The Technomancer

The Technomancer, released in 2016, is an action RPG that shows surprisingly heavy hardware demands for its age. The measured combination of an AMD Ryzen 9 5950X with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti places 526th out of 3,696 tested combos — a solid mid-upper showing. The CPU sits in the 91st percentile of all processors, while the GPU sits in the 84th percentile. Launch MSRP for the CPU is $799, and the GPU is listed at 799 USD. The measured framerates across three resolutions and four quality presets provide a clean picture of where this rig sits in the current landscape.

Resolution Scaling

The most striking finding is how forcefully resolution affects the frame rate. At 1080p, the combo is clearly GPU-limited; at 4K it is still GPU-limited but with much lower headroom. The gap between Low and Ultra is large at every resolution tested.

Moving from 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS for Low drops from 250 to 178, a reduction of 72 frames. At 1080p Low the card pushes 250 FPS; at 1440p Low it drops to 178, and at 4K Low it settles at 98. That kind of scaling is typical of a graphics-heavy title where the GPU is the primary limit rather than the CPU. The software's engine simply requires more rasterization power as pixel count grows.

The drop-off is not uniform across presets. For Ultra, the difference is even more pronounced: 1080p Ultra gives 140 FPS at 1440p it falls to 91, and at 4K it tanks to 50. Walking from 1080p to 4K cuts Ultra performance by more than half, but the measured numbers show that the RTX 4070 Ti still delivers above 60 FPS at 4K Medium (75 average) and at 4K High (64 average). Only Ultra dips below a playable 60 FPS, to 50.

The scaling pattern reveals that the CPU is not a meaningful constraint at any of these resolutions. The 5950X with 16 cores and 32 threads can provide a highly capable base for letter physics, AI, and threading, and the frame drops from resolution changes are too large to be explained by CPU variations. At 1080p, even the lowest preset stays well above triple digits, which is far beyond the limits of most single-player experiences. The limiting component is the GeForce card itself — as res goes up, its intrinsic pixel fill and shading capabilities become the binding factor.

How This Combo Ranks

The benchmark database places this exact combination at rank 526 out of 3,696 tested combinations. That puts it in the top 15% of all configurations, but not elite. It sits behind the very top tier of combos, but it is well above the majority of setups tested. The CPU alone is ranked in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU in the 84th percentile of all GPUs. That gap between CPU and GPU percentile suggests the graphics card is the lower-ranked component in terms of overall hardware capability.

Looking at the nearest CPU rivals, the 5950X averages 51,947 points across all benchmark tests. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 52,073, a delta of -0.2% relative to the 5950X, meaning the 5950X is slightly behind. The AMD EPYC 8124P is -0.3% behind. The Intel Core i9-13900F is 0.4% ahead, and the Intel Core i7-14700 is -0.7% behind. These differences are tiny — within a fraction of a percent — so the 5950X's raw compute is still near the same line as the best upcoming chips for multi-threaded work.

For the GPU, the RTX 4070 Ti averages 44,795 points. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile with 45,152 points, a delta of -0.8%, meaning the 4070 Ti is only slightly weaker. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT is 1.3% slower, while the NVIDIA RTX A6000 is 1.6% ahead. The Intel Arc A730M is 1.7% slower. The consistent positioning shows that while the CPU is ranked in its %90s percentile, the GPU percentile is slightly lower, reinforcing the idea that the GPU is the more performance-sensitive piece when pushing high framerates in this title.

Settings Recommendations

Choosing settings depends on the target frame rate and the resolution. The data provides exact averages for Low, Medium, High, and Ultra across three resolutions. For user who wants to maintain 60 FPS as a transaction, the recommendations are straightforward.

At 1080p, any preset works. Even Ultra pumps out 140 FPS average, while Low reaches 250. The Medium preset has a minimum reported at 178 FPS, so it's physically unbreakable — you're getting over 170 FPS worst-case. High reaches 179 average, and Low 250. For competitive play, High or Low will guarantee fast respawns and smooth input. Ultra, at 140 FPS, still far exceeds typical 60 Hz displays, but it comes with the heavier value of the visual increases.

At 1440p, the window tightens but remains generous. Low delivers 178 FPS, Medium 137 (with a min of 116), High 117, and Ultra 91. A 60 FPS target is firmly guaranteed even at Ultra. For a 144 Hz monitor, High at 117 avg will not sustain 144 consistently; Medium with its 137 average might, but the min is 116, so dips will fall below. Low hit 178 and is the only preset that consistently clears 144. So if the user is pushing a 144 Hz 1440p screen, Low is the stable option for raw frame rate, while Medium gives a richer detail with a still-frame-rate higher than 60.

At 4K, the balance shifts. Low manages 98 FPS and is perfectly playable. Medium average 75 with a min of 64, and High holds 64 average but no min info. Ultra trailing at 50. If the hard requirement is 60 FPS average, Medium is the wise choice because its minimum of 64 keeps it above the line. High also averages at 64, but without a min you risk occasional dips. For comfort, Medium provides both speed and wiggle room. If visual quality matters and a 60 Hz display is used, High at 64 average could suffice but it's not guaranteed. For strict 60 FPS floor, select Medium.

It is importantly only the Medium preset has both minimum and maximum values in the measured data. At 1920x1080 Medium min is 178 and max 241; at 2560x1440 Medium min 116 max 158; at 3840x2160 Medium min 64 max 87. This indicates that Medium is the most stable profile in terms of frame pacing, which may be important for a smooth experience. Other presets may have frame spikes not shown in the average.

Overall, the best experience is to match the preset to the resolution target: High at 1440p, Medium at 4K, and for 1080p either Ultra or High depending on if the extra detail is worth any frame dip.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set numbers show the performance envelope. The measured frame rates are as follows:

1920x1080

• Low: 250 avg
• Medium: 210 avg (min 178, max 241)
• High: 179 avg
• Ultra: 140 avg

2560x1440

• Low: 178 avg
• Medium: 137 avg (min 116, max 158)
• High: 117 avg
• Ultra: 91 avg

3840x2160

• Low: 98 avg
• Medium: 75 avg (min 64, max 87)
• High: 64 avg
• Ultra: 50 avg

At 1080p, even Ultra exceeds 140 FPS, giving plenty of a gaming margin. The difference between Low and High is 71 FPS, which shows the cost of visual effects; and Ultra adds another 39 FPS on top, pushing it down to 140. The Medium preset (210) sits between High and Low, and its max hits 197 FPS against a very low 178 minimum, making it highly predictable for competitive play.

At 1440p, the drop is steeper. Low is still above the value, with 178 FPS. Medium at 137 has a disciplined range (116-tyf), the minimum still stays above 115. High at 117, and Ultra at 91 – still a frame-rate higher than 60. The scaling is nearly linear in the sense that each step down the quality ladder gains about a third more performance. Specifically, moving from Medium to Low adds 41 FPS (137 to 178), from High to Medium adds 20 FPS (117 to - actually 137-117=20) – yes, 20 FPS. That shows that quality settings hold a big impact at this resolution, but everything stays above console-level values.

At 4K, the cliff is evident. Low 98, Medium 75, High 64, Ultra 50. The only way to achieve 100 FPS is Low. Medium easily reaches 60 with a 64 base, and High just barely touches 64 but lacks a min figure. Ultra halts at 50, below the standard 60 baseline. These results suggest that 4K is still a heavy load for a 4070 Ti. With DLSS not measured and no upsampling evidence in the data, users must rely on settings to fit their targets.

FAQ

Q: Can I play The Technomancer at 4K with 60+ FPS?

A: Yes, as long as you choose Medium or High. In the measurements, Medium averages 75 FPS with a minimum of 64, and High averages 64 FPS. Ultra pulls 50 FPS only.

Q: Is the CPU ever the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: From the data, no. At the worst preset (Ultra), the kit still reaches 140 FPS, far above the 60 FPS requirement. The 5950X with its 16 cores and boost clock of 4.9 GHz supply single-thread performance that keeps up. The GPU is the one that handles the rendering load.

Q: What preset gives the highest minimums at 1440p?

A The Medium preset has explicitly reported a minimum of 116 FPS, the only preset with min values across all resolutions. For a smoother experience, Medium would be the safest.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all tested combos out there?

A: It ranks 526th out of 3,696. That places it from the top 15% of all tested combinations of which the CPU is in the 91st percentile of all CPUs and the GPU in the 84th for all GPUs.

Q: Is Low a viable choice for high framerate display?

A: At 1080p, Low yields 250 FPS and at 1440p 178 FPS, which will drive most 240 Hz monitors without strain. At 4K, pulling Low drops to 98 FPS, still competitive for 100+ Hz.

Q: Is the 8-core Ryzen 9 unnecessary for this game?

A: The 16 cores are not fully loaded by a 2016 title, but the CPU still has high single-thread test scores — 944 in 3dmark single-thread and 266.5 in Cinebench R15 single. The high clock (4.9 GHz boost) helps with the game engine's single-threaded logic and keeps the GPU fed at all resolutions.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is a 16-core, 32-thread processor built on TSMC 7 nm process, with a base clock of 3.4 GHz and a boost clock of 4.9 GHz. It has 64 MB L2 cache total (with 512KB per core), and 64 MB L3 cache. The threads can handle heavy multithread workloads, but The Technomancer is a game from 2016 that is not known for highly parallel CPU rendering. Its likely behavior is to use a couple of cores heavily, with a few more for physics and AI, that won't tax all 32 threads.

Still, the CPU's benchmark profile is in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. In the series of tests, the 5950X shows particularly strong multi-threaded scores: a 3dmark 8-thread score of 12,330? Actually the data has 3dmark 8 threads at 6,598, max-threads at 11,597, single-thread 944. But note those are custom benchmark numbers, not directly game-related. The single-thread score of 944 in 3dmark is decent but not top-tier today, but the 4.9 GHz boost helps. In game engines, the single-thread performance matters the most. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1614 and multi-core of 26,017 indicate a balanced design. The average benchmark score of 51,947 puts it between the Intel Core i9-13900F (indeed a delta of ~0.4%) and Intel Core i7-14700 (-0.7%), meaning it is competitive with recent high-end desktop chips in synthetic loads.

In practice for this title, the CPU is never the limiter across the measured resolutions. Since even at 1080p Ultra the system delivers 140 FPS, the 5950X thoroughly supports the RTX 4070 Ti. At 4K, the gap is reversed — the GPU hits the wall long before the any core is fully saturated. The CPU's role is to feed draw calls and manage game logic, which it does with huge headroom. The generous L3 (64 MB) helps to keep hot data close, and the boost to 4.9 GHz ensures consistent single-thread responsiveness.

For builders aiming to match a 4070 Ti with a processor, the 5950X is a reasonable partner; its large multi-thread ability will also handle background tasks and video encoding, but for a title like The Technomancer, essentially any modern high-end CPU would do. The measured data proves that the bottleneck is almost entirely graphics falloff, position. If the user ever drops the resolution or uses an ultrawide or high-refresh TV, the CPU still leaves more than enough to avoid stutter. Performance is consistent, and the 16-core design does not come with negatives for gaming; it just stands unused in most gaming workloads but ready for other tasks.