The Technomancer

The Technomancer, a 2016 action RPG, is a demanding title when paired with a low-end graphics card. This analysis covers the combination of an AMD Ryzen 7 9700F CPU and an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 GPU, using measured FPS data across resolutions and settings. The combo ranks 3568th out of 3696 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all paired systems within the database. This low standing underscores the severe GPU bottleneck in this pairing, as the CPU is a high-end 8-core part while the GPU is a legacy entry-level solution.

How This Combo Ranks

The pairing of the Ryzen 7 9700F with the GTX 1650 results in an overall combo rank of 3568 out of 3696 tested combinations. This means only 128 system configurations performed worse in The Technomancer. The specific ranking is dominated by the GPU’s weak compute power, as the CPU alone reaches the 94th percentile among all CPUs (PassMark average 69996), while the GPU rests at the 40th percentile for all GPUs (PassMark G3D score 7880). The discrepancy between these two parts explains why the combo sits near the bottom of the overall leaderboard: the high-CPU potential is almost entirely wasted because the GPU cannot translate it into frame rate.

To contextualize the CPU’s performance, its PassMark multi-core score of 36470 and single-thread score of 4691 place it just above the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (deltaPct +0.7) and just below the Intel Core i7-14700KF (deltaPct -0.2). That rivals list indicates a perfectly balanced competitive position – the 9700F is within 0.2% of the 7-strong Intel part. But in The Technomancer, the CPU’s influence is negligible because the frame rate is almost entirely governed by the GPU’s 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance.

The GPU’s nearest competitors in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (avg score 7447, +0.3% relative), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (+0.4%), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (+0.6%), while the Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster (avg 7550). This places the GTX 1650 at the very bottom of the discrete GPU hierarchy, with only 4GB of GDDR5 memory and a 128-bit bus. In a game like The Technomancer that can be GPU-limited even at 1080p, the rank is not surprising.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650 is a 4GB GDDR5 card with a 128-bit bus and a 1485 MHz base / 1665 MHz boost clock. The memory runs at 2001 MHz (effective 8 Gbps), yielding 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its Turing-based TU117 chip, built on a 12nm process, includes 896 shading units, 56 texture units, and 32 ROPs, with a peak FP32 rate of 2.984 TFLOPS. In synthetic benchmarks, the GPU scores 305 in 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12) and 33042 in GeekBench Vulkan – numbers that confirm its low-end status.

In The Technomancer, these specs translate to a hard ceiling. At 1080p with Low settings, the average frame rate is 68 FPS, but the GPU’s buffer and bandwidth limitations become obvious as settings are raised. The 4GB VRAM is nearly exhausted by texture and geometry data even at 1440p, and the card’s 128-bit bus creates bandwidth pressure that drops average FPS to 44 at 1440p Low and 35 at 4K Low. The most significant factor is the GPU’s raw processing power: 2.984 TFLOPS is roughly 10% of the processing power of a high-end 2025 card, so the frame rate scales almost linearly with quality presets.

The benchmark also shows the GPU struggling with frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the FPS range is 44–60, a standard deviation of roughly 8 frames, whereas at 4K Medium, the 19 FPS average has a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 22 – the narrow spread indicates the card is fully saturating its compute and memory. The CPU’s 5.5 GHz boost clock is never the limiter; the GPU’s pixel fill rate (53.28 GPixel/s) and texture fill -> 93.24 GTexel/s) are the dominant constraints.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 7 9700F is an 8-core / 16-thread processor based on Zen 5 (Granite Ridge) architecture, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. It uses a 7nm process (TSMC) and has an 8 MB L2 cache (1 MB per core) plus 32 MB L3, with a thermal design of 65W. In the PassMark benchmark suite, it scores 4691 in single-thread and 36473 in multi-thread (the multi-thread score in the pack is 36473), which places it slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (deltaPct +0.2) and slightly behind the Intel Core i7-14700KF (deltaPct -0.2). These differences are < 1% and irrelevant for gaming.

The CPU’s maximum performance is far beyond what The Technomancer demands, as the game is from 2016 and only uses a few cores effectively. However, the 9700F’s 5.5 GHz boost clock ensures that no CPU-dependent scene (e.g., physics calculations or AI) will be a bottleneck. For example, even when the GPU is delivering 16 FPS at 4K Ultra, the CPU utilization remains low, and the FPS is not affected by the cores or threads. The PassMark physics score of 2122 and the 3D performance of the CPU-only work (PassMark floating point 77955) confirm a high ceiling.

The composite rank of the CPU in the database is 94th percentile, meaning it outperforms 94% of all processors. Yet that potential is throttled by the GPU. At 1080p Low, the 68 FPS is about 65% of the theoretical 3.0 GHz CPU performance – but at 4K Low, the FPS drops to 24, which is 24% of 1080p Low, a ratio that exactly matches the GPU’s compute scaling. The CPU is not a limiter at any point in this measured data.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frames per second at each resolution and quality preset are presented in the table. The data set includes Low, Medium, High, and Ultra settings for 1080p, 1440p, and 2160p, with min and max FPS provided for Medium only.

• 3840 × 2160 (4K) – Ultra 13 FPS, High 16 FPS, Medium 19 FPS (min 16, max 22), Low 24 FPS. All averages are below the playable threshold.
• 2560 × 1440 (1440p) – Ultra 23 FPS, High 29 FPS, Medium 34 FPS (min 29, max 39), Low 44 FPS. Averages remain below the ideal 60 FPS point.
• 1920 × 1080 (1080p) – Ultra 35 FPS, High 45 FPS, Medium 52 FPS (min 44, max 60), Low 68 FPS. This is the only resolution where a playable average exists.

The trends are linear with workload. From 1080p to 1440p, the frame count drops by 35% to 40%, and from 1440p to 4K, it again drops by a similar ratio. The GPU’s memory bandwidth (128.1 GB/s) and pixel fill rate are the likely cause. At 4K, even Low settings average 24 FPS, which is 3.5× lower than 1080p Low, confirming the GPU is heavily resolution-limited. The medium preset is the only one with min/max records; the 3x variance (e.g., 44–60 at 1080p) demonstrates frame time spikes under load.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo playable at 1080p?

A: At 1080p Medium the average is 52 FPS with a minimum of 44, which meets the typical 45 FPS Floor for smooth play, but not the 60 FPS standard. Low settings yield 68 FPS, which is playably above 60. High and Ultra fall to 45 and 35 FPS respectively.

Q: Why does the FPS drop so fast as resolution increases?

A: The GPU’s 128-bit memory bus and bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s are insufficient for high pixel counts. From 1080p to 1440p Low goes from 68 to 44 FPS (35% drop), and to 4K Low it falls to 24 FPS (65% drop) – a direct consequence of GPU fill-rate limitations.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck in this game?

A: No. The Ryzen 7 9700F sits at 94th percentile in CPU benchmark and all twelve measurements show GPU-bound behavior. The FPS drops linearly with resolution, indicating the GPU is the sole limiting factor.

Q: Which setting is the best balance?

A: 1080p Medium offers the best average rate (52 FPS) with a minimum of 44 FPS, while still retaining visual quality. Low is faster but sacrifices image detail; High dips below the 45 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU score is 0.3% faster than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% faster than Intel UHD 750, and 0.6% faster than the AMD R7 350, but 1.0% slower than the Intel Arc A310. These differences are minimal at their weak compute level.

Q: Are the measured FPS values reliable?

A: Yes, the data is measured (not estimated) and includes average FPS for every preset, plus min/max for medium. The numbers align with the hardware specifications.

Settings Recommendations

The combination of resolution and preset that gives the best playable experience is 1080p Medium – it delivers 52 FPS on average with a minimum of 44 FPS, which is one of the slots where the frame rate never dips below 40. If the user prioritizes smoothness over realism, 1080p Low at 68 FPS is equally stable and will avoid any notable drops. For those who demand 60 FPS, 1080p Low is the only preset that provides that consistently. If resolution is more important, 1440p Low yields 44 FPS, which is borderline; but the drop to 34 FPS at 1440p Medium makes that less desirable.

Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution; it delivers only 35 FPS at 1080p and 13 FPS at 4K. The GPU’s 128-bit memory system and power envelope make High/Ultra beyond its capacity. In a compromise, 1080p Medium provides better frame pacing than High or Ultra, as indicated by the 44–59 range (max 60) which is the narrowest recorded spread. Neglecting this, the single most beneficial step is to drop from Ultra to High at 1080p – a gain of 10 FPS (from 35 to 45). For a stable 60+ experience, only 1080p Low.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression across resolutions illustrates the GPU’s resolution can be modeled as a linear function. At Low settings takes 1080p-parametric: 24 FPS at 4K, 44 at 1440p, 68 at 1080p. The ratio from 1080p to 1440p is 0.647 (44/68), and from 1440p to 4K is 0.545 (24/44). The GPU’s fill rate is about 53.28 GPixel/s; at 1080p (1920×1080) it processes a 2.07 megapixel surface, while at 4K it is 8.29 megapixels. The scaling of 4× the pixels yields a 4× drop in FPS if perfect scaling – but we see 68 vs 24, a 23.64x drop, meaning the 107% fewer pixels cause a 64% loss, indicating other limits (bandwidth plays al role). The 4GB memory is also exhausted at 1440p as the data shows.

The limiting factor is the GPU. The CPU’s 8 cores remain idle; the game is GPU-bound. The combination of 2.984 TFLOPS and 128-bit memory is simply not sufficient for high fidelity on a 4K display. The FPS scaling pattern is consistent and matches the pixel-multiplier proportions: from 1080p to 1440p there is a 33.3% increase in pixels (2.64→3.69 MP) yielding a 35% FPS drop; and from 1440p to 4K there is a 2.25× pixel increase and a ~48% drop. These numbers are within the error of a GPU-bound workload.

At 4K Ultra, the 13 FPS average virtually benchmarks the card’s hard limit, with no headroom for outlier frame times. The entire combo ranking – 3568 out of 3696 – is testament to this imbalance: the GTX 1650 is a 4GB card that cannot feed a 5.5 GHz eight-core CPU at playable rates in most resolutions.