The Technomancer

The combination of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 processor and the integrated AMD Radeon 760M GPU produces consistently low frame rates in The Technomancer, with the measured data showing no preset or resolution reaching 60 frames per second. The data places this configuration in the bottom 1% of all tested combos, clearly establishing that the integrated GPU is the primary constraint in this action RPG.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a 16‑core, 32‑thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. It carries a large 64 MB L3 cache and a 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth over a quad‑channel LPDDR5X interface. In terms of raw computing potential, the CPU sits at the 95th percentile among all processors tested, with an average benchmark score of 77,740 points across all tests. Its nearest rivals show how closely it tracks the top‑performing desktop chips: it is 1.6% faster than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, 1.7% slower than the Intel Core i9‑14900K, and 2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX.

That level of raw CPU performance, however, does not translate into playable frame rates in this game. The measured results show that this CPU is never the limiting component: even at the lowest resolution and preset, the FPS numbers remain far below what the CPU could theoretically support. This indicates that the game’s frame rate is almost entirely governed by the graphics subsystem, and the strong multi‑core and single‑core scores are not the decisive factor here.

At 1080p Low, the configuration delivers 48 FPS, which is the highest average across any tested setting. If one compares the FPS at the same settings across different resolutions, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly one‑third (e.g., 48→32, 37→24, 32→21, 25→16). This linear scaling is typical of a GPU‑bound scenario, not a CPU‑limited one, because the CPU load is relatively unchanged while the pixel count rises. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395’s impressive benchmark numbers (e.g., 35,314 in Cinebench R23 multi‑core, 2,044 in single‑core) further confirm that a slower CPU would not have changed the outcome—the bottleneck lies elsewhere.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on which preset gives the best playable experience. At 1920×1080, the highest average is from the Low preset: 48 FPS. The Medium preset yields 37 FPS, High 32 FPS, and Ultra only 25 FPS. For a 60 FPS target, no preset at 1080p reaches that mark, but if the standard is to stay above 30 FPS, both Low and Medium meet it. Low and Medium also produce a minimum of 32 (the min FPS for Medium) versus a Low min that isn’t listed but the average suggests it is >30. However, since the user typically seeks a consistent frame rate, we must pick the lowest preset to get the least variance—though the data only provides exact min/max values for Medium (min 32, max 43), which shows a variability of 11 FPS. For a choppy experience, the difference between 48 and 37 is about a 23% drop when moving from Low to Medium.

At 1440p, only the Low preset breaks the 30 FPS mark, with 32 FPS, while Medium and High drop to 24 and 21, and Ultra plummets to 16. At 2160p (4K), all presets fall to 17 or fewer FPS, with Low the only one above 15. Therefore, the only practical choice for a fluid experience is the Low preset at 1080p: all other configurations offer frame rates that are likely to feel sluggish in a fast‑paced action RPG. Medium at 1080p is borderline acceptable for players who tolerate 30–40 FPS, but the frame rate stability is not guaranteed since the max FPS is 43 (from the Medium row). The Ultra preset at any resolution produces an average barely above 20, which is unplayable for a game that reacts to player input.

The data strongly indicates that this integrated GPU cannot handle the visual load of The Technomancer’s Ultra or High settings at any resolution. The most sensible choice is the Low preset at 1920×1080, which offers the only combination that approaches 50 FPS. Lowering the resolution to 1440p with Low achieves 32 FPS, and 4K is not a feasible target.

Resolution Scaling

Frame rates drop sharply as resolution increases, confirming that the integrated GPU’s fill‑rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factor. At the Medium preset, the 1080p→1440p→4K sequence is 37 FPS → 24 FPS → 13 FPS. This is a drop of ~35% from 1080p to 1440p, then another ~46% from 1440p to 4K, resulting in 65% lower FPS at 4K compared to 1080p. For the Low preset, the numbers are 48 → 32 → 17, a 33% drop to 1440p and a 65% drop to 4K. High settings go from 32 → 21 → 11 (34% and 66% drops), while Ultra yields 25 → 16 → 9 (36% and 64% drops). In all cases, the FPS level at 4K is just a quarter of the 1080p value. The pixel count at 4K is exactly four times that of 1080p; the observed reduction is close to a factor of four (e.g., 48→17 = 2.8× decrement), which aligns with a purely GPU‑limited renderer where the CPU is always waiting.

The scaling pattern also shows that the GPU’s microarchitecture does not have enough shading power to sustain a stable frame rate even at 1080p. The differences between 1080p and 1440p are approximately 33%–35% across all settings, matching the ~1.78× pixel increase between these resolutions. As the resolution doubles (from 1440 to 2160), frame rates plummet by over 50%, with Low falling from 32 to 17 (a 47% reduction) and High from 21 to 11 (48% lower). These ratios are consistent with a fill‑rate limitation, not a thermal or CPU‑related limitation, and they confirm the integrated GPU is the main component scaling with pixel load.

FAQ

Q: Can this combination run The Technomancer at 1080p with acceptable frame rates?

A: The measured data shows that at 1920×1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 48 FPS, Medium gives 37 FPS, High 32 FPS, and Ultra 25 FPS. None of these reach 60 FPS, but Low is the only preset that exceeds 45 FPS, while Medium falls just below the commonly accepted “playable” threshold of 40 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution and preset combo according to the data?

A: Based on the measured rows, a 1920×1080 Low preset produces the highest average FPS (48 FPS) across the entire test set. At 2560×1440, the Low preset yields 32 FPS, and at 3840×2160 the Low preset yields 17 FPS. The most consistent to get a better experience is to keep the resolution at 1080p and choose Low.

Q: Is the CPU too weak for this game?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs and outperforms the Intel Core i9‑14900K by 1.7% (it is 1.7% faster than the i9‑14900K, as indicated by a positive delta). Since the frame rates are uniformly low across resolutions and settings, the heavy computational load of the game does not appear to stress the CPU to its limits. The GPU’s limited output is the main obstacle.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested hardware in the same game?

A: According to the combo rank field, this configuration ranks 3,684 out of 3,696 combined test setups, meaning it is worse than 99.7% of all measured combinations. Only 12 combinations achieve slower average frame rates in this game, underscoring the graphics chip’s severe underperformance.

Q: At what resolution does this combo hit 30 FPS consistently?

A: Only at 1080p Low does the average FPS exceed 30, with 48 measured. 1440p Low (32 FPS) is technically above 30 as well. At 4K, no preset even reaches 20 FPS, with the Low giving 17 FPS.

Q: How much performance is gained by lowering settings from Ultra to Low?

A: At 1080p, moving from Ultra to Low increases the average FPS from 25 to 48 (an 92% improvement). At 1440p, from 15 to 32 (a 117% improvement), and at 4K, from 9 to 17 (an 89% improvement). The relative gain is substantial across all resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, featuring 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a boost clock of 2599 MHz. Its FP32 throughput is 5.323 TFLOPS, and it relies on system memory for the VRAM (“System Shared”) because it has no dedicated VRAM of its own. The chip’s overall performance puts it in only the 35th percentile among all tested GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6,019. In nearest‑rival terms, the Radeon 760M is 0.3% behind an AMD Radeon RX 6400 and 0.3% behind a GeForce GTX 770M, while being 0.5% ahead of a Quadro P2000 (deltaPct -0.5 for Quadro P2000). Those close comparisons indicate that the integrated GPU operates at the same level as older low‑end discrete solutions.

In The Technomancer, this GPU’s lack of dedicated VRAM and low pixel fill rate severely limits the frame output. The measured FPS data make this clear: even at 1080p Low, the GPU only achieves 48 FPS, which is barely above the typical console‑ready 30 FPS target but still far from modern expectations. The GPU’s memory bandwidth is system‑dependent, meaning it shares the system memory with the CPU, which further reduces effective throughput during gameplay. With only 16 ROPs and a small number of TMUs, the chip simply cannot handle the render requirements of a game that pushes higher geometry counts and certain visual effects.

The GPU’s performance percentile (35th) means that it falls behind most dedicated graphics cards sold after 2016, and its benchmark results — such as a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 400 and PassMark G–3D score of 5,310 — place it in the entry‑level integrated range. Because the CPU has a strong 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth spec, the weakest link is the graphics engine, not the CPU memory subsystem. The physics and shading tasks that the GPU does handle are bottlenecked by its limited number of compute units (512 shading units).

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table lists all measured averages across the three tested resolutions and four presets, based on the data recorded for this configuration:

| Resolution | Preset | Average FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

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

| 3840×2160 | High | 11 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 17 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 13 | 11 | 15 |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 9 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | High | 21 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 32 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 24 | 21 | 28 |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 16 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | High | 32 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Low | 48 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 37 | 32 | 43 |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 25 | – | – |

(– indicates that min and max FPS were not recorded for those presets.)

The data at 1080p reveals the most playable range: Low hits a 48 FPS average, Medium drops to 37, and High to 32, with Ultra falling to 25. At 1440p, the averages drop to 32 (Low), 24 (Medium), 21 (High), and 16 (Ultra). Finally, at 4K, the numbers drop to a single digit of 9–17 FPS across all settings. The min‑max rows for Medium show that 1080p runs only fluctuate between 32 and 43 FPS, while 1440p has a range of 21–28 FPS, and 4K between 11 and 15 FPS.

These numbers show that any increase in resolution—even a single step from 1080p to 1440p—shrinks the average FPS by 29 to 33%. The 4K class is effectively unplayable, with the Medium preset losing to 13 FPS. At no point does the configuration hit 60 FPS, indicating that this hardware is intended for low‑burden or scale‑down applications rather than this demanding action RPG.

How This Combo Ranks

In the comprehensive testing database for The Technomancer, this paired CPU and GPU configuration is ranked 3,684 out of all 3,696 tested combinations. That places it in the 99th percentile for slowest performance—better than only 12 other combos, meaning it is near the very bottom of the pile. This is a significant finding because the CPU alone—the Ryzen AI Max+ 395—is top‑tier, ranking in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The stark contrast between the CPU’s high rank and the combo’s overall rank underscores how the GPU is dragging the entire configuration downwards. The GPU itself is in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, also below average.

Given that the test data is measured (the field `dataIsMeasured` is true), these numbers reflect real‑world performance on this computer. The nearest competitor combos would have to already appear in the database; the rungs with just a 0.3% performance difference to the Radeon 760M (like the RX 6400, GTX 770M, RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server) all render this game at similar rates. It is clear that to improve the experience, a different graphics solution—either a dedicated GPU or a more powerful integrated graphics—would be necessary. However, within this system’s design, the results are what they are: a very capable CPU wasted on an integrated GPU that cannot keep pace with The Technomancer’s render demands at any resolution above 1080p.