The Technomancer

The Technomancer is an Action RPG from 2016 that still presents a meaningful challenge to modern hardware at higher resolutions and settings. The combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 produces a mixed bag of results, ranging from highly playable at 1080p to borderline at 4K. The data available shows a system that is clearly capable, but one where the balance between CPU and GPU shifts significantly depending on how you configure the game. This analysis breaks down exactly what each component brings to the table and how their combined performance translates into the measured frame rates.

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

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor from the Core 12th Gen series, built on the Alder Lake architecture using a 10 nm process node. Its base clock is 3.30 GHz and it boosts up to 4.30 GHz. The processor has a TDP of 58 W and fits into the Intel Socket 1700. Its cache configuration includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 12 MB L3 cache. The CPU supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a dual-channel memory bus, and it provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the CPU.

Looking at its synthetic benchmark scores, the i3-12100F shows solid single-threaded and multi-threaded capability for its class. In Cinebench R23, it scores 1674 in single-core and 11860 in multi-core. The Geekbench scores are 1932 single-core and 7252 multi-core. The 3DMark tests reveal a pattern: 2-thread score is 1659, 4-thread score is 2859, 8-thread score is 4026, and 16-thread score is 4051, with max threads at 4023. This plateau after 8 threads confirms that the 4-core/8-thread design is the ceiling, and additional threads beyond that do not yield further gains. PassMark single-thread is 3444 and multi-thread is 14015, with integer math at 40978 and floating point math at 31977.

In terms of its standing, the i3-12100F sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13494. Its nearest rivals show how close the competition is at this level. The Intel Core 3 N355 matches it with an average score of 13492 and a deltaPct of 0. The Intel Core i5-9500 is just 0.3% behind at 13452. The Intel Core 5 120UL is 0.7% ahead at 13594, and the Intel Core i7-1250U is 1.1% ahead at 13351. These numbers indicate that the i3-12100F is a very consistent performer, trading blows with a range of other processors across different generations and power classes.

For The Technomancer, the CPU's role is primarily about maintaining a stable frame rate floor. With 4 cores and 8 threads, it is not a high-core-count part, but its strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core of 1674) suggests it can handle the game's core logic without becoming a bottleneck in most situations. The benchmark results show that at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 157 FPS average. The fact that this number is so high indicates that the CPU is not limiting the system at that resolution and settings level. The 8-thread score of 4026 and the max thread score of 4023 being nearly identical reinforce that the processor is fully utilized at 8 threads and that the game likely does not need more than that to run well. The CPU's performance in data compression (PassMark 160452) and encryption (8071) are not directly relevant to gaming, but they paint a picture of a chip that handles general processing tasks efficiently.

The launch MSRP for the i3-12100F is $97, which places it as an entry-level desktop part, but the performance data shows it holds its own against more expensive options in several benchmarks. For a game like The Technomancer, the CPU is unlikely to be the primary limiting factor at most settings. The bottleneck analysis will come later, but the CPU's strong single-thread showing and its ability to push high frame rates at 1080p Low suggest it is more than adequate for this title's requirements. The data shows that the CPU's performance headroom is there, and it will only become a significant constraint if the GPU is fast enough to demand extremely high frame rates, which the RX 9060 is not consistently able to do at higher resolutions.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is a member of the Radeon RX 9000 series, built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 44 chip, codenamed Strix Point. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC, packing 29,700 million transistors into a 199 mm² die. The GPU's base clock is 1700 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz and a boost clock of 2990 MHz. The memory operates at 2250 MHz, which translates to 18 Gbps effective. It comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The GPU has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, along with 28 RT cores. Its theoretical performance includes a pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 334.9 GTexel/s, and 21.43 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. The TDP is 132 W, it is a dual-slot card, and it requires a single 8-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 300 W. It interfaces via PCIe 5.0 x16 and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RX 9060 shows a wide range of results. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3322, which is a modern test. Geekbench OpenCL is 88183 and Vulkan is 39476. PassMark G3D is 17631, with G2D at 1002, and GPU compute at 9919. The DirectX tests show lower numbers, with DirectX 11 at 182 and DirectX 12 at 44, but these are older tests and not indicative of real-world gaming performance in the same way as the G3D score. The GPU sits at the 59th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 16014.

Its nearest rivals provide context. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti is 0.7% ahead with an average score of 16129. The AMD Radeon R9 370X and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 are both 1% behind at 15862 and 15852, respectively. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is 2.1% behind at 15679. This places the RX 9060 in a competitive position, roughly on par with an RTX 3060 Ti in average synthetic performance, which is a strong indicator for its gaming capability.

For The Technomancer, the GPU's 8 GB of VRAM is a key consideration. At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the Ultra setting only manages 29 FPS average, while High gets 37 FPS, Medium 43 FPS, and Low 56 FPS. The VRAM capacity and the 128-bit bus could be a limiting factor at 4K, as the game likely requires more memory bandwidth and capacity for higher textures and resolutions. The boost clock of 2990 MHz is high, and the 21.43 TFLOPS of FP32 performance suggests the GPU has raw compute power, but the memory subsystem may hold it back in this specific title at high resolutions. At 2560x1440, the results are much healthier, with Low at 102 FPS, Medium at 79 FPS, High at 67 FPS, and Ultra at 52 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is more comfortable at 1440p, where the memory pressure is lower. At 1920x1080, the GPU shines, with Low at 157 FPS, Medium at 120 FPS, High at 103 FPS, and Ultra at 80 FPS. These numbers suggest that the RX 9060 is a 1080p and 1440p card for this game, with 4K being a stretch that requires lower settings to be playable.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 is ranked 1632 out of 2825 tested combos in The Technomancer. This places it in the top 58% of all tested systems, which is a solid mid-pack result. It is not a top-tier combo, but it is certainly not a weak one either. The rank of 1632 out of 2825 means there are about 1193 combos that perform worse and about 1631 that perform better.

This ranking makes sense given the individual component performance. The i3-12100F is a capable budget CPU, and the RX 9060 is a mid-range GPU. Together, they form a system that is well-balanced for 1080p and 1440p gaming but lacks the power for high-refresh 4K. The fact that this combo ranks in the middle of the pack suggests that many other combinations with stronger CPUs or GPUs will outperform it, but it also means that a significant number of systems will be slower. The data shows that this is a practical pairing for a gamer on a moderate budget who is targeting 1080p or 1440p gameplay. The combo's position in the rankings is a direct reflection of the measured FPS results, which show strong performance at lower resolutions and a sharp drop-off as resolution increases. The ranking is a useful summary, but the detailed FPS breakdown in the next section provides the full picture of what to expect in practice.

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

The measured FPS data is presented across three resolutions and four settings levels for each. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows. With Low settings, the average FPS is 157. Medium settings yield an average of 120 FPS, with a minimum of 102 and a maximum of 138. High settings produce an average of 103 FPS. Ultra settings drop to an average of 80 FPS. There are no minimum or maximum values reported for Low, High, or Ultra at this resolution, only for Medium.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance decreases noticeably but remains playable. Low settings average 102 FPS. Medium settings average 79 FPS, with a minimum of 67 and a maximum of 90. High settings average 67 FPS. Ultra settings average 52 FPS. Again, min and max values are only provided for Medium.

At 3840x2160, the performance takes a significant hit. Low settings average 56 FPS. Medium settings average 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50. High settings average 37 FPS. Ultra settings average 29 FPS. The pattern is clear: as resolution increases, the average FPS drops, and the gap between settings levels also grows.

Looking at the numbers in detail, at 1080p, the jump from Ultra (80 FPS) to Low (157 FPS) represents a 96% increase in average frame rate. At 1440p, the jump from Ultra (52 FPS) to Low (102 FPS) is a 96% increase as well. At 4K, the jump from Ultra (29 FPS) to Low (56 FPS) is a 93% increase. This consistency shows that the GPU is the primary scaling factor with settings changes, and the CPU is not a bottleneck even at the lowest settings where frame rates are highest. The minimum FPS of 102 at 1080p Medium indicates that even in demanding scenes, the frame rate does not drop below 102, which is excellent for smooth gameplay. At 1440p Medium, the minimum of 67 FPS is still above the 60 FPS threshold for most gamers. At 4K Medium, the minimum of 37 FPS is below 60, which will result in noticeable stutter and a less smooth experience. The maximum FPS values follow a similar trend, with 138 at 1080p Medium, 90 at 1440p Medium, and 50 at 4K Medium.

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

The resolution scaling behavior is revealing. At High settings, the average FPS goes from 103 at 1080p, to 67 at 1440p, to 37 at 4K. This represents a 35% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 45% drop from 1440p to 4K. In absolute terms, going from 1080p to 4K at High settings results in a 64% reduction in frame rate, from 103 to 37 FPS.

At Low settings, the drop is even more pronounced in absolute terms. The average FPS goes from 157 at 1080p, to 102 at 1440p, to 56 at 4K. That is a 35% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 45% drop from 1440p to 4K. The percentage drops are nearly identical across settings levels, which strongly suggests that the GPU is the limiting component throughout. If the CPU were the bottleneck, you would expect the frame rates at 1080p Low to be capped at some lower value, and the drop to 4K would be less severe because the GPU workload would increase without the CPU being able to feed it faster. Instead, the frame rates scale almost linearly with the number of pixels, which is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario.

The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system produces 157 FPS, which is a very high frame rate. If the CPU were limiting, you would not see such a high number. The fact that the frame rate continues to climb as resolution decreases indicates that the CPU has headroom to spare. The GPU is doing the heavy lifting, and its performance is directly tied to the resolution. The 8 GB of VRAM on the RX 9060 might also be a factor at 4K, as the game could be hitting memory capacity limits, which would cause a more significant performance drop than pure pixel count would suggest. The 128-bit memory bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth is also modest for 4K gaming, and the measured FPS at 4K reflects this limitation. The conclusion is that the RX 9060 is the dominant factor in this system's performance, and the i3-12100F is more than capable of keeping up.

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

Based on the measured data, the best experience depends on the target resolution and the user's preference for frame rate versus visual quality. The data shows that at 1080p, even Ultra settings provide an average of 80 FPS, which is smooth and playable. High settings at 1080p yield 103 FPS, and Medium provides 120 FPS. For most gamers at 1080p, High settings offer an excellent balance, giving a 30% boost over Ultra (103 vs 80 FPS) with only a modest reduction in visual fidelity. Medium settings push the frame rate to 120 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. Low settings are unnecessary at 1080p, as even Ultra is above 60 FPS.

At 1440p, the situation is different. Ultra settings average 52 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target for many gamers. High settings average 67 FPS, which is above 60 and provides a good experience. Medium settings average 79 FPS, offering a more comfortable margin above 60 FPS. Low settings average 102 FPS, which is excellent for competitive play or for users who prioritize frame rate above all else. For 1440p, High settings are the recommended choice, as they provide a solid 67 FPS average with better visual quality than Medium. If the user prefers a higher frame rate, Medium at 79 FPS is a strong alternative. Ultra at 1440p is playable at 52 FPS but may feel less smooth, so it is only recommended for users who prioritize visual detail over frame rate.

At 4K, the data shows that no preset provides a consistently smooth experience. Ultra averages 29 FPS, High averages 37 FPS, Medium averages 43 FPS, and Low averages 56 FPS. Only Low settings approach the 60 FPS target, and even then, the average is 56 FPS, which is borderline. Medium at 43 FPS is playable but will have noticeable stutter in fast-paced scenes. High and Ultra are not recommended for 4K, as the frame rates are too low for a good experience. For 4K gaming, the user would need to lower the resolution or accept significant compromises in visual quality. The measured data indicates that this combo is best used at 1080p or 1440p, and 4K should be avoided unless the user is willing to play at Low settings and tolerate frame rates below 60 FPS. The best overall experience per the measured rows is at 1440p with High settings, which delivers 67 FPS average and a good balance of visual quality and performance. For 1080p, High settings at 103 FPS is also an excellent choice. The data supports these recommendations clearly.