pairings. This reflects the GTX 1650’s limitations rather than the CPU’s capabilities.

Q: Which resolution offers the most playable experience across all settings?

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution where every preset except Ultra exceeds 37 FPS, with Medium hitting 49.9 FPS and Low reaching 69.3 FPS. Higher resolutions drop below 35 FPS for all settings.

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

The scaling behavior across resolutions is revealing. At 1080p Low, the combo posts 69.3 FPS, which drops to 46.5 FPS at 1440p and then to 22.9 FPS at 4K. This represents a 33% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a further 51% drop from 1440p to 4K. Such steep declines are classic signs of a GPU-bound scenario. The GTX 1650’s 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are overwhelmed as pixel count increases.

For High settings, the pattern is even more telling. 1080p High produces 44.4 FPS, 1440p High drops to 31.8 FPS, and 4K High falls to 19.2 FPS. The 4K result is barely above slideshow territory. The 11.2 FPS at 4K Ultra is nearly unplayable, suggesting that the GPU’s 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 compute is insufficient for the game’s rendering demands at that resolution.

The CPU’s role is minimal in this scaling. If the Ryzen 7 3700X were the bottleneck, frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU’s workload does not change with pixel count. Instead, the dramatic FPS drops indicate that the GTX 1650 is consistently the limiting component, with the CPU having ample headroom to feed frames at all tested settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo’s rank of 1572 out of 1656 is a stark indicator of its position in the database. It sits in the bottom 5% of all tested pairings, which is unsurprising given the GTX 1650’s 43rd percentile GPU ranking. The CPU, at the 85th percentile, is clearly not the issue. This rank suggests that while the Ryzen 7 3700X is a capable processor, pairing it with a GTX 1650 creates a severe imbalance.

What the data implies is that this combination is CPU-overkill for the GPU’s capabilities. The 8-core processor is effectively wasted when the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to utilize it. In contrast, the GPU’s nearest rivals — the AMD Radeon 550X and NVIDIA Quadro P2200 — score 8749 and 8671, respectively, with deltaPct values of -0.4% and +0.5%. These are all low-end to mid-range parts, confirming that the GTX 1650 is the bottleneck.

The rank also reflects the game’s age and optimization. A 2016 Action RPG may not scale well with modern hardware, but the data shows that even at 1080p Low, the combo barely hits 70 FPS. This places it far behind faster GPU pairings, which would likely rank in the top quartile. The low rank is a direct consequence of GPU limitations, not CPU performance.

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

For a playable experience, the data points to 1080p as the only viable resolution. At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver 69.3 FPS, which is the sole configuration exceeding 60 FPS. Medium settings produce 49.9 FPS, offering a reasonable balance between visual fidelity and smoothness. High settings drop to 44.4 FPS, still playable but with diminishing returns. Ultra at 37.4 FPS is the least attractive option, sacrificing 32 FPS compared to Low for marginal visual gains.

Moving to 1440p, the situation worsens. Only Low settings reach 46.5 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target. Medium achieves 35.1 FPS, High hits 31.8 FPS, and Ultra falls to 23.7 FPS. None of these are ideal for smooth gameplay. At 4K, all settings are below 23 FPS, with Ultra at a dismal 11.2 FPS, making the game effectively unplayable.

The recommendation is clear: 1080p Low for competitive frame rates, or 1080p Medium for a better visual experience at the cost of 19.4 FPS. Ultra at any resolution is not worth the performance penalty, as the measured data shows it consistently delivers the lowest FPS with negligible visual benefits for this GPU.

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

At 1920x1080, the combo produces 69.3 FPS on Low, 49.9 FPS on Medium, 44.4 FPS on High, and 37.4 FPS on Ultra. These figures span a 31.9 FPS range, with Low being the only setting above 60 FPS. The 1080p results show a clear linear degradation as settings increase, with each step costing roughly 5-7 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Low delivers 46.5 FPS, Medium drops to 35.1 FPS, High yields 31.8 FPS, and Ultra falls to 23.7 FPS. The range here is 22.8 FPS, with Low nearly doubling Ultra’s performance. The 1440p numbers suggest that even the lowest settings cannot maintain a stable 60 FPS, making this resolution unsuitable for fast-paced action.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor: Low at 22.9 FPS, Medium at 19.9 FPS, High at 19.2 FPS, and Ultra at 11.2 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 11.7 FPS, but even the best case is below 23 FPS. The 4K data confirms that this combo is not designed for high-resolution gaming, with all settings producing choppy, unresponsive frame rates.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a 4 GB GDDR5 card with a 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. Its base clock of 1485 MHz boosts to 1665 MHz, providing 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. These specifications place it at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8713. The nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8746, a mere 0.4% difference, indicating the GTX 1650 is at the low end of modern GPUs.

In The Technomancer, the GPU’s limitations are immediately apparent. The 4 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p but likely becomes a constraint at higher resolutions and settings. The 128.1 GB/s bandwidth struggles to feed the renderer at 1440p and 4K, explaining the severe FPS drops. The 2.984 TFLOPS compute is not enough to handle the game’s effects at Ultra settings, as evidenced by the 11.2 FPS at 4K Ultra.

The GPU’s 75W TDP and lack of power connectors suggest a modest design, but the measured data shows it is simply outclassed by the game’s demands. The 896 shading units and 32 ROPs are insufficient for high-resolution rendering, particularly in an Action RPG with dense environments. The GTX 1650’s end-of-life production status further underscores its position as an entry-level part, one that cannot keep pace with the Ryzen 7 3700X’s capabilities in this title.