The Technomancer

# The Technomancer with AMD Ryzen 7 9700F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080

The Technomancer, a 2016 Action RPG, presents an interesting benchmark case for this modern AMD Ryzen 7 9700F processor paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080. The measured data shows a combination that ranks 758th out of 2,825 tested combos, placing it in the upper quartile but with notable performance characteristics that vary significantly across resolutions and settings. This CPU-GPU pairing leverages the Ryzen 7 9700F's Zen 5 architecture with 8 cores and 16 threads, alongside the RTX 3080's Ampere-based GA102 chip with 10 GB of GDDR6X memory, producing frame rates that range from a modest 41 FPS at 4K Ultra to a brisk 223 FPS at 1080p Low. What makes this dataset fascinating is the non-linear scaling between settings and resolutions, hinting at complex bottlenecks that shift depending on the workload.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average FPS is 223 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At the same resolution, High settings produce 146 FPS, Medium produces 171 FPS, and Ultra produces 114 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested system combinations in this game?

A: The combo ranks 758th out of 2,825 tested combinations, which places it in the 73rd percentile of all combos tested for The Technomancer. This indicates a strong but not top-tier performance position.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded across all tested configurations?

A: The lowest average FPS is 41 at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is the only configuration that drops below 45 FPS, and it represents the most demanding scenario in the measured dataset.

Q: Does the RTX 3080's VRAM capacity appear sufficient for this game?

A: The RTX 3080 has 10 GB of GDDR6X memory with a 320-bit bus and 760.3 GB/s bandwidth. The game runs at all tested settings up to 4K Ultra without any reported VRAM-related issues, suggesting that 10 GB is adequate for The Technomancer's demands.

Q: What is the difference between 1080p Ultra and 4K Ultra performance?

A: The average FPS drops from 114 at 1080p Ultra to 41 at 4K Ultra, a reduction of 73 FPS or approximately 64%. This steep decline indicates that the GPU becomes increasingly stressed as pixel count rises, with the 4K Ultra result falling below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 9700F compare to its nearest rival in CPU benchmark scores?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700F achieves an average benchmark score of 69,996, which is 0.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (69,875) and 0.7% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (69,515). It trails the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70,163) by 0.2% and the Intel Core i7-14700K (69,355) by 0.9%.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data reveals that Medium settings offer the most balanced experience across all resolutions. At 1920x1080, Medium produces 171 FPS average with a minimum of 146 and maximum of 197, which is only 52 FPS below Low but 57 FPS above High. At 2560x1440, Medium delivers 112 FPS average with 95 minimum and 129 maximum, maintaining a smooth experience that stays well above the 60 FPS standard. Even at 3840x2160, Medium achieves 61 FPS average with 52 minimum and 71 maximum, making it the only 4K setting that crosses the 60 FPS threshold.

For players prioritizing maximum visual fidelity, Ultra settings at 1080p provide 114 FPS average, which remains playable, but the drop to 75 FPS at 1440p and 41 FPS at 4K makes Ultra less viable at higher resolutions. High settings offer a middle ground with 146 FPS at 1080p, 96 FPS at 1440p, and 52 FPS at 4K, but the 4K result falls below the smooth 60 FPS target. Low settings maximize frame rates with 223 FPS at 1080p, 146 FPS at 1440p, and 80 FPS at 4K, but the visual compromise is substantial.

The data suggests that Medium is the recommended preset for most users. It provides the best combination of visual quality and performance, particularly at 1440p where the 112 FPS average with a 95 FPS minimum ensures consistent smoothness. At 4K, Medium's 61 FPS average with a 52 FPS minimum is borderline but acceptable for slower-paced gameplay. The 146 FPS minimum at 1080p Medium indicates that even in demanding scenes, the frame rate remains high. For competitive or fast-paced play, Low at 1080p offers the highest headroom, but the visual downgrade may not be worth the extra 52 FPS over Medium.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 plays a dominant role in The Technomancer's performance, as evidenced by the scaling patterns across resolutions. The GPU features 8,704 shading units, 272 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output pipelines, operating at a base clock of 1440 MHz and boost clock of 1710 MHz. Its 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus delivers 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for handling the game's texture and geometry data at higher resolutions.

The GPU's benchmark scores provide context for its capabilities. In Passmark G3D, it scores 25,086, while DirectX 11 tests show 207 and DirectX 12 shows 100. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 152,423 and Vulkan score of 33,620 indicate strong compute performance. The GPU sits at the 68th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 23,172. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA P106-100 (23,249, 0.3% higher) and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (23,250, 0.3% higher), showing that the RTX 3080 is positioned in a competitive mid-to-high tier.

In game-specific measurements, the GPU's influence becomes apparent when comparing settings at the same resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low (223 FPS) and Ultra (114 FPS) is 109 FPS, while at 4K, the difference between Low (80 FPS) and Ultra (41 FPS) is 39 FPS. This compression of the settings range at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as the absolute frame rate ceiling is constrained by pixel throughput. The 10 GB VRAM capacity appears sufficient, as no memory-related performance cliffs are observed even at 4K Ultra.

The RTX 3080's 68th percentile ranking among all GPUs, combined with its 320 W TDP and 700 W suggested PSU, shows a high-power component that delivers substantial performance. However, the game's 2016 release date means it does not utilize the GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate features fully, as evidenced by the Passmark DirectX 12 score of 100 being lower than DirectX 11's 207. This suggests the game may be running in a compatibility mode that limits the GPU's modern feature set.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings shows a wide performance spread. Low settings produce the highest average FPS at 223, followed by Medium at 171 FPS with a minimum of 146 and maximum of 197. High settings achieve 146 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 114 FPS. The 109 FPS gap between Low and Ultra represents a 48.9% reduction in frame rate, demonstrating that visual quality presets have a substantial impact on performance at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates scale predictably but with a narrower range. Low delivers 146 FPS, Medium produces 112 FPS with a 95-129 FPS window, High achieves 96 FPS, and Ultra reaches 75 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 71 FPS, or 48.6%, which is proportionally similar to the 1080p gap. The minimum FPS at Medium (95) remains above 60, indicating that even in demanding scenes, the combo maintains smooth performance at 1440p.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly. Low settings produce 80 FPS, Medium achieves 61 FPS with a 52-71 FPS range, High manages 52 FPS, and Ultra falls to 41 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 39 FPS, or 48.8%, maintaining the same proportional relationship as lower resolutions. However, the absolute values become concerning for smooth gameplay, as only Low and Medium average above 60 FPS, and Medium's minimum dips to 52 FPS.

The data reveals consistent proportional differences between settings across all resolutions. Low is always approximately 1.95 times faster than Ultra in terms of raw FPS. Medium provides roughly 1.49 times the performance of Ultra at 1080p (171 vs 114), 1.49 times at 1440p (112 vs 75), and 1.49 times at 4K (61 vs 41). This consistency suggests that the game's settings scale linearly with GPU load, and the RTX 3080 responds predictably to each preset level regardless of resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F + RTX 3080 combination ranks 758th out of 2,825 tested combos in The Technomancer. This places it in the top 26.8% of all combinations tested, which is a strong showing given the game's age and the hardware's specifications. The rank reflects the combination's ability to deliver playable frame rates across most tested configurations, with only the 4K Ultra setting falling below 45 FPS.

The combo's position can be understood by comparing the individual components' benchmark standings. The CPU ranks in the 94th percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 69,996, while the GPU ranks in the 68th percentile with an average score of 23,172. The game's performance rank of 758 out of 2,825 (73rd percentile) sits between these two values, suggesting that the game is neither purely CPU-bound nor purely GPU-bound across all settings.

The CPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores include the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (69,875, 0.2% behind) and Intel Core i7-14700KF (70,163, 0.2% ahead), showing that the 9700F is closely matched with top-tier processors from both AMD and Intel. The GPU's nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA P106-100 (23,249, 0.3% higher) and AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23,273, 0.4% higher), are less well-known products, indicating the RTX 3080 sits in a performance tier where competition is less mainstream.

The ranking of 758 out of 2,825 means the combo outperforms 2,067 other tested combinations. This places it well within the upper quartile but not among the elite configurations, which likely feature newer GPUs with higher benchmark scores. The data suggests that while the RTX 3080 is capable, it is not the top performer for this game, and the combo's rank reflects that limitation, especially at higher resolutions where GPU load dominates.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is a 9000-series desktop processor built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Granite Ridge codename. It features 8 cores and 16 threads, operating at a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The CPU has a 65 W TDP and supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache.

In Passmark benchmarks, the CPU shows specific strengths. Its multithread score is 36,470, while single-thread performance is 4,691. Integer math scores 120,788, floating-point math scores 77,955, and extended instructions score 33,688. Data compression scores 421,988, encryption scores 21,488, and physics scores 2,122. The CPU's average benchmark score of 69,996 puts it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals within 0.9% performance difference.

For The Technomancer, the CPU's role appears limited by the game's age and the GPU's bottleneck at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, where the GPU has less work, the 223 FPS result suggests the CPU can feed the GPU at very high frame rates. However, the game was released in 2016, and its single-threaded performance requirements are likely modest by modern standards. The 9700F's single-thread score of 4,691 and boost clock of 5.50 GHz should provide ample headroom for the game's CPU demands.

The CPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores, such as the Intel Core i7-14700KF (0.2% higher) and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (0.7% lower), all perform within a narrow band. This suggests that CPU choice among high-end processors has minimal impact on The Technomancer's performance, as the game's frame rates are primarily determined by GPU capabilities. The 8-core, 16-thread configuration with 32 MB of L3 cache is more than sufficient for a 2016 Action RPG, and the CPU likely never becomes the limiting factor in any tested configuration.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 223 at 1080p to 146 at 1440p to 80 at 4K. This represents a 34.5% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a 45.2% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The total decrease from 1080p to 4K is 64.1%, indicating that pixel count is a dominant factor in performance.

At Medium settings, the scaling is similar: 171 FPS at 1080p, 112 FPS at 1440p, and 61 FPS at 4K. The reductions are 34.5% and 45.5% respectively, with a total decrease of 64.3%. High settings show 146 FPS at 1080p, 96 FPS at 1440p, and 52 FPS at 4K, representing a 34.2% drop to 1440p and a 45.8% drop to 4K, totaling 64.4%. Ultra settings follow the same pattern: 114 FPS at 1080p, 75 FPS at 1440p, and 41 FPS at 4K, with reductions of 34.2% and 45.3%.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings is striking. The resolution scaling factor is nearly identical regardless of quality preset, which strongly indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component. The RTX 3080's pixel throughput capabilities, defined by its 164.2 GPixel/s pixel rate and 465.1 GTexel/s texture rate, determine how quickly the GPU can fill frames at each resolution. The 10 GB memory capacity and 760.3 GB/s bandwidth also contribute to the scaling, as higher resolutions require more memory bandwidth to access textures and geometry.

The uniform scaling pattern also suggests that the CPU does not become a bottleneck at any resolution. If the CPU were limiting performance, we would expect to see smaller FPS drops at higher resolutions, as the CPU work per frame remains constant while GPU work increases. Instead, the proportional drops indicate that the GPU's rendering workload scales directly with pixel count, and the Ryzen 7 9700F consistently provides enough data to keep the GPU fed. This is typical for a game released in 2016, where modern CPUs with high single-thread performance can easily handle the game's logic and physics at any resolution. The data implies that for The Technomancer, resolution scaling is a pure GPU-bound metric, and users seeking higher frame rates should prioritize GPU settings over CPU considerations.