The Technomancer

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X brings eight physical cores and sixteen threads to this pairing, backed by a 3.40 GHz base clock and a 4.60 GHz boost clock. This is a Zen 3 (Vermeer) part on the AMD Socket AM4 platform, built on TSMC's 7 nm process with 4,150 million transistors in a 74 mm² die. The cache hierarchy consists of 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 32 MB L3 pool. The processor's benchmark profile shows a strong multithreaded presence: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 22,620, while the single-core variant reaches 3,193. PassMark's multithread test records 26,612, and Geekbench multicore lands at 9,720. The single-thread PassMark score is 3,385.

In the context of The Technomancer, an Action RPG from mid-2016, the CPU's role is primarily about maintaining consistent frame pacing across scenes with numerous AI-driven entities and physics interactions. The 5700X's 16 threads provide ample headroom for background tasks and game logic, but the measured results suggest the workload does not heavily stress all cores. The 3dMark scores illustrate scaling: 1,821 for 2 threads, 3,512 for 4 threads, 5,768 for 8 threads, and 6,858 for 16 threads, with a max-thread score of 6,850. This scaling curve is nearly linear through 8 threads, indicating the architecture's efficiency, but the game itself may not leverage all available parallelism.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the 5700X sits in a tight cluster. The Intel Core i9-11900KF averages 26,196, a 0.1% delta from the AMD part's 26,214 average benchmark score. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U scores 26,262, which is -0.2% relative to the 5700X, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X reaches 26,272, also -0.2%. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT trails slightly at 26,161, a 0.2% delta. These sub-1% differences mean that in synthetic workloads, the 5700X is functionally interchangeable with these chips. For The Technomancer, this implies that CPU-bound scenarios would produce nearly identical frame rates regardless of which of these processors is installed, assuming the GPU remains the same.

The 5700X sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong overall performance. Its 65-watt TDP classification suggests efficient operation, though this metric does not directly translate to gaming performance. For a game released in 2016, the 5700X's capabilities far exceed the typical CPU requirements of that era, meaning the processor is unlikely to be the limiting factor at any resolution tested here. The data supports this: even at 1080p with low settings, where CPU overhead is most visible, the average frame rate reaches 158.6 FPS, a figure that suggests no significant CPU bottleneck at that preset.

FAQ

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 5700X compare to its closest competitor in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The 5700X has an average benchmark score of 26,214. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-11900KF, scores 26,196, a delta of 0.1%. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U scores 26,262 (-0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X scores 26,272 (-0.2%). These differences are negligible, placing all four chips in the same performance tier.

Q: What is the best 1080p performance this combo achieves?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average frame rate is 158.6 FPS. Medium settings yield 124 FPS, High produces 105.2 FPS, and Ultra drops to 79.7 FPS. The scaling from Ultra to Low represents roughly a doubling in average frame rate.

Q: How does the frame rate scale from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS is 105.2 at 1920x1080, 69.1 at 2560x1440, and 37.6 at 3840x2160. The drop from 1080p to 4K is approximately 64%, indicating the GPU becomes progressively more stressed as resolution increases.

Q: Is the RTX 2070 SUPER or the Ryzen 7 5700X the limiting factor?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary limiter. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 158.6 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it falls to 30.9 FPS. The CPU's 83rd percentile standing and strong multithreaded scores (e.g., 22,620 in Cinebench R23 multicore) indicate it can handle the game's logic easily, while the GPU's 65th percentile ranking limits high-resolution performance.

Q: What is the RTX 2070 SUPER's average benchmark score and closest rival?

A: The RTX 2070 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 22,206. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A400 with a score of 22,307, a -0.5% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z scores 22,006 (0.9% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 scores 21,670 (2.5% delta).

Q: How many combos does this CPU-GPU pairing rank above in The Technomancer?

A: The combo ranks 1,010th out of 1,656 tested combinations in this game. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the distribution, meaning a substantial number of other hardware pairings achieve higher average frame rates.

Resolution Scaling

The measured data reveals a clear and predictable pattern: as resolution increases, average frame rates drop consistently across all settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 158.6 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded for this combo. Moving to 2560x1440, the same Low preset produces 101.7 FPS, a reduction of approximately 36%. At 3840x2160, Low yields 54.3 FPS, which is roughly 47% lower than the 1440p result and 66% lower than the 1080p result. This steep drop-off indicates that the rendering load scales aggressively with pixel count.

The High preset shows a similar trend: 105.2 FPS at 1080p, 69.1 FPS at 1440p, and 37.6 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are consistent, suggesting that the game's rendering pipeline scales predictably with resolution. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, falling from 79.7 FPS at 1080p to 50.8 FPS at 1440p and finally to 30.9 FPS at 4K. At 4K Ultra, the combo dips below the 30 FPS threshold, which many users would consider borderline playable for an Action RPG.

The scaling pattern strongly indicates GPU-bound behavior. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect frame rates to remain relatively flat across resolutions, with a sharp drop only at very low resolutions where CPU overhead dominates. Instead, the monotonic decrease from 1080p to 4K at every preset suggests the RTX 2070 SUPER's rendering throughput is the constraining resource. The GPU's 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for this game, but the 9.062 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power appears to be the bottleneck at higher resolutions.

The Medium preset illustrates the midpoint: 124 FPS at 1080p, 81.5 FPS at 1440p, and 45.3 FPS at 4K. The 4K Medium result is 37% lower than the 1440p Medium figure, which is a smaller relative drop than seen between 1080p and 1440p for the same preset (34% drop). This suggests diminishing returns in resolution scaling as pixel counts increase, possibly due to memory bandwidth saturation or other architectural limits of the TU104 chip.

How This Combo Ranks

In The Technomancer, this pairing of the Ryzen 7 5700X and RTX 2070 SUPER achieves a combo rank of 1,010 out of 1,656 tested combinations. This places it in the 61st percentile of all tested combos, meaning roughly 61% of configurations perform better in terms of average frame rate. The rank reflects the GPU's mid-tier standing more than the CPU's capabilities; the 5700X's 83rd percentile ranking among all CPUs suggests it is not the limiting factor, while the RTX 2070 SUPER's 65th percentile among GPUs drags the overall combo down.

The RTX 2070 SUPER's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks provide context for its positioning. The NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22,307, which is -0.5% relative to the 2070 SUPER's 22,206. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z scores 22,006 (0.9% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile scores 22,729 (-2.3% delta). The AMD Radeon RX 5700 trails at 21,670 (2.5% delta). These deltas are all within 2.5%, indicating that the 2070 SUPER is part of a tightly grouped performance band. In practice, swapping between these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in The Technomancer.

The combo's rank of 1,010 suggests that while this hardware is capable of smooth gameplay at 1080p and 1440p, it is not positioned for high-refresh-rate 4K experiences. The measured data supports this: only the Low preset at 4K exceeds 50 FPS, and the Ultra preset at 4K falls to 30.9 FPS. For a game from 2016, this performance is adequate, but it places the combo in the lower half of tested configurations. The rank also implies that users with higher-tier GPUs, such as those in the 90th percentile or above, would see substantially better frame rates at 4K, given the same CPU.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured frame rates, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired smoothness. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 105.2 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The Ultra preset at 79.7 FPS also provides an excellent experience, with a 24% performance cost relative to High but with likely improved visual fidelity. For users prioritizing maximum frame rates, Low at 158.6 FPS is an option, but the visual trade-off is significant. Medium at 124 FPS strikes a balance between quality and speed, offering 18% higher performance than High.

At 2560x1440, the High preset produces 69.1 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for competitive scenarios. Medium at 81.5 FPS is a better choice for maintaining a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, while Low at 101.7 FPS provides headroom for demanding scenes. Ultra at 50.8 FPS dips below the 60 FPS threshold, so it is only recommended for users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate consistency. The data suggests that 1440p Medium or High are the sweet spots for this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the situation becomes more constrained. Low at 54.3 FPS is the only preset that approaches 60 FPS, while Medium at 45.3 FPS and High at 37.6 FPS are playable but noticeably less smooth. Ultra at 30.9 FPS is marginal, suitable only for slower-paced exploration rather than combat-heavy sequences. For 4K, the Low preset is the recommended choice to maintain playable frame rates, though users may prefer to drop to 1440p High for a better balance of visual quality and performance. The measured data shows that the performance gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 43%, which is substantial enough to justify the visual downgrade for smoother gameplay.