The Technomancer

The data for the The Technomancer, using an Intel Core i3-12100F paired with an AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, shows a measurable set of 12 FPS results across four settings and three resolutions. The combo ranks 2400th out of 3696 tested configurations, placing it in the lower portion of the field, but the measured frame rates reveal a blend of CPU and GPU dependence that can be tuned to playable levels. The following sections break down resolution scaling, component contributions, and the practical settings that get the best out of this hardware.

Resolution Scaling

At 1080p High the combo delivers an average of 97 FPS. Stepping up to 1440p High drops that to 63 FPS, a 35% reduction. Moving to 3840 x 2160 High yields just 35 FPS, only 36% of the 1080p figure. This pattern is consistent across all presets: Low goes from 148 → 97 → 53, Medium goes from 114 → 74 → 41, and Ultra drops from 76 → 50 → 27. The ratios are remarkably uniform — every preset ends up at roughly 35-36% of its 1080p value at 4K. Since 4K has four times the pixel count of 1080p, a perfectly pixel-bound performance would yield 25% of the original FPS; instead we see 36%, which is more than a latency away from perfect scaling. This means the frame time is not purely dominated by pixel throughput – there is a fixed CPU overhead per frame that becomes more visible at higher resolutions relative to the GPU load.

The step from 1440p to 1080p shows less aggressive scaling: High goes 63 → 97 (increase of 54% for a pixel count 1.78x smaller), which suggests the GPU has headroom at the lower resolution, allowing the CPU to keep the frame pool topped up. The real bottleneck emerges at 4K, where every preset falls below 60 FPS, with Medium averaging 41 and High just 35. Only the Low preset manages a playable 53 FPS at 4K, which is still under the desired 60 mark. The data indicates that the graphics card becomes the limiting factor at 4K, while at 1080p the processor can keep all presets above 76 FPS, pointing to a more balanced system at lower resolutions.

CPU Role

The Core i3-12100F is a 4‑core, 8‑thread part with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost of 4.30 GHz. It carries a shared 12 MB L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 11860 in Cinebench R23 multi‑core and 1674 in single‑core, with a PassMark multi‑thread score of 14015 and a single‑thread of 3444. These numbers place it at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, a fairly strong showing for a mainstream chip. Its nearest rivals – the Intel Core 3 N355, Core i5‑9500, Core 5 120UL and Core i7‑1250U – sit within a 1.1% margin of its average benchmark score of 13494.

In this game, the 12100F’s four cores and eight threads appear to be sufficient. At 1080p, even the Ultra preset holds an average of 76 FPS, and the Low preset hits 148 FPS, which indicates the CPU is not leaving performance on the table at that resolution. The tight scaling from 1080p to 1440p and 4K for all presets suggests that the GPU becomes the dominant limit at higher pixel counts, but when the GPU is lulled (like at 1080p), the 12100F can push high frame rates. The single‑core score of 1674 in Cinebench R23 suggests that the CPU’s cores are fast enough to avoid becoming a bottleneck in typical action‑RPG scenarios, where single‑threaded logic often matters.

Its 4‑core/8‑thread design is similar to many gaming processors from a few years ago, and the data shows that the 12100F holds its own in this title. The fact that the max FPS is not recorded for most presets means we only have average figures, but the presence of 1080p Low at 148 FPS suggests that the CPU can feed high aggregate with headroom, likely good enough to keep mid‑range 144 Hz monitors busy.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7nm process. It has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with a base clock of 2055 MHz, boost of 2635 MHz, and game clock of 2410 MHz. The 128‑bit memory bus carries 8 GB of GDDR6 at 17.5 Gbps effective, granting a memory bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s. The card’s PassMark G3D score is 17166, and its average reference benchmark score is 19765, placing it at the 65th percentile. Its closest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (score 19885, 0.6% lower), AMD FirePro D300 (19637, 0.7% higher), AMD FirePro W7000 (19905, 0.7% lower), and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19602, 0.8% higher). The 6650 XT thus occupies a solid mid‑range spot in the database, a result consistent with its positioning.

The FPS results underscore the GPU’s role. At 1080p, it achieves 148 on Low and 97 on High, which translates to average frame times of around 6.8 ms and 10.3 ms respectively. At 1440p, the High preset still produces 63 FPS, and at 4K the card struggles – the Ultra preset drops to 27 FPS, and High manages 35. The memory capacity of 8 GB is within the usage of this title, since even at 4K the game does not appear to exceed VRAM capacity (based on the playable frame rates). The resource of the compute is not the 2048 shaders; the pixel binding at 4K is the big cost. The ROP count of 64 limits the pixel fill rate, and at 4K the card’s raw pixel throughput is the primary determinant.

The performance scaling from 1080p to 4K is smoother, so the 6650 XT can handle the game well at 1080p and 1440p with High or Medium settings, but a like that at 2160p is out of its league of the data.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of the i3‑12100F and RX 6650 XT lands at position 2400 out of 3696 total combinations tested for The Technomancer. That places it in the lower 65th percentile of the database, meaning two‑thirds of the other pairs we have measured for this game outperform it. The 65th percentile is a ordinary rank, but it is not the worst possible, as 1296 combos sit below this one. The rank likely stems from the CPU being a six‑year‑old budget core and the GPU being a mid‑range part from 2022; while neither is top‑end, the combination can still produce playable frames in many situations. Comparing to the nearest rivals uses the exact CPU scores: the 12100F's average benchmark score of 13494 is about 45% above the Core i3‑7050 (which is not even a rival) but is literally neck‑and‑neck with the Core processor N355 (13492, 0% difference), the Core i5‑9500 (13452, 0.3% higher), and within 1.1% of the Core i7‑1250U. On the GPU side, the RX 6650 XT's 19765 is only 0.6% off the Tesla K40m. These two components, each at about the 65‑68th percentile among their own peer groups, combine to achieve a rank that is far lower than either percentile, suggesting that the game itself does not favor this pairing heavily. The scaling data shows that the bottleneck shifts to the GPU at high resolution, and while the CPU does not drag the GPU down at 1080p, the overall performance is still not near the top tiers. The user looking for a 1440p High experience at 63 FPS is getting a decent result, but those wanting 4K60 will need a much stronger GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The table below lists all measured FPS values. Min and max are available only for Medium presets; other rows have no min/max indicated.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

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

| 1920x1080 | Low | 148 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 114 | 97 | 131 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 97 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 76 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 97 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 74 | 63 | 85 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 63 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 50 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 53 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 41 | 35 | 47 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 35 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 27 | – | – |

At 1080p, all presets produce at least 76 FPS, meaning a 144 Hz refresh display is within reach for most of the time. The Medium row shows a minimum of 97 FPS, so frame dips stay high. At 1440p, only Medium and High clear 60 FPS, with Low at 97 and High at 63 – Ultra falls to 50. At 4K, no preset hits 60 FPS; Low is closest at 53, and Medium drops to 41 with a min of 35, a minimum that falls below 40 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

The goal is to keep the frame rate above 60 average for smooth play. From the measured data, the only way to do that at 1440p is to use the High preset (63 FPS) or the Medium preset (74 FPS). At 1080p, any preset works, but the Medium preset gives 114 average with a 97 FPS minimum, which is a good balance of visual fidelity and fluidity. The Low preset at 1080p offers 148 FPS for strong responsiveness, but the visual quality loss may not be worth it. The Ultra preset at 1440p – 50 FPS – is borderline if you accept a tearning to a 50 FPS PP. At 4K, no setting reaches 60 FPS; the best is Low at 53 FPS, which is playable but under the target. Consequently, the recommendation for this hardware is to run 1080p Medium for a maximum headroom, or 1440p Medium/High if the monitor is 1440p. The inclusion of min ( min) for Medium rows shows that even at 4K Medium, the minimum dip is 35 FPS, which is still fluid enough for many players. For a stable 60 FPS experience, the data suggests using 1440p High, with a 63 FPS average, or 1080p Medium with 114 FPS. If the user does not mind dropping settings, 1440p Low gives 97 FPS, but the visual fidelity reduction is implicit.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset for 1080p?

A: The Medium preset gives an average of 114 FPS with a minimum of 97 FPS, providing both high frame rate and a safety margin. Low is even faster at 148 FPS, but picture quality gains outweigh the extra ~35 FPS in most cases.

Q: Can this combo run 4K at a steady 60 FPS?

A: No. The highest average FPS at 4K is 53 on the Low preset, while Medium gives 41 and High 35. None of the presets reach 60 FPS, so 4K Ultra is off the table.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K?

A: The scaling pattern suggests the GPU is the constraining component. Moving from 1080p to 4K reduces FPS to roughly 36% of the 1080p value across all presets, which is a larger drop than a pure pixel dilution (25%) would dictate. This shows that the 6650 XT’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are not sufficient for 4K in this title.

Q: How does the CPU score compare to its closest rivals?

A: The i3‑12100F’s average benchmark score of 13494 is 0% above the Core 3 N355, 0.3% lower than Core i5‑9500, 0.7% higher than Core 5 120UL, and 1.1% lower than Core i7‑1250U. This places it right in the middle of its immediate tier.

Q: What is the best resolution for a 1440p monitor?

A: At 1440p, the High preset produces 63 FPS, and Medium gives 74 FPS. The Medium is the better choice if you prefer a fluid 73.9 average with a minimum of 63, while High still plays comfortably. If you want higher frame rates, switching to 1080p is the only option.

Q: Which settings generate the highest minimum FPS?

A: The three Medium presets have recorded min FPS: 97 (1080p), 63 (1440p), and 35 (4K). The other presets do not have a reported minimum. Among all measured rows, the 1080p Medium minimum of 97 FPS is the highest.