The Technomancer

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is an 8-core, 16-thread processor built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) using a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz place it firmly in the high-performance desktop segment. The CPU's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB per-core L2 cache provide substantial on-die storage for game data, which is particularly relevant for an Action RPG like The Technomancer that streams large world environments.

Benchmark data shows this CPU sits at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 69,996. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX, scores 69,875 — a delta of just 0.2%, meaning the 9700F is effectively tied with that mobile flagship. The Intel Core i7-14700KF trails by 0.2% with a score of 70,163, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X is 0.7% behind at 69,515, and the Intel Core i7-14700K is 0.9% behind at 69,355. These margins are negligible in real-world gaming scenarios, suggesting the 9700F's 8-core/16-thread configuration is more than sufficient to feed a modern GPU in most titles.

In The Technomancer specifically, the CPU's role becomes apparent when examining the FPS data across resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 180 FPS — a figure that indicates the CPU is capable of driving frame rates far beyond typical display refresh rates. The single-thread score of 4,691 and multithread score of 36,470 on Passmark suggest strong per-core performance, which matters for games that rely on a few heavily loaded threads. The Technomancer, being a 2016 release, likely does not scale perfectly across 16 threads, so the 9700F's high boost clock of 5.50 GHz becomes the critical factor for maintaining high minimum frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios.

The CPU's 65W TDP and support for DDR5 memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth provide a solid foundation for gaming workloads. Its PCIe Gen 5 interface with 24 lanes ensures the RTX 5060 can communicate without bottleneck, though the GPU itself uses a PCIe 5.0 x8 connection. The data suggests that at 1080p Low, the system is likely CPU-bound to some degree, as the 180 FPS ceiling may reflect the CPU's maximum frame generation capability rather than the GPU's raw throughput.

# GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 features 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. Its memory clock runs at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective), while the GPU core operates between a base of 2280 MHz and a boost of 2497 MHz. The Blackwell 2.0 architecture implements 3,840 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with 30 RT cores and 120 tensor cores providing hardware acceleration for ray tracing and AI workloads.

In the context of The Technomancer, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM capacity is a critical consideration. The game's Ultra preset at 4K pushes the average FPS down to 33, which suggests the GPU is struggling with both memory capacity and compute demands at that extreme resolution. The 448 GB/s bandwidth is moderate by modern standards, and at 4K Ultra, the texture data and geometry likely exceed what 8 GB can comfortably hold, causing performance degradation beyond pure compute limitations.

The GPU's Passmark G3D score of 20,891 places it at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 860M (score 26,401, delta -0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (score 26,421, delta -0.3%), AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (score 26,553, delta -0.8%), and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (score 26,011, delta 1.2%). These deltas are remarkably small, indicating the RTX 5060 performs within a tight band of these competing products despite architectural differences.

The GPU's FP32 throughput of 19.18 TFLOPS and texture rate of 299.6 GTexel/s provide ample raw compute for a game from 2016. The Technomancer's graphics engine, while not state-of-the-art by modern standards, still benefits from the Blackwell architecture's efficiency. The data shows a clear pattern: as resolution increases, the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck, with frame rates dropping proportionally more than the pixel count increase would suggest.

# Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data reveals a classic resolution scaling curve that helps identify the system's bottleneck. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at High settings, the average FPS drops from 118 to 77 — a 34.7% reduction. Scaling from 1440p to 4K at High, the average drops from 77 to 42 — a 45.5% reduction. This accelerating decline indicates the GPU becomes progressively more saturated as resolution increases.

At Low settings, the scaling is even more pronounced: 180 FPS at 1080p, 118 at 1440p (34.4% drop), and 65 at 4K (44.9% drop from 1440p). The fact that Low settings still show significant frame rate reductions with resolution suggests the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, not the CPU's ability to generate draw calls.

The Medium preset provides additional insight through its min/max FPS data. At 1080p Medium, the range is 117 to 159 FPS (average 138), while at 1440p Medium it's 77 to 104 FPS (average 90), and at 4K Medium it's 42 to 57 FPS (average 50). The consistent ~30 FPS spread between min and max across resolutions indicates the CPU maintains its frame pacing, while the GPU's average throughput scales with pixel count.

This data strongly implies that at 1080p, the system is balanced between CPU and GPU capabilities, with the CPU able to push frame rates into triple digits. However, by 1440p and especially 4K, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 448 GB/s bandwidth become the binding constraints. The 4K Ultra result of 33 FPS confirms this, as the Ultra preset likely increases texture resolution beyond the VRAM's comfortable capacity, causing additional performance penalties beyond pure pixel throughput.

# Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 180 FPS average
• Medium: 138 FPS average (min 117, max 159)
• High: 118 FPS average
• Ultra: 92 FPS average

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 118 FPS average
• Medium: 90 FPS average (min 77, max 104)
• High: 77 FPS average
• Ultra: 60 FPS average

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 65 FPS average
• Medium: 50 FPS average (min 42, max 57)
• High: 42 FPS average
• Ultra: 33 FPS average

The 1080p results show a clear hierarchy: Low produces 180 FPS, which is 30.4% higher than Medium's 138 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 14.5%, while High to Ultra shows a 22.0% drop. These diminishing returns suggest that the Ultra preset at 1080p is still GPU-limited but not severely, as the 92 FPS average remains playable.

At 1440p, the Low preset delivers 118 FPS, matching the 1080p High result exactly — an interesting coincidence that suggests the GPU's performance at 1440p Low is roughly equivalent to 1080p High. The Ultra preset at 1440p achieves exactly 60 FPS, which is a critical threshold for smooth gameplay on standard 60 Hz displays.

The 4K results are the most telling. Even at Low settings, the average drops to 65 FPS, which is below the 1440p Medium result of 90 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K produces just 33 FPS, making it borderline unplayable for most gamers. The Medium preset at 4K shows a min of 42 and max of 57, indicating significant frame time variance that could cause noticeable stuttering.

# How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 combination ranks 1,226th out of 2,825 tested combos in The Technomancer, placing it in the 56.6th percentile of all tested systems. This mid-pack ranking is somewhat surprising given the individual components' benchmark scores — the CPU is at the 94th percentile and the GPU at the 72nd percentile.

This discrepancy suggests that The Technomancer's engine does not fully utilize the strengths of this particular hardware pairing. The game's 2016 release date means it was designed for older GPU architectures, and the RTX 5060's Blackwell features (such as advanced tensor cores and RT capabilities) likely go unused in this title. The CPU's high multithread score of 36,470 also appears underutilized, as the game probably does not scale well across 16 threads.

The combo's ranking relative to its component percentiles implies that other combinations with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs (or vice versa) may perform better in this specific game. The data indicates that The Technomancer is more GPU-bound than CPU-bound, so systems with higher-performing GPUs despite lower CPU scores could rank higher. The 8 GB VRAM limitation becomes more apparent at higher resolutions, and the game's texture streaming patterns may not benefit from the CPU's large L3 cache as much as newer titles would.

# FAQ

Q: Can this combo achieve 60 FPS at 4K in The Technomancer?

A: No. The best 4K result is 65 FPS at Low settings, but Medium drops to 50 FPS average, High to 42 FPS, and Ultra to 33 FPS. Only the Low preset exceeds 60 FPS at 4K.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in this game?

A: The data shows 1440p provides the best balance. At High settings, it delivers 77 FPS, and at Medium it reaches 90 FPS with a minimum of 77. This is well above the 60 FPS threshold while offering higher visual fidelity than 1080p.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700F scores 69,996 on average, which is within 0.9% of its four nearest rivals: the Ryzen 9 7940HX (69,875, +0.2%), Core i7-14700KF (70,163, -0.2%), Ryzen 9 7950X (69,515, +0.7%), and Core i7-14700K (69,355, +0.9%). The differences are statistically insignificant.

Q: Is the RTX 5060's 8 GB VRAM sufficient for The Technomancer?

A: The data suggests it is sufficient at 1080p and 1440p, where the Ultra preset achieves 92 and 60 FPS respectively. However, at 4K Ultra, the 33 FPS result indicates the VRAM capacity or bandwidth becomes a severe bottleneck.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra at each resolution?

A: At 1080p, Low yields 180 FPS versus Ultra's 92 FPS — a 95.7% difference. At 1440p, Low gives 118 FPS versus Ultra's 60 FPS — a 96.7% difference. At 4K, Low produces 65 FPS versus Ultra's 33 FPS — a 97.0% difference. The consistent ~96% gap suggests the settings scale similarly across resolutions.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at any resolution?

A: At 1080p Low, the 180 FPS result likely approaches the CPU's frame generation limit, as the GPU should theoretically handle this resolution easily. However, at 1440p and 4K, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck, as evidenced by the substantial FPS drops across all settings.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience depends on the user's display resolution and refresh rate priorities.

For 1080p displays, the High preset at 118 FPS offers an excellent balance of visual quality and performance. Users with 120 Hz or 144 Hz monitors will benefit from this setting, as it stays above the 100 FPS threshold for smooth motion. The Ultra preset at 92 FPS is also viable for users who prioritize image quality over frame rate, but the 22% drop from High may not justify the visual improvements.

For 1440p displays, the Medium preset at 90 FPS (min 77, max 104) provides the best experience for high-refresh-rate monitors. The High preset at 77 FPS is acceptable for 60-75 Hz displays, while the Ultra preset at exactly 60 FPS is suitable for standard 60 Hz monitors. Users with adaptive sync technology may prefer High for better frame consistency.

For 4K displays, the Low preset at 65 FPS is the only setting that approaches playable frame rates, but the visual compromise is substantial. The Medium preset at 50 FPS may be tolerable for slower-paced gameplay, but the 42 FPS minimum suggests occasional drops below comfortable thresholds. The High and Ultra presets at 42 and 33 FPS respectively are not recommended for action-oriented gameplay.

The data indicates that the Medium preset offers the most consistent frame pacing across all resolutions, as it is the only setting with min/max data showing a stable range. This suggests the Medium preset may be the best choice for users who prioritize frame time consistency over raw average FPS. Ultimately, the recommendation is to target 1080p High for maximum performance, 1440p Medium for balanced quality, and 4K Low only if resolution is paramount.