The Technomancer

The Technomancer is a 2016 Action RPG, and this analysis examines the performance of an AMD Ryzen 9 5950X paired with an AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT. The dataset includes measured FPS for three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) across four settings presets, plus a comprehensive list of CPU and GPU synthetic benchmarks. These measurements place this combo at rank 705 out of 3696 tested combinations, a solid 19th percentile that reflects its ability to handle the game at high frame rates. The CPU is a 16-core, 32-thread Zen 3 part with a 91st percentile ranking, while the GPU, an RDNA 3.0 card with 20 GB of GDDR6 memory, sits at the 55th percentile of all GPUs — a discrepancy that signals potential bottlenecks at lower resolutions.

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is a desktop processor with 16 physical cores and 32 threads, based on the Zen 3 architecture (codenamed Vermeer). It operates at a base clock of 3.40 GHz and has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Its 64 MB of L3 cache and 7 nm process (TSMC) are notable, but for this game, the CPU's computational headroom is the key observation.

In computer performance, the game was released on 2020-11-04, roughly a year before the 5950X launch (2020-11-04), so the game is older and likely cannot fully utilize the CPU's multi-threading capabilities. The 5950X has immense single-thread performance: its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 1614, and its 3DMark single-thread score (944) places it among the top. These scores indicate that even the most thread-constrained task would be pushed aside easily by this processor.

The multi-core performance is also prodigious: Cinebench R23 multicore 26017, Geekbench multicore 15233, and 3DMark max-threads 11597. The PassMark MT score is 45424, and even the threading stress-test 3DMark 16-threads scores 10810. While The Technomancer, a 2016 title, likely does not scale to 16 full threads — the engine was probably built for quad-core consoles — the CPU has enough raw computing headroom that it is clearly not the limiting factor at any tested resolution. This is emphasized by the CPU's percentile: it ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, with a closest rival being the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX (average score 52073, delta -0.2%). The fact that the delta percentage is within 0.7% of its nearest rivals (the Intel Core i9-13900F at +0.4% and the Intel Core i7-14700 at -0.7%) indicates that its performance is consistently near the top of the desktop CPU segment.

What does that mean for this game? At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average 250 FPS — that is far beyond the refresh rate of any monitor and suggests that the CPU can feed the GPU without any issue. The CPU's 32 threads allow it to handle background tasks and other applications, but for the measured data, the game's performance falls off only when resolution increases, which points to the GPU as the controlling limiting factor.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: How many cores and threads does the Ryzen 9 5950X have?

A: The Ryzen 9 5950X has 16 cores and 32 threads, based on the Zen 3 architecture.

Q: What is the combo's ranking among all tested combinations?

A: This specific CPU + GPU combination ranks 705th out of a total of 3696 combos, putting it in the bottom percent of the test set (about 19th percentile).

Q: Which resolution yields the highest average FPS in The Technomancer?

A: The best average FPS is at 1080p (1920x1080) with Low settings, at 250 FPS. Even at 1440p Low, the average is 164 FPS.

Q: Is there a setting preset that offers 144 FPS average at 1440p?

A: Yes, at 2560x1440 with the Medium preset, the average FPS is 126, but the measured min FPS is 107, so it dips below 144. The Low preset averages 164 FPS, which is above 144.

Q: What is the measured average FPS at 4K Ultra?

A: The average FPS at 3840x2160 (4K) with Ultra settings is 46 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target, and even the 4K High setting yields 59 FPS.

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p medium in this combo?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 193, with a min of 164 and max of 222.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The Radeon RX 7900 XT has an average benchmark score of 13745. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon 660M, scores 13812, which is -0.5% delta; the RTX A2000 Mobile is -0.5% as well, and the RX 570X is -0.9%. The RX 9070 XT is +1.5% higher at 13543.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS grows from 1080 to 4K and where the bottleneck lies

The measured data shows a clear drop in performance as resolution increases. At High settings, the average FPS values are 164 (1080p), 108 (1440p), and 59 (4K). That's a 34% drop from 1080p to 1440p ((108/164 = 0.6585, which is a -34.1%), and then a further 45% drop from 1440p to 4K (59/108 = 0.5463). The same pattern holds for all preset levels: Low goes from 250 (1080p) to 164 (1440p) to 90 (4K); Medium from 193 to 126 to 69; Ultra from 128 to 84 to 46.

The cause of this scaling is pixel count. 4K has about 8.3 million pixels, vs 4K 1440p has about 3.7 million and 1080p has 2.1 million. The GPU must fill a much larger portion of the screen goes fill rate and bandwidth. The RX 7900 XT has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus with a bandwidth of 800 GB/s and rasterization units of 192. Yet these cross the tests still show that the frame rate becomes heavily GPU-bound at 4K. For example, at Ultra settings, the 4K average falls below the 60 FPS threshold (46 FPS). At 1080p, the GPU can often push 128 f realize at Ultra, but there is room to push much twice that at Low.

The CPU is simply not a limiting factor at any resolution: its high single-thread score (Cinebench R23 single 364) and multi-thread performance (26017) guarantee that the game engine will not be CPU-starved. As the resolution increases, the GPU's rasterization and memory busses become the "bottleneck" — that's why dropping from High to Low at 4K gives a 59 FPS to 90 FPS improvement, while the same drop at 1080p gives 164 to 250 (a 1.4x increase). The FPS scaling is not linear because the FPS also depends on the game's engine efficiency, but the clear trend is that the higher the resolution, the greater influence the GPU has over the final framerate.

How This Combo Ranks — the score in context of the full dataset

The combination is measured to sit at rank 705 out of 3696 tested configurations. That places it in the 19th percentile of all combos, meaning roughly 81% of tested combos perform better in The Technomancer. This rank is a strong result, whle not necessarily a top-tier machine in the game, because the combination yields high average FPS especially at 1080p and 144FPS at 4K, but it is overshadowed by the fact that the GPU itself is only at the 55th percentile of all GPUs. The CPU, however, is in the 91st percentile, so the rank is heavily weighted by the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions.

When this combo is compared to the nearest CPU rivals in the average benchmark, its CPU score of 1614 (R23 single) and 26017 (R23 multi) keep it in the same league as top consumer chips. For instance, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX yields avg 52093 relative to CPU's 52047? Actually the CPU's average benchmark score is 51947, while the core i9-13900F averages 51730 (difference 0.4%). So it is extremely close to the highest-performing ×86 parts. The GPU's nearest rival (based on average benchmark score) is the RX 570X, which is -0.9% from the 7900XT's average 13745. Note that the RX 570X is a totally different card (small, old architecture), so that the rank position from only computing on benchmarks up the GPU average isn't directly related to actual game performance.

The most important conclusion is that the 7900XT alone is enough for the game at 4K around 60 FPS, and the CPU combination raises it to 705 of 3696, essentially the ability to achieve very high frame rates, particularly at 1080p. The ranking is emblematic of this combo's friendly design: the CPU's headroom ensures the graphics card is the only component that matters.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to game performance

The RX 7900 XT uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, a 5 nm chip with 57,700 million transistors over a 529 mm² die. It operates at a base clock of 1387 MHz, with a game clock of 2025 MHz and a boost clock of 2394 MHz. The memory configuration counts 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The card also features 5376 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, 192 ROPs, and 84 RT cores. All these resources are associated with a high pixel rate of 459.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 804.4 GT/s. The fill rate numbers confirm that the GPU can theoretically push large numbers of pixel fill rates, but the real-world performance in The Technomancer is consistent with the data: the high-end GPU can drive 1080p with an average 250 FPS at Low settings, but at 4K Ultra it falls to 46 FPS.

The GPU's memory sub-system is also important: 20 GB of VRAM is plenty for any 2016 title, the game's typical VRAM usage is low. However, the high bandwidth allows for high performance at 4K, as the medium preset at 4K still returns 69 FPS with a minimum of 59. The card's compute capacity (FP32 5.1 TFLOPS) is also relevant, but the real story is that the combined GPU+CPU provides a smooth experience at 1080p; the situation gets slightly less favorable at 4K where the Ultra preset dips to 46 FPS.

But the measured FPS breakdown shows that this GPU is clearly the bottleneck when raising the resolution — the CPU has plenty of computation power left over.

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

The table below lists all measured FPS from the data file (averages only, where the min/max only exist for Medium preset). Averages are suffixed with the settings:

• 1920x1080:

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|

| Low | 250 | - | - |

| Medium | 193 | 164 | 222 |

| High | 164 | - | - |

| Ultra | 128 | - | - |

• 2560x1440:

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|

| Low | 164 | - | - |

| Medium | 126 | 107 | 145 |

| High | 84 | - | - |

| Ultra | 84 | - | - |

• 3840x2160:

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|

| Low | 90 | - | - |

| Medium | 69 | 59 | 80 |

| High | 59 | - | - |

| Ultra | 46 | - | - |

These numbers show three clear trends: (1) lowering settings always raises FPS, direct relationship between GPU load and quality; (2) at any given settings, doubling the pixel count from 1080 to 1440 reduces FPS lower by 40-55% depending on settings; (3) the Ultra preset at 1080p (128) is still higher than the High 4K settings (59). The shift in the FPS MSV is also worth noting: the medium preset has slight min/frame variation, the 4K medium has a min of 59 FPS, which is barely above the common 60 fps target, whereas the 1440p medium has a min of 107.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured rows provide a direct answer for each resolution. The goal for a smooth experience is to achieve the highest FPS with minimum graphical impact, but the data shows that at each resolution a different preset reaches a 60 FPS average:

• 1080p (1920x1080): All settings exceed 128 FPS average; the Ultra preset provides 128 FPS, which is well above a high refresh monitor's recommendation. The low setting yields 250 FPS but does not reflect visual quality; choosing High (164 FPS) or even Ultra (128) is appropriate if the monitor handles that. For most users, the best choice is the Ultra preset because it produces 128 FPS average while giving the best image quality — still far above 60 FPS.

• 1440p (2560x1440): At 1440p, the Medium setting has an average of 164 FPS with a min of 107, the High 84 FPS, and Ultra 84 FPS (same as High). To stay above a 144 Hz monitor, only Low (164) and Medium (164) exceed that; High and Ultra are 108 and 84, respectively. If the user does not requiring the refresh, note that Medium's minimum (107) is enough for 60+. But if a 144Hz panel, the Medium preset delivers an average of 164 FPS and a min of 107, so it is the best balance for a high-refresh experience. For traditional 60 Hz, even Ultra (84) is sufficient.

• 4K (3840x2160): Only the Low and Medium presets reach above 60 FPS average: Low (90) and Medium (69). The High preset hits exactly 59, which is borderline, while Ultra drops to 46. Therefore, for 4K at a 100% target, the Medium preset is the recommended choice, because it provides a 69 average with a 59 minimum, assuring stable frame pacing. For those who tolerate below 60 FPS, High is acceptable, but medium is the highest measurable setting that safely cross 60 FPS on the CPU/GPU.

Overall, the data suggests the sweet spot: at 1080p the Ultra preset delivers the best visual experience at 128 FPS; at 1440p the Medium preset provides a comfortable 144+ while still adequate; and at 4K the Medium preset is the only one that consistently exceeds 60 FPS. These decisions fully align with the measured rows, and no other combination (such as 4K High or 4K Ultra) offers a better trade-off when judged solely on the average FPS and minimum FPS values.