The Technomancer

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D + Intel Arc B370 combo in The Technomancer?

A: The combo ranks 3408 out of 3696 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems. This indicates a severely GPU-limited configuration for this title, as the Arc B370's average benchmark score sits at just 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What frame rates can a player expect at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 55 FPS, with minimums of 47 FPS and maximums of 63 FPS. This is the only setting tier where the combo approaches a playable 60 FPS average, though the frame time variance suggests occasional dips below ideal smoothness.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 9 9950X3D scores an average of 75779 across all CPU benchmarks. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, scores 75738, a mere 0.1% difference. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 trails by 0.4%, scoring 75488. The data shows the 9950X3D is effectively tied with these competitors.

Q: Does the GPU have enough VRAM for high-resolution gaming in this title?

A: The Intel Arc B370 uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it draws from system RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. Its memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent." The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (13 FPS) versus 1080p Ultra (37 FPS) suggests that memory bandwidth constraints become increasingly severe as resolution rises.

Q: What is the GPU's synthetic benchmark score and how does it rank?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival is the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186 (0.2% faster), while the AMD FirePro M2000 trails at 1168 (1.4% slower).

Q: Is the CPU's massive 128 MB L3 cache beneficial in this game?

A: Despite the CPU's 128 MB L3 cache and 16 cores, the measured frame rates remain low across all resolutions, indicating the CPU is not the limiting factor. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking and 25W TDP strongly suggest that graphics processing, not CPU cache, determines performance here.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the dominant bottleneck in this configuration. Its architecture is Xe3-LPG built on Intel's 3 nm process, featuring 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. The GPU operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz, producing a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 6.144 TFLOPS, which is modest by modern standards.

The Arc B370's memory configuration is unusual—it uses "System Shared" memory rather than dedicated VRAM, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This means the GPU relies on the CPU's DDR5 dual-channel memory bus, which has a theoretical bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. In practice, sharing this bus with the 16-core CPU creates contention that likely worsens performance in memory-intensive scenes.

The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals are all older cards: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192. The Arc B370 outperforms only the AMD FirePro M2000 among its listed neighbors, and only by 1.4%. This context is crucial: the GPU is competing with hardware from over a decade ago.

The measured FPS data confirms the GPU's limitations. At 1080p Ultra, the combo manages 37 FPS average. At 4K Ultra, this collapses to 13 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra settings at 1440p (31 to 24 FPS) shows that the GPU's shading and ROP throughput cannot handle the increased pixel workload of higher presets. The 20 ROPs are particularly limiting for fill-rate-bound scenarios, which explains the steep scaling penalties.

The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, meaning it has modern API support despite its low absolute performance. However, The Technomancer, released in 2016, predates some of these optimizations. The data suggests that the game's rendering paths may not be leveraging the GPU efficiently, but the low raw scores indicate fundamental hardware limits rather than software inefficiencies alone.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS reveals a clear and consistent scaling pattern across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 71 FPS average. At 1440p Low, this drops to 47 FPS, a 33.8% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 26 FPS, representing a 63.4% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This scaling is steeper than what a purely GPU-bound scenario would typically show, suggesting that the memory subsystem's "System Dependent" bandwidth is exacerbating the resolution penalty.

For Medium settings, the progression is 55 FPS (1080p) → 36 FPS (1440p) → 20 FPS (4K). The 1440p to 4K drop of 44.4% is particularly steep. The High preset shows 47 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset shows 37 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K. Across all settings, the 1080p to 4K scaling factor is roughly 0.35 to 0.37, meaning 4K performance is about one-third of 1080p performance.

This scaling pattern indicates that the limiting component is the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth. The 20 ROPs and 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate cannot keep up with the pixel count at higher resolutions. The fact that the CPU is a top-tier 16-core processor with a 95th percentile ranking (avg benchmark score 75779) means CPU overhead is negligible. The data points to a classic GPU-bound scenario where resolution increases directly translate to proportional FPS drops.

The minimum FPS data at Medium settings also shows the impact of resolution. At 1080p, the minimum is 47 FPS; at 1440p, it drops to 30 FPS; at 4K, it falls to 17 FPS. The maximum FPS scales similarly: 63 → 41 → 23. The narrowing range at higher resolutions (16 FPS spread at 1080p, 11 FPS at 1440p, 6 FPS at 4K) suggests that as resolution increases, the GPU becomes so saturated that frame times stabilize at consistently low levels, reducing variance.

The implication is clear: this combo is only viable at 1080p. The 1440p results are borderline unplayable for most settings, and 4K is entirely impractical. The data shows that the GPU's performance ceiling is reached well before the CPU's capabilities are ever stressed.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear picture of which settings offer the best experience. At 1080p, the Low preset achieves 71 FPS average, the highest of any configuration tested. The Medium preset drops to 55 FPS, a 22.5% reduction, but still maintains a playable framerate with minimums of 47 FPS. High yields 47 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 37 FPS.

For players prioritizing smoothness, the 1080p Low preset is the only configuration that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS. However, the 1080p Medium setting at 55 FPS average with a 47 FPS minimum may be the better trade-off between visual quality and performance. The data shows that Medium at 1080p maintains a minimum above 45 FPS, which is generally considered the threshold for acceptable playability in action RPGs.

At 1440p, the Low preset delivers 47 FPS average, which is marginal. Medium drops to 36 FPS, and the minimum of 30 FPS suggests frequent stutters. The High preset at 31 FPS and Ultra at 24 FPS are not recommended for any gameplay scenario. The 4K results are uniformly poor: the best case is Low at 26 FPS, which is below playable thresholds.

The Medium preset at 1080p appears to be the sweet spot. It provides a 55 FPS average with a 47 FPS minimum, which is the highest minimum FPS of any setting that also offers moderate visual fidelity. The alternative, Low at 71 FPS, sacrifices visual quality for a smoother experience, but the 16 FPS gain may not justify the visual downgrade.

The Ultra preset at any resolution is not viable. At 1080p, it achieves 37 FPS, which is below the 40 FPS threshold for most action games. The data suggests that the GPU's 20 ROPs cannot handle the additional pixel shading and post-processing effects that Ultra presets typically enable. The Medium preset's 55 FPS with a 47 FPS minimum represents the most balanced experience available in this dataset.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 3408 out of 3696 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 8% of all systems. This ranking is consistent with the GPU's 5th percentile performance. The CPU, by contrast, ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, creating a massive imbalance. The data shows that this pairing is heavily skewed toward CPU performance, which the game does not utilize effectively.

The GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are all older ATI and AMD cards: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192). The Arc B370's score of 1184 places it within 0.7% of these cards. This means the GPU is performing at a level comparable to entry-level discrete GPUs from 2010-2011.

The CPU's nearest rivals show a different story. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 scores 75738, just 0.1% behind the 9950X3D's 75779. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D scores 75716 (0.1% behind), and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 75488 (0.4% behind). The 9950X3D is essentially tied with these CPUs, meaning the processor is not the differentiator in this combo's low ranking.

The rank of 3408 out of 3696 indicates that the vast majority of tested combos outperform this pairing in The Technomancer. The game's 2016 release date means it was likely optimized for the GPU architectures of that era. The Arc B370's modern Xe3-LPG architecture and low absolute performance create a mismatch. The data suggests that even mid-range GPUs from the game's release period would outperform this combo, given the 5th percentile GPU ranking.

This ranking has practical implications. Players using this combo would experience performance in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, which aligns with the measured FPS being below 30 at most settings above 1080p Low. The combo is not competitive for this game, and the data reflects a fundamental hardware mismatch.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset provides 12 measured configurations: four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) at three resolutions (1080p, 1440p, 4K). The complete breakdown is as follows:

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 71 FPS average
• Medium: 55 FPS average, 47 FPS minimum, 63 FPS maximum
• High: 47 FPS average
• Ultra: 37 FPS average

1440p (2560x1440):

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

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 26 FPS average
• Medium: 20 FPS average, 17 FPS minimum, 23 FPS maximum
• High: 17 FPS average
• Ultra: 13 FPS average

The Medium settings are the only rows with minimum and maximum values, which provides insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the spread is 16 FPS (47-63), indicating moderate variance. At 1440p Medium, the spread narrows to 11 FPS (30-41). At 4K Medium, the spread is just 6 FPS (17-23). This narrowing spread at higher resolutions indicates the GPU is becoming the sole bottleneck, reducing frame time variation.

The scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution is also telling. At 1080p, the drop from Low to Ultra is 34 FPS (71 to 37), a 47.9% reduction. At 1440p, the drop is 23 FPS (47 to 24), a 48.9% reduction. At 4K, the drop is 13 FPS (26 to 13), a 50.0% reduction. The consistent ~50% reduction from Low to Ultra across resolutions indicates that the settings scaling is uniform, but the absolute performance is so low that even the best case remains marginal.

The data shows that the combo achieves 60+ FPS in only one configuration: 1080p Low. The next best is 1080p Medium at 55 FPS. All other configurations fall below 50 FPS, with most below 40 FPS. The 4K configurations are uniformly below 30 FPS, which is generally considered unplayable for action RPGs. The 1440p configurations range from 24 to 47 FPS, making only Low settings potentially playable.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge codename). It has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. The CPU features 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and a substantial 128 MB of L3 cache. It uses the AM5 socket and supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a theoretical bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

The CPU's benchmark results are exceptional. It scores 42018 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 2259 in single-core. Geekbench scores are 26736 multicore and 3064 single-core. The 3DMark 16-thread test shows 16374, while max threads score 17184. PassMark multithread score is 70255, with single-thread at 4737. The average benchmark score of 75779 places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs.

The nearest rivals confirm the CPU's top-tier status. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 scores 75738 (0.1% lower), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D scores 75716 (0.1% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 75488 (0.4% lower). The 9950X3D's 128 MB L3 cache and 16 cores give it a slight edge, but the deltas are minimal.

In The Technomancer, the CPU's role appears to be minimal. The measured FPS data shows that performance scales almost entirely with resolution and settings, which are GPU-bound variables. The CPU's massive core count and cache do not translate to higher frame rates because the game does not appear to be CPU-limited at any tested configuration. The fact that 1080p Low achieves 71 FPS while 1080p Ultra achieves 37 FPS indicates the GPU is the bottleneck.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s is shared with the GPU, which uses "System Shared" memory. This sharing could create a secondary bottleneck, as the GPU's memory bandwidth is "System Dependent." The CPU's dual-channel DDR5 support provides adequate bandwidth for the CPU alone, but when the GPU also draws from the same memory pool, contention could arise. However, the data does not show evidence of CPU-side stalls; the frame rates are consistently low across all settings, pointing to the GPU's raw compute limits.

The 9950X3D's 16 cores and 32 threads are far more than The Technomancer likely requires, given its 2016 release date. The game was designed for the CPU and GPU architectures of that era. The CPU's 95th percentile ranking means it is not the limiting factor; rather, the 5th percentile GPU is the clear bottleneck. The data suggests that pairing this CPU with a stronger GPU would yield significantly higher frame rates, but that configuration is outside the scope of this measured dataset.