The Technomancer

The Technomancer, an action RPG that launched on June 27, 2016, still stresses modern hardware in ways that show up clearly in the measured frame times. This analysis pairs the 6-core, 12-thread Intel Core i5-10400F with the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT in the RDNA 3 generation, running the game at Low, Medium, High, and Ultra presets across 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160. The result: this combination lavishes the game at 1080p and 1440p, but the GPU runs out of steam at 4K Ultra, where the average lands far below what a modern gaming screen needs.

Resolution Scaling

Follow the frame averages from 1080p up to 4K and the scaling curve tells a straightforward story about which component takes the lead. At Low preset, 1080p produce 183 frames per second average; 1440p drops that to 137; 4K tumbles down to 76. Stepping up to Medium, the trio reads 162, 106, and 58. At High, the three measured averages are 138, 90, and 50. Ultra, the most demanding setting, ends at 108p? The actual numbers are 108 FPS at 1080p, 70 FPS at 1440p, and 39 FPS at 4K.

The pattern is decisive: every resolution step down, the penalty is bigger as the pixel count grows. At 1080p the gap between the lowest and highest preset is enormous — 183 minus 108 leaves the ultra slider costing roughly 75 frames. At 1440p the same comparison is 137 down to 70, a 67-frame drop. At 4K the entire range from Low to Ultra spans only 37 frames, from 76 to 39. That shrinking margin means the graphics card has become the wall. As the frame output pushes past a GPU-bound resistance, raising presets and climbing pixels overlap heavily. The chip's pixel throughput and texture work are what LSD whatever.

Medium presets show the same pattern from a different angle. At 1080p Medium the average is 162, with worst-measured drop of 137 and a peak of 186. At 1440p Medium the average drops to 106, and the minimum 90 — that minimum is almost identical to what 4K Ultra manages. Moving to 4K Medium, the average 58 and the frame times show a floor of 49 with a ceiling of 67. For a target of 60 FPS, 4K Medium is borderline. The min 49 will be visible on a 60 Hz display. At 4K High the 50 average with no min/max recorded puts it just below the same threshold.

This pattern is classic GPU-limited behavior: performance falls hardest at the boundary between 1440p and 4K. The 1440p numbers still stay high enough for a 144 Hz monitor in every preset except Ultra, which averages 70. 4K, however, is only really comfortable on Low or unsure Medium, and even then the expr indices point to dips.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F brings six physical cores and twelve threads with a 2.90 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost, stored behind a 12 MB shared L3 cache. That is a mainstream desktop chip built on 14 nm Comet Lake, using DDR4 memory at dual-channel bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. For a game released in 2016, this is an automation capable of hosting the frame rate — just it never gets in front of the GPU.

Signs of CPU headroom are visible in the 1080p results. At 1080p Low the combination of this CPU and GPU reaches 183 FPS average, and even at Ultra with heavy visual features that requires no CPU loads, it holds 108. At those FPS values, the CPU is doing the work of moving the frame above the GPU target in pixels. The CPU's raw compute numbers solidify that: the 3D Mark 16-thread score is 4748 and the multi-core throughput reaches 10283 in Cinebench R23. 4-thread score 2560, 2-thread score 1350, and single-threaded 688 in 3D Mark. Those single-thread numbers fine.

Compared with the nearest chips in the same average-score bracket, the i5-10400F is remarkable consistent. The care nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6756E, scores 14163 on average with a delta of 0.2%; the Intel Core 7 160UL is -0.3% away; the AMD EPYC 7552 comes in at +0.5%; the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C sits -0.6%. In other words, across the broad run of compute tasks, the i5-10400F is within one percent of those chips. For an action RPG's AI, physics, and world scripts, that's plenty, and in this game the six cores lead to 105 FPS ceiling than anything else.

Considering measured FPS: the CPU’s job is to keep race rates high. When dropped -66F, the 10400F's boost clock of 4.30 GHz marries broad cores, and game rarely utilises all twelve threads. Single-thread sings and is the most important part of an ancient engine. The benchmarks show it nearly matches Xeon 6756E's average in that field's scope, and given the 65W 6-core design, no thermic bug affects stability.

As a result, the GPU becomes the only meaningful adversary: from 1080p High 138 to 1440p High 90 to 4K High 50, the FPS for 25 minutes per pixel resolution drop. The CPU role there is just to not occupy over a sixteenth of the frame fitness, and it succeeds.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database's results for The Technomancer, this particular pairing lands at rank 1290 out of a field of 3696 tested combos. That position very quickly: it is about equal median among all combos that have been measured for this specific game. the 1290th place is not the absolute top-tier. It doesn't surprise, because the upper ranks almost solely have top-end- and the far-FP in 4K ultra.

What makes rank 1290 notable is the consistent performance at lower resolutions. The GPU’s measure percentile versus all GPUs is 51, which places the Radeon RX 7800 XT right near the overall midpoint when judged on its benchmark average. Yet in a game-era title like this, it yields many others 4K values -GPU worlds are much heavier. The CPU places in a better light with a 68th percentile versus all other processors. So the two components stack together to where the dump jumps up.

Comparing to nearby results, the i5-10400F brings virtually no handicap: per the avg scores within 0.2-0.6% of rivals like the Xeon 6756E and EPYC 7552. On the GPU side, the 7800 XT's closest benchmark rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590, the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, the NVIDIA Tesla K20c, and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT. That group sits -0.5% to 1.8% from the 7800 XT in raw average scoring. In actual game data it doesn't matter for a much older title; the data says that what the video card saves in raw FP32 muscle it spends in pixel fill and memory bandwidth.

In the final ranking, 3696 combos is a large set, and 1290th is solidly ahead of the majority but behind any elite 4K performers. For a 1080p/1440p gamer, this rank understates its merits because those upper combos rely on almost any performance graphics card to reach 4K and 100 FPS, whereas this XT only squeaks by.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Below is the full table of the average, and where captured, the minimum and maximum frame rates from the testing runs.

At 1920x1080:

• Low: 183 FPS average
• Medium: 162 average (range 137–186)
• High: 138 average
• Ultra: 108 average

That set shows a steady step-down as preset increases, with the difference from Low to High being a large, if predictable, 45 FPS. 162 at Medium is already high; note that the minimum frame of 137 on Medium nearly matches the Low's high value, — severe spikes are contained.

At 2560x1440:

• Low: 137 average
• Medium: 106 average (range 90–121)
• High: 90 average
• Ultra: 70 average

1440p remains within comfortable gaming for most displays. Medium 106 sustains a high-refresh experience if the display is 120 Hz; 70 at Ultra is still better than console-era frame rates. The min of 90 at Medium is a strong sign.

At 3840x2160:

• Low: 76 average
• Medium: 58 average (range 49–67)
• High: 50 average
• Ultra: 39 average

4K is all about the GPU. Only Low clears 60 – by a bunch. Medium averages 58, with a floor of 49, so around a quarter of the time at medium the GPU spends under that 60 target. High at 50 average and Ultra at 39 become a clear downward slide, which any 4K display will show.

The arithmetic is simple: 1080p Ultra is 108, 4K Ultra 39. That is a reduction of 69 FPS the moment the resolution quadruples. For a GPU the size of the RX 7800 XT, with high PF, the 4K Ultra is real wear.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is a considerable 16 GB memory card, built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 28,100 million transistors and a 346 mm² die. Its boost clock reaches 2430 MHz, base 1295 MHz, and it carries a 256-bit memory bus yielding 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. With 3840 shading units, 240 texture units, and 96 render outputs, this is a GPU with the execution subunits to push enormous geometry and pixel rates. The FP32 throughput of 37.32 TFLOPS aligns that.

In The Technomancer, the GPU behaves exactly as such power implies. At 1080p it is not the bottleneck — CPU likely determines the final FPS because frame rates stay over 100. Only after the resolution reach level 3840x2160 does the evolution halt. At 4K Ultra the 96 ROP and 233.3 GPixel/s pixel rate are the relevant constraint; the engine must consume about 8 million pixels per frame, and that overwhelms the ExPM and lays the FPS at 39. At 4K Low, with all default, the same GPU 76 FPS because of less per shader work.

The 16 GB framebuffer, which is double flash of most games' needs, so memory capacity is never a concern. More importantly, the 624.1 GB/s bandwidth keeps the 4K texture set streaming quick, and at Medium 4K the average 58 doesn't shake with far memory pressure because everything stays in the frame. Wide 256-bit bus helps erase bandwidth.

Compare the GPU with its nearest benchmark rivals: the GeForce GTX 1660, Radeon Pro 5500M, Tesla K20c, and RX 6500 XT. They differ by a range of -0.5% to 1.8% in synthetic scoring, so the RX 7800 XT and these are nearly on par in those broad tests. However, in The Technomancer the RX 7800 XT's default and extra memory shuffling into far better: there is no memory or fluid cap. The 96 ROPs are enough for such a frame as long as direct uses a high-res. The 60 ray-tracing cores may not be harnessed by this 2016 title, which uses DirectX 12 and Vulkan 1.4, but those include no realtime-ray heavy defaults in this title.

The physical card draws up to 263 W under boost in a dual-slot design with two 8-pin power connectors. That power budget is consequence of the performance, not a, so paired with the 65W CPU it's a compatible. The important figure remains: the GPU’s percentile 51 against all graphics processors contrasts with the CPU's 68, yet during this game's play, the GPU at 4K is the long gender.

FAQ

Q: What is the average frame rate at 1080p Ultra settings?

A: The measurement shows 108 FPS at 1920x1080 with the Ultra preset.

Q: Can this combo handle 1440p at 60 FPS?

A: Yes. The 1440p results are 137 (Low), 106 (Medium), 90 (High), and 70 (Ultra) average FPS, so every preset stays above 60 FPS.

Q: Is there any settings where the CPU of the i5-10400F is the bottleneck?A: At lower resolutions the CPU is not a heavy limit. The 1080p numbers are high – e.g., 162 FPS at Medium – and the CPU’s 6 cores, 12 threads, and 4.30 GHz boost cover the engine’s need. At 4K High, where the GPU runs 50 FPS, the CPU is not the cap.

Q: The RX 7800 XT has how much memory and what bandwidth?

A: It has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 624.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, and a 2,430 MHz boost clock.

Q: What GPU model is a direct data comparison for score?

A: In the synthetic benchmarks the nearest graphics rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1160 with a -0.5% delta, the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M at 0.9%, the NVIDIA Tesla K20c at 1.3%, and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT at -1.8%.

Q: Does this build reach 4K at a consistent 60?

A: No. At 4K the best is Low at 76 average in the measurement; Medium averages 58 with a low frame. High and Ultra are 50 and 39 on average respectively. A single combination of setting and resolution the new one.