The Technomancer

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X brings substantial processing headroom to The Technomancer, with 12 cores and 24 threads running at a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. This is a Zen 4 architecture part on the 5 nm process, and its benchmark profile shows extreme multi-threaded capability: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 29300 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 19267 place it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. Single-thread performance is equally strong, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2016.5, ensuring that the game’s logic and physics threads have ample per-core speed. However, The Technomancer is a 2016 Action RPG that rarely stresses modern high-end CPUs, so the 7900X’s 64 MB of shared L3 cache and 83.2 GB/s of dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth are far more than this title requires. The data confirms this: at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 130 FPS, and at 1440p Low it still hits 85 FPS, indicating that the CPU is never the bottleneck even when the GPU is lightly loaded. The nearest CPU rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-14700F (deltaPct -0.6%) and the AMD EPYC 7313P (deltaPct 0.2%), show that the 7900X sits in a performance tier where any of these processors would deliver identical frame rates in this game; the limiting factor will always be the graphics card.

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

The Ryzen 9 7900X’s 12 cores and 24 threads are overkill for The Technomancer, but they guarantee zero frame drops from CPU stalls. The game’s engine, built for the PlayStation 4/Xbox One era, typically uses 4-8 threads at most, so the 7900X’s 3DMark 8-thread score of 7798 is more than sufficient, while the max-thread score of 12536 provides headroom that simply goes unused. The base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost of 5.60 GHz are relevant because the game’s main thread benefits from high frequency; the single-thread 3DMark score of 1093 and Cinebench R23 single-core of 2016.5 confirm that this CPU has top-tier per-core speed. In practice, the measured FPS at 1080p Low (130 FPS) and 1440p Low (85 FPS) show that the CPU can push the RTX 2060 to its limits at lower resolutions. The 7900X’s 170 W TDP and AM5 platform are irrelevant to actual game performance here, but the architectural advantage of Zen 4 means memory latency is low, which helps with frame pacing in older titles. The data shows that when settings drop to Low, the FPS scales almost linearly with resolution (130 to 85 to 47 FPS from 1080p to 1440p to 4K), which indicates the CPU is not the constraint. If the CPU were weak, we would see a plateau at higher resolutions, but instead the frame rate continues to drop with pixel count, proving the processor has no influence on the final numbers. The 7900X’s 91st percentile ranking and its close rivals (Intel Core i7-14700F at -0.6%, AMD EPYC 7313P at +0.2%) all sit within a 1% performance band, meaning any of these CPUs would produce identical results in this title. For The Technomancer, the CPU role is purely to stay out of the way, and the 7900X does that with overwhelming authority.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is the decisive component in this pairing, and its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth is the primary constraint. The GPU’s base clock is 1365 MHz with a boost of 1680 MHz, and its 1920 shading units deliver 6.451 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. In The Technomancer, the RTX 2060’s 58th percentile ranking among all GPUs and its average benchmark score of 15290 place it as a mid-range card; its nearest rivals (GTX 580 at 0%, Radeon 680M at 0.1%, RTX 3050 OEM at 0.6%, RX 7600 at 0.8%) all have nearly identical average scores, but the RTX 2060’s 6 GB VRAM is the limiting factor at higher settings. The measured FPS shows a clear pattern: at 1080p High, the combo achieves 85 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra it drops to 66 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it falls to 24 FPS. The 6 GB frame buffer is likely saturated at 4K with High or Ultra textures, causing the steep decline. The GPU’s memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) and 80.64 GPixel/s pixel rate are adequate for 1080p, but at 1440p and 4K, the card’s raw compute and memory bandwidth are stretched thin. The data shows that at 1440p Medium, the average FPS is 65 with a minimum of 55, while at 1440p Ultra it drops to 43 — a 34% penalty that aligns with the increased shading load. The RTX 2060’s 160 W TDP and 1x 8-pin power connector are standard, but the card’s end-of-life status means it lacks the newer features that could help in this title. For The Technomancer, the GPU is the sole determinant of performance: every resolution and settings change produces a proportional FPS shift, confirming that the RTX 2060 is fully utilized while the CPU idles.

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

The resolution scaling data is textbook GPU-bound behavior. At Low settings, the combo delivers 130 FPS at 1080p, 85 FPS at 1440p, and 47 FPS at 4K — a drop of 35% from 1080p to 1440p and a further 45% drop from 1440p to 4K. This is a near-linear scaling with pixel count (1080p has 2.07M pixels, 1440p has 3.69M, 4K has 8.29M), which means the RTX 2060 is the bottleneck at every step. At High settings, the pattern holds: 85 FPS at 1080p, 56 FPS at 1440p (a 34% drop), and 31 FPS at 4K (a 45% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentages across settings proves that the CPU is not involved in the scaling; if the Ryzen 9 7900X were limiting, we would see the FPS gap narrow at higher resolutions, but instead it widens. The most telling data point is at 4K Ultra, where the combo only manages 24 FPS — this is purely a GPU limitation, as the 7900X has more than enough headroom. At Medium settings, the measured minimum FPS values provide additional insight: at 1080p Medium, the minimum is 85 FPS (vs 100 average), at 1440p Medium, the minimum is 55 FPS (vs 65 average), and at 4K Medium, the minimum is 30 FPS (vs 36 average). These minimums show that frame pacing remains stable even under load, which is typical of a GPU-bound scenario where the CPU can feed frames consistently. The 4K Low result of 47 FPS is the only setting that approaches playability at that resolution, but it still represents a 64% drop from 1080p Low. The data strongly indicates that the limiting component is the RTX 2060’s compute and memory bandwidth, not the processor. If the CPU were the constraint, we would see the 1080p and 1440p results cluster together, but instead each resolution step produces a predictable, pixel-count-driven FPS reduction.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific pairing of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 ranks 2911 out of 3696 tested combos in The Technomancer, placing it in the bottom 21% of all configurations. This low ranking is entirely due to the GPU, as the CPU is in the 91st percentile of all processors. The combo rank reflects that most other tested systems in the database pair the RTX 2060 with weaker CPUs, but because the game is GPU-bound, those weaker CPUs do not penalize their scores. The 2911th position means that 785 other combos performed worse, but the vast majority of tested systems (3696 total) outperform this pairing. The RTX 2060’s 58th percentile GPU ranking, when combined with the 7900X’s 91st percentile CPU ranking, creates a massive imbalance — the processor is performing at a tier that is roughly 33 percentile points higher than the graphics card. In practice, this means the combo is wasting the CPU’s potential; the data shows that at 1080p Low, the 130 FPS result is likely near the RTX 2060’s maximum, and any CPU upgrade would yield zero improvement. The nearest rival CPUs to the 7900X (Intel Core i7-14700F at -0.6%, AMD EPYC 7313P at +0.2%) would produce identical combo rankings if paired with the same RTX 2060, because the game does not care about CPU differences. The combo rank of 2911 is a direct reflection of the RTX 2060’s mid-range status; to move up the rankings, a user would need a more powerful GPU, not a different processor. The data shows that this combo is a poor match for a high-refresh-rate monitor at 1440p, as the 1440p High result of 56 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold, but it is a viable 1080p setup for most settings.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, the Medium preset delivers 100 FPS average with a minimum of 85 FPS, which is the best balance of visual quality and smoothness — the jump from Medium to High costs 15 FPS (100 to 85) while the jump from High to Ultra costs another 19 FPS (85 to 66), so Medium is the sweet spot for maintaining a solid 100 FPS. At 1440p, the Medium preset yields 65 FPS average (minimum 55 FPS), which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced combat; the High preset drops to 56 FPS, which is borderline, and Ultra falls to 43 FPS, which is too low for smooth gameplay. Therefore, at 1440p, Medium is the only acceptable setting if you want to stay above 60 FPS on average, but the 55 FPS minimum suggests occasional dips below 60. At 4K, the Low preset gives 47 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches playability — Medium is 36 FPS, High is 31 FPS, and Ultra is 24 FPS, all of which are too low for action gameplay. The data suggests that 1080p Medium is the recommended configuration for this combo, as it provides the highest frame rate that still maintains a 60+ minimum (85 FPS). If you prefer higher visual fidelity, 1080p High at 85 FPS is acceptable, but the 1440p Medium result of 65 FPS is the best compromise for higher resolution. The measured minimum FPS at 1440p Medium (55) and 1080p Medium (85) indicate that the game is stable at these settings, without severe frame drops. For users with a 60 Hz monitor, 1440p High at 56 FPS is marginally playable, but the 1080p Medium setting is the safest choice for consistent performance across all scenes.

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

The complete measured FPS table for this combo in The Technomancer is as follows:

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 130 FPS average
• Medium: 100 FPS average, 85 FPS minimum, 115 FPS maximum
• High: 85 FPS average
• Ultra: 66 FPS average

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 85 FPS average
• Medium: 65 FPS average, 55 FPS minimum, 75 FPS maximum
• High: 56 FPS average
• Ultra: 43 FPS average

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 47 FPS average
• Medium: 36 FPS average, 30 FPS minimum, 41 FPS maximum
• High: 31 FPS average
• Ultra: 24 FPS average

The data shows a clear pattern: at every resolution, the step from Low to Medium costs roughly 23-30% of the frame rate (130 to 100 at 1080p, 85 to 65 at 1440p, 47 to 36 at 4K). The step from Medium to High costs 15-17% (100 to 85, 65 to 56, 36 to 31). The step from High to Ultra costs 22-23% (85 to 66, 56 to 43, 31 to 24). This consistent scaling indicates that each settings tier imposes a similar relative load on the RTX 2060, regardless of resolution. The minimum FPS values, where available, show that the game maintains stable frame pacing: at 1080p Medium, the minimum is 85 FPS, which is 85% of the average; at 1440p Medium, the minimum is 55 FPS (85% of average); at 4K Medium, the minimum is 30 FPS (83% of average). This consistency suggests no major stuttering or texture streaming issues. The 4K Ultra result of 24 FPS is the worst case, and it is barely above the threshold for a slideshow. For 1080p gaming, all settings are playable, with Low providing a high-refresh-rate experience (130 FPS) and Ultra still hitting 66 FPS. For 1440p, only Low and Medium maintain playable frame rates, with Ultra dropping below 45 FPS. For 4K, only Low is marginally playable at 47 FPS, and Medium at 36 FPS is borderline. The data indicates that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, with 1440p possible only at Medium settings or lower, and 4K reserved for Low settings or non-action scenes.