The Technomancer

The Technomancer, a 2016 Action RPG, presents a demanding workload for older hardware. This analysis examines the measured performance of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X processor paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 graphics card. The data, derived from direct measurement, shows a combination that is heavily constrained by the GPU at higher resolutions and settings, while the CPU provides ample headroom for the game's logic. This pairing ranks near the bottom of the tested database, but the frame rate data reveals specific, playable configurations for users willing to adjust graphical presets.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play The Technomancer with this hardware?

A: Based on the measured average frame rates, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the combination achieves consistently playable performance. At this resolution, even the Ultra preset delivers an average of 37.5 FPS, while Medium and High settings provide 52.3 FPS and 45.5 FPS respectively, all of which are more fluid than any result at higher resolutions.

Q: How does the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM impact performance?

A: The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a limiting factor at higher settings and resolutions. The data shows a steep performance drop when moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160. For instance, at High settings, the average frame rate falls from 28 FPS to 14.9 FPS. This suggests that the memory capacity and bandwidth are insufficient to handle the larger textures and frame buffers demanded at 4K, severely bottlenecking the rendering pipeline.

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 5700X processor a bottleneck for this game?

A: No, the benchmark results indicate the processor is not the primary bottleneck. The CPU's strong multi-threaded performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22620, far exceeds what a game from 2016 typically requires. The significant frame rate differences between resolutions at the same settings (e.g., 45.5 FPS at 1080p High vs. 28 FPS at 1440p High) confirm that the GPU is the limiting factor.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to others in the database?

A: The combination ranks 1583 out of 1656 tested combos for this game, placing it in the bottom 5% of systems. This low ranking is primarily attributable to the GTX 1650's performance ceiling, which is in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Ryzen 7 5700X is in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 1920x1080?

A: The difference is substantial. The average frame rate jumps from 37.5 FPS on the Ultra preset to 66.9 FPS on the Low preset. This represents a 78.4% increase in average frame rate, making the Low preset the only configuration in the tested data that approaches a stable 60 FPS experience on this system.

Q: Is the GTX 1650's performance close to its direct rivals?

A: The data shows the GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 8713. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro P2200, has an average score of 8671, putting the GTX 1650 just 0.5% ahead. Conversely, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is 0.5% faster, with a score of 8761. The performance deltas are minimal, indicating these cards offer nearly identical raw processing power.

Settings Recommendations

The measured frame rate data provides a clear path for an optimal experience with this hardware combination. The primary goal is to maintain a playable frame rate, and the only resolution where this is consistently achievable is 1920x1080. At 2560x1440, the highest average frame rate is 43.1 FPS on the Low preset, which is playable but not ideal, while the 3840x2160 results are effectively unplayable across all settings.

For users prioritizing smoothness, the Low preset at 1920x1080 is the standout choice. It delivers an average of 66.9 FPS, the only test result that comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS threshold. This provides the most responsive gameplay, which is crucial for an Action RPG's combat. While visual fidelity is sacrificed, the performance gain is substantial compared to other presets.

If visual quality is more important than achieving 60 FPS, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 offers a balanced compromise. With an average of 52.3 FPS, it maintains a reasonably smooth experience while providing noticeably better graphical detail than Low. The High preset at 45.5 FPS is also viable for players who prefer a more cinematic experience and can tolerate occasional dips below 50 FPS. The Ultra preset at 37.5 FPS is generally not recommended, as the average frame rate drops into a range where gameplay can feel sluggish, and the visual improvement over High is often marginal compared to the performance cost.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only viable option, with an average of 43.1 FPS. This could be an alternative for users with a 1440p monitor who prefer higher resolution over other graphical effects. The Medium, High, and Ultra presets at this resolution all fall below the 36 FPS mark, making them poor choices for active gameplay.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the defining component in this system's performance profile. Its benchmark scores place it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, indicating mid-to-low-tier performance relative to the broader market. The card's average benchmark score of 8713 is nearly identical to its closest rivals, such as the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8671, deltaPct 0.5) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8761, deltaPct -0.5), confirming its position in the performance hierarchy.

The GPU's specifications directly explain the measured frame rates in The Technomancer. It features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. This memory configuration is a significant limitation at higher resolutions. The data shows a dramatic drop in performance from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160. For example, the Medium preset yields 35.2 FPS at 1440p but only 21.3 FPS at 4K. This 39.5% reduction in frame rate is consistent with the GPU running out of memory bandwidth and capacity, forcing constant data swapping.

The card's compute capabilities, rated at 2.984 TFLOPS for FP32, also play a role. With 896 shading units running at a boost clock of 1665 MHz, the GTX 1650 has enough raw power for 1080p gaming in a 2016 title. However, the pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s become insufficient as the fill-rate demands increase with resolution. The data confirms this: at 1920x1080, the card manages an average of 45.5 FPS on High settings, but this drops to 28 FPS at 2560x1440 and 14.9 FPS at 3840x2160, clearly illustrating the GPU's resolution scaling limitations.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested hardware combinations for The Technomancer, this specific pairing of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1583 out of 1656 possible configurations. This places it in the bottom 4.4% of all tested systems, a position that reflects the significant imbalance between the CPU and GPU. The ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's performance ceiling, which prevents the powerful processor from demonstrating its full potential in this graphics-intensive title.

The disparity between the two components is stark. The Ryzen 7 5700X sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, showcasing its strength as a modern, high-performance processor. Its closest rivals, such as the Intel Core i9-11900KF, are within a 0.1% performance delta. In contrast, the GTX 1650 languishes in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. This 40-percentile gap highlights a severely mismatched pairing for gaming purposes, where the GPU is the unequivocal weak link.

This low ranking is not an indictment of the CPU, but rather a signal of the GTX 1650's limitations. The CPU is more than capable of feeding the GPU with data, as evidenced by the high frame rates at 1080p Low. However, the GPU's inability to process frames quickly enough at higher graphical loads caps the system's overall performance. Consequently, this combo would perform significantly better with a more powerful graphics card, as the CPU has ample headroom to support one. The data suggests that for this game, the GPU is the sole determinant of the system's ranking.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X provides the computational foundation for this system, and its capabilities are more than sufficient for The Technomancer. As an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, it offers substantial multi-threading power. Its benchmark scores confirm this, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22620 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 9720. This level of performance is far beyond what a 2016 Action RPG typically requires for game logic and AI calculations.

The processor's specifications support its strong showing. With a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, it can handle both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded workloads effectively. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache is another asset, providing fast access to frequently used data. In the context of this game, the CPU's role is not a limiting factor. The measured frame rates show a clear GPU bottleneck, as performance scales almost entirely with resolution and graphics settings, not with CPU load.

The Ryzen 7 5700X's performance relative to its rivals further underscores its capability. Its average benchmark score is 26214, putting it in a dead heat with the Intel Core i9-11900KF (26196, deltaPct 0.1). It is also within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X. This indicates that the CPU is a top-tier performer that will not hold back a graphics card in most scenarios. In this specific pairing, the CPU's job is to feed the GTX 1650, and it does so flawlessly; the bottleneck is entirely on the GPU's rendering side.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rate data provides a comprehensive view of the system's performance across various settings and resolutions. All figures below are average FPS values, as minimum and maximum frame rates were not recorded.

At 3840x2160, the system is severely overburdened. The performance is as follows:

• Ultra: 11.6 FPS
• High: 14.9 FPS
• Medium: 21.3 FPS
• Low: 26.4 FPS

These figures are uniformly unplayable for a smooth experience. The jump from Low to Ultra represents a 56.1% drop in performance, but even the best result at this resolution is too low for comfortable gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains challenging:

• Ultra: 25.5 FPS
• High: 28 FPS
• Medium: 35.2 FPS
• Low: 43.1 FPS

The Low preset here is the only one that approaches playability, offering a 69% performance increase over the Ultra preset. The Medium preset, at 35.2 FPS, is borderline and would require significant compromise.

At 1920x1080, the system finds its playable range:

• Ultra: 37.5 FPS
• High: 45.5 FPS
• Medium: 52.3 FPS
• Low: 66.9 FPS

The scaling at this resolution is clear. The Low preset delivers a 78.4% higher frame rate than the Ultra preset. The Medium preset offers a 21.3% improvement over High, and Low provides a 27.9% improvement over Medium. This data shows that for a target of 60 FPS, the Low preset is the only choice. For a target of 45-55 FPS, both Medium and High are viable, with Medium offering the best balance of smoothness and visual fidelity. The Ultra preset remains below 40 FPS, making it the least desirable option for active play.