The Technomancer

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

This combination of AMD's Zen 5-based Ryzen 7 9700F and NVIDIA's Ampere-generation RTX 3080 Ti places at rank 687 out of 2,825 tested combos in The Technomancer, putting it in the top quarter of all systems measured. The data reveals a pairing where the GPU's 12 GB of GDDR6X memory and 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance drive most of the experience, while the CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads provide ample headroom even at lower resolutions where frame rates climb above 200 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 687 out of 2,825 tested configurations places it in the 76th percentile of all systems evaluated for this game, meaning roughly three-quarters of tested combos perform below this pairing. The CPU itself sits at the 94th percentile among all processors tested across all workloads, with an average benchmark score of 69,996. Its nearest rivals show remarkable clustering: the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX trails by just 0.2% (69,875 average score), the Intel Core i7-14700KF leads by 0.2% (70,163), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X trails by 0.7% (69,515), and the Intel Core i7-14700K trails by 0.9% (69,355). This tight grouping around 69,000–70,000 suggests the 9700F delivers competitive CPU performance for this game, though the overall combo rank depends heavily on GPU contributions.

The GPU, by contrast, sits at the 83rd percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 41,187, and its nearest rivals show wider variance. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 leads by 0.8% (40,870 average score), while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB trails by 1.2% (41,707), the Tesla M40 trails by 1.7% (41,897), and the GeForce RTX 5070 trails by 2% (40,377). Notably, the RTX 3080 Ti's nearest rivals include both workstation and newer consumer cards, indicating its performance class remains relevant despite being end-of-life. The combination of a top-decile CPU and an upper-quartile GPU yields the observed 687th place ranking, suggesting that while each component is strong individually, the game's engine may not fully exploit the CPU's capabilities at higher resolutions where the GPU becomes the dominant factor.

FAQ

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 9700F compare to its closest CPU rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The 9700F scores 69,996 on average, which is nearly identical to its nearest rivals. It edges the Ryzen 9 7940HX by 0.2% (69,875) and the Ryzen 9 7950X by 0.7% (69,515), while trailing the Core i7-14700KF by 0.2% (70,163) and the Core i7-14700K by 0.9% (69,355). All four rivals fall within a 1% band, indicating that CPU choice among these models has minimal impact on this game's performance.

Q: What is the best frame rate achieved by this combo in the measured data?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 231 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 178 average FPS at 1080p Medium, followed by 152 at 1080p High and 119 at 1080p Ultra. At 1440p, the Low preset hits 151 average FPS, while at 4K, even Low only reaches 83 average FPS.

Q: How does the GPU's benchmark percentile compare to its nearest rival, the RTX 5070?

A: The RTX 3080 Ti scores 41,187 on average and sits at the 83rd percentile. Its nearest rival by delta is the RTX 5070, which scores 40,377 — a 2% gap. Interestingly, the RTX 3080 Ti outperforms the newer RTX 5070 in this aggregate benchmark, though the older card draws 350W compared to the newer card's unspecified power draw.

Q: Are there any settings where the combo fails to maintain 60 FPS at 4K?

A: Yes. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 43, and at 4K High it sits at 54 average FPS. The 4K Medium preset achieves 64 average FPS with a minimum of 54 and maximum of 73, so even Medium cannot guarantee a consistent 60 FPS floor. Only 4K Low (83 average FPS) comfortably exceeds 60 FPS at this resolution.

Q: What CPU features are most relevant for this game's performance?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700F offers 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz. It has 32 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,691 and multithread score of 36,470 indicate strong per-core performance, which matters for a 2016 Action RPG that may not scale perfectly across many threads.

Q: What is the GPU's VRAM capacity and how might it affect 4K gameplay?

A: The RTX 3080 Ti has 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 912.4 GB/s bandwidth. At 4K resolution, the 43 FPS Ultra result and 54 FPS High result suggest that VRAM capacity may be sufficient, but the rendering load at 8.3 million pixels exceeds what the GPU's 10240 shading units can handle at high settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern of diminishing returns as resolution increases, with the GPU becoming the bottleneck at higher pixel counts. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by roughly 35–37% across all settings: High falls from 152 to 99 (a 35% drop), Low from 231 to 151 (35%), Medium from 178 to 116 (35%), and Ultra from 119 to 77 (35%). This consistent proportional decline suggests the GPU is scaling predictably with pixel count, and the CPU has sufficient headroom at 1080p to avoid becoming a limiting factor.

Moving from 1440p to 4K, the drops become steeper in absolute terms but slightly less proportional: High falls from 99 to 54 (45% drop), Low from 151 to 83 (45%), Medium from 116 to 64 (45%), and Ultra from 77 to 43 (44%). The near-identical percentage drops across all settings and resolution transitions indicate that the limiting component is the GPU's raw rendering throughput, not memory bandwidth or CPU submission rates. The 4K results — ranging from 43 to 83 FPS depending on settings — show that even at Low settings, the RTX 3080 Ti cannot fully compensate for the 4x pixel count increase from 1080p.

The fact that 1080p Low reaches 231 FPS while 1080p Ultra drops to 119 FPS reveals that settings have a larger impact on frame rate at lower resolutions. At 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra is 112 FPS (49% reduction), while at 4K the same settings gap is only 40 FPS (48% reduction). This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily loaded that even significant settings changes produce smaller absolute frame rate differences, whereas at 1080p the GPU has spare capacity that settings can either utilize or save.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce 231 average FPS, Medium hits 178 average FPS with a minimum of 151 and maximum of 204, High reaches 152 average FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 119 average FPS. These numbers indicate that at 1080p, even Ultra settings provide a smooth experience well above the 60 FPS threshold, and the CPU's 8 cores are clearly not limiting the frame rate, as evidenced by the 231 FPS Low result.

At 2560x1440, performance remains strong but shows the GPU beginning to strain. Low settings achieve 151 average FPS, Medium delivers 116 average FPS (minimum 99, maximum 134), High produces 99 average FPS, and Ultra drops to 77 average FPS. The 1440p results show that High and Ultra still comfortably exceed 60 FPS, making this resolution viable for high-refresh monitors, but the gap between Low and Ultra narrows from 112 FPS at 1080p to 74 FPS at 1440p, confirming the GPU's increasing load.

At 3840x2160, the data reveals a significant performance cliff. Low settings manage 83 average FPS, which is the only 4K preset above 60 FPS. Medium achieves 64 average FPS with a minimum of 54 and maximum of 73, indicating occasional dips below the 60 FPS threshold. High drops to 54 average FPS, and Ultra falls to 43 average FPS. The 4K results show that this combo can handle 4K only with Low or Medium settings, and even Medium cannot guarantee a consistent 60 FPS experience.

The Medium settings row is the only one with min/max data across all resolutions, which is useful for understanding frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the minimum of 151 and maximum of 204 show a 35% variance from min to max. At 1440p Medium, the minimum of 99 and maximum of 134 show a similar 35% variance. At 4K Medium, the minimum of 54 and maximum of 73 show a 35% variance as well. This consistency in variance across resolutions suggests the game's frame pacing remains stable regardless of resolution, with the GPU delivering predictable performance envelopes.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 7 9700F's specifications point to a CPU designed for high single-thread performance with ample multi-thread headroom. Its 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 5.50 GHz boost clock, deliver a PassMark single-thread score of 4,691 and a multithread score of 36,470. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache provides substantial on-die storage for game assets, while the 89.6 GB/s DDR5 memory bandwidth ensures data can flow quickly to the cores.

In The Technomancer, a 2016 Action RPG, the CPU's role appears significant at lower resolutions but diminishes at 4K. The 1080p Low result of 231 FPS suggests the CPU can feed frames at a very high rate, and the fact that 1080p Ultra still achieves 119 FPS indicates that even with higher settings, the CPU is not the bottleneck. However, the 4K results (43–83 FPS) are so much lower that the GPU's rendering capacity is clearly the limiting factor, with the CPU having plenty of spare capacity.

The CPU's benchmark profile shows strong integer math (120,788) and floating-point math (77,955) scores, which are relevant for game logic and physics calculations. Its data compression score of 421,988 and encryption score of 21,488 are less relevant to gaming but indicate overall computational strength. The 65W TDP suggests efficient power delivery, and the 4 nm TSMC process node with 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die indicates a dense, modern design that should not thermally throttle in most systems.

The nearest CPU rivals all score within 1% of the 9700F, which means that in practice, swapping among the Ryzen 9 7940HX, Core i7-14700KF, Ryzen 9 7950X, or Core i7-14700K would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game. The 9700F's 94th percentile ranking confirms that it is a high-end processor that exceeds the requirements of a game from 2016, giving it enough headroom to handle the maximum 231 FPS observed at 1080p Low.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting 1080p, the data shows that Ultra settings at 119 average FPS provide an excellent experience without any compromise. Even the most demanding preset exceeds 100 FPS, and the gap between High (152 FPS) and Ultra (119 FPS) is only 33 FPS, suggesting that Ultra is worth the small performance cost for the visual upgrade. Medium at 178 FPS offers a 50% higher frame rate than Ultra, which may appeal to competitive players with 165 Hz or 240 Hz monitors, but the 119 FPS Ultra result is already smooth for most displays.

At 1440p, the recommendation becomes more nuanced. Ultra delivers 77 average FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold but not ideal for high-refresh gaming. High at 99 average FPS strikes a strong balance, offering a 29% improvement over Ultra while likely retaining most visual quality. Medium at 116 FPS provides even more headroom for 144 Hz monitors, but the step down from High to Medium may be noticeable. Low at 151 FPS is unnecessary for most users at this resolution, as the visual degradation would be severe.

For 4K, the data presents a clear trade-off. Low at 83 average FPS is the only setting that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS, making it the only viable option for smooth gameplay at this resolution. Medium at 64 average FPS is playable but dips to 54 FPS minimum, which may cause noticeable stuttering in action sequences. High at 54 and Ultra at 43 average FPS fall below the 60 FPS threshold and are not recommended for a responsive gaming experience. Players with 4K displays should either accept Low settings or consider reducing resolution to 1440p for better quality.

The Medium preset's min/max data across all resolutions provides insight into frame consistency. At 1080p Medium, the 151–204 FPS range shows a 35% variance, which is acceptable at such high frame rates. At 1440p Medium, the 99–134 FPS range shows the same 35% variance, remaining playable. At 4K Medium, the 54–73 FPS range crosses the 60 FPS threshold on both sides, meaning some scenes will be smooth while others stutter. Based on this data, the best experience per measured row is 1440p High at 99 average FPS, which balances visual fidelity with frame rate headroom, or 1080p Ultra at 119 FPS for maximum quality without frame rate concerns.

GPU Role

The RTX 3080 Ti's specifications reveal a GPU built for high-resolution gaming, with 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus delivering 912.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Its 10,240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 112 ROPs provide substantial rendering throughput, with a pixel rate of 186.5 GPixel/s and texture rate of 532.8 GTexel/s. The 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is the same for FP16 (1:1 ratio), indicating a compute-heavy design that may be overkill for a 2016 game but beneficial for modern titles.

In The Technomancer, the GPU's performance scaling across resolutions shows that it is the primary bottleneck at 4K. The 4K Low result of 83 FPS versus the 1080p Low result of 231 FPS represents a 64% reduction in frame rate, which is steeper than the pixel count increase (4x) would suggest if the GPU were perfectly efficient. This indicates that the game's rendering pipeline becomes less efficient at higher resolutions, possibly due to memory bandwidth constraints or the GPU's fixed-function units becoming saturated.

The GPU's benchmark scores show a strong DirectX 11 result (223) and weaker DirectX 12 (110) and DirectX 9 (274) scores, which is relevant since The Technomancer likely uses an older API given its 2016 release date. The PassMark G3D score of 26,896 and G2D score of 1,091 place the GPU at the 83rd percentile, and its nearest rivals include the Radeon Pro 5300 (0.8% faster), Tesla M40 24 GB (1.2% slower), Tesla M40 (1.7% slower), and RTX 5070 (2% slower). The fact that the RTX 3080 Ti outperforms the newer RTX 5070 in aggregate benchmarks suggests that its larger memory bus and higher bandwidth compensate for its older architecture.

The GPU's 12 GB VRAM capacity appears sufficient for this game, as even at 4K Ultra with 43 FPS, there is no evidence in the data of memory-related stuttering or texture pop-in. The 912.4 GB/s bandwidth likely prevents memory bottlenecks, allowing the GPU to operate at its compute limits. However, the 350W TDP and suggested 750W PSU indicate that this GPU draws significant power, and its 285 mm length may require a spacious case. For The Technomancer specifically, the GPU's performance at 1080p and 1440p is more than adequate, but at 4K, even this high-end card cannot maintain 60 FPS at High or Ultra settings, reflecting the game's demanding rendering requirements at that resolution.