The Technomancer

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 pairing lands at rank 1222 out of 3696 tested combos in The Technomancer. That places it better than about 67% of all GPU+CPU pairs in the game. The ranking stems from a well-matched duo: the CPU lands in the 68th percentile among all processors, and the GPU sits in the 69th percentile among all graphics cards. Their average benchmark scores are likewise aligned — the CPU averages 14185, the GPU averages 23877. Competing parts are within a statistical hair: the closest CPU rival, the Intel Xeon 6756E, trails by only 0.2% in benchmark average, and the AMD Radeon RX 6800S falls behind the GPU by 0.8%. The measured performance in this action RPG is consistent with that balanced positioning, with no single component dominating the other in a way that would pull the pair out of its mid-high tier placement.

A closer look at the scores shows the CPU’s 12-thread capability is a solid match for the GPU’s big 16 GB frame buffer. The i5-10400F produces a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283 and a single-thread score of 1451, while the GPU’s PassMark G3D result is 25381. Those are not record-breaking figures, but they are consistent with a combination designed for 1080p at high refresh and reasonably smooth 1440p. The rank of 1222 means the pair beats a comfortable majority of tested systems in this specific game, which rewards a mix of CPU and GPU rather than relying on a single strong component.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a six-core/twelve-thread desktop chip with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. It has 12 MB of shared L3 cache and is built on Intel’s 14 nm Comet Lake process. For an action RPG, the processor’s task is to feed the GPU with draw calls, physics, and game logic, particularly at lower resolutions where CPU work can become the limiting factor.

In the measured data, the CPU’s role is clearly visible at 1080p. At Low settings, the pair reaches 183 frames per second, which is the highest average across every measured configuration. This is a clear sign that the i5-10400F has enough headroom to . When resolution goes up, the load shifts to the GPU, and the CPU’s influence becomes less pronounced. For example, moving from 1080p Low (183 FPS) to 1440p Low (143 FPS) yields a 22% drop, but from 1440p Low to 4K Low (79 FPS) the drop is a deeper 45%. The scaling suggests that the CPU limits the absolute ceiling at low resolutions, but by 4K the GPU is fully saturated.

The CPU’s multi-threaded capability shows in the i5-10400F’s benchmark results: the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283 and the Geekbench multi-core score of 6257. The Technomancer is a 2016 title that doesn’t heavily multi-thread, so the single-thread performance is likely the more decisive factor at play. A Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1451 is solid for four full cores at high boost. At 1080p, the CPU is never the limiting piece—it allows the GPU to output >180 FPS on low preset, which is far above typical panel refresh rates.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo able to run The Technomancer at 4K with 60 FPS?

A: Only by choosing Medium settings. At 4K Medium the average FPS is exactly 60, with a minimum of 51. High (the next step) averages 52, so it dips below 60, and Ultra drops to a 40 FPS average.

Q: What does it take to hit 144 FPS at 1080p?

A: The data shows that at High settings the average is exactly 144 FPS. At Low you get 183, and at Medium 166 FPS, with a 141 minimum — so even a clash doesn’t ruin it. Ultra also stays well above 100, reaching 112 average.

Q: Is the i5-10400F the bottleneck at lower resolution?

A: The CPU is not the limiting factor at 120p. At 1080p High the FPS reaches 144, and at Low it goes to 183. If the CPU were constraining, those numbers would be lower and would not scale with resolution. The 4K performance (52 FPS at High) instead points to the GPU doing the heavy lifting.

Q: What are the guaranteed minimum FPS values for each setup?

A: The measurements list minimums only for Medium preset. In order: 4K Medium has a 51 FPS minimum, 1440p Medium has a 94 FPS minimum, and 1080p Medium’s minimum is 141 FPS. These are the only recorded minimums, but they offer a realistic lower bound for each resolution.

Q: How does this combo compare to similar components in the game?

A: The CPU’s average score sits within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon 6756E and 0.6% over the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C’s average. The GPU’s average is within 0.8% of AMD’s Radeon RX 6800S and 1.2% of the RTX 2080 SUPER. In the game itself, the combo’s overall rank of 1222 places it around 33% better than the typical configuration.

Q: Can this system provide a stable 60 FPS experience at 1440p?

A: Yes. At High settings the average is 9‑FPS 94, at Medium 110 FPS, and even Ultra managed to average 73. The minimum recorded at Medium is 94 FPS, so the entire session would typically stay well above 60 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All FPS values are measured, not extrapolated. The tests cover three resolutions (3840×2160, 2560×1440, 1027×1080) and four quality presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). The following table summarizes the average FPS, with the minimum and maximum where they were recorded.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

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

| 3840×2160 | Low | 79 | — | — |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 60 | 51 | 70 |

| 3840×2160 | High | 52 | — | — |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 40 | — | — |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 143 | — | — |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 110 | 94 | 127 |

| 2560×1440 | High | 94 | — | — |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 73 | — | — |

| 1920×1080 | Low | 183 | 141* | — |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 166 | 141 | 191 |

| 1920×1080 | High | 144 | — | — |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 112 | — | — |

The minimum and maximum columns are beside the table, but they are relevant only for the Medium preset; other presets do not have listed min/max. As expected, the lowest resolution yields the highest frame rates, and the gap emphasizes how the GPU becomes a increasingly dominant at larger pixel counts.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution changes reveal the scaling pattern of this coupling. From 1080p to 1440p, the FPS drops significantly, but the drops are larger when moving to 4K. For example, with High settings, average FPS goes from 144 (1080p) to 94 (1440p) — a 35% reduction — and from 1440p to 4K, it goes from 94 to 52, a 45% drop relative to 1440p. Overall, from 1080p to 4K that’s a 64% loss.

The same scaling is visible on Low: 1080p 183, 1440p 143, and 4K 79. That’s a 22% drop to 1440p and a further 45% drop to 4K. The overall loss from 1080p to 4K is 57%. The pattern holds for Medium (166 → 110 → 60) and for Ultra (112 → 73 → 40). The smoother scaling of Low and Medium compared to High and Ultra is likely because the lower settings scale the more compute-heavy rasterization, which hits the GPU hard as the pixel count increases.

The message is clear: when the resolution increases, the GPU’s workload expands faster than the CPU’s. At 1080p Low, the CPU is not the system’s limiting factor, and you’d get 183 FPS. At 4K Low, the FPS falls to 79, showing that the GPU is now the primary limiter, even with minimal settings. This is the kind of scaling that indicates the card is comfortably saturating its own prime when the pixel load rises.

Settings Recommendations

Turning to which preset is optimal, the measured numbers give a few sensible landing zones. For 4K resolution, the only way to average 60 FPS is to select the Medium preset — it alone shows an exact 60 average, with a minimum of 51 FPS. The next tier, High, averages only 52 FPS and gives no class of FPS you can rely on. Ultra is out of the question at 40 average. So Medium is the baseline at 4K.

For 1440p, the target depends on your display. If you own a 60 Hz monitor, High’s 92 FPS average is fine, and Ultra’s 73 FPS is also comfortable. If you have a higher refresh device (1440p subsets), Medium provides an 110 FPS average with a minimum of 94 FPS, and its max of 127 means any 100Hz panel will be fed comfortably. Meanwhile, Low reaches 143 FPS, which is close to matching a 144Hz badge. The best balance of image quality and smoothness is Medium, as it suits most monitors without the visual hit of Low.

At 1080p, the question is purely whether you need 144Hz or 180Hz. The i5-10400F and RX 9070 keep the game above the 100 mark on every preset. High gives exactly 144 FPS, so if you have a 144 Hz monitor, that preset is the obvious pick. Low reaches 183 FPS — useful for a 240hz monitor, although image quality suffers. Medium with a min of 141 and an average of 166 gives a strong experience and is a safe recommendation for anyone who prioritizes stability; the minimum is still above 120 FPS, so frame ties are unlikely. The Ultra preset at 112 FPS is still fluid, but you lose some performance headroom.

In raw terms, the best overall experience per the measured data is the Medium preset across all resolutions. It provides the highest average FPS that still holds a recorded minimum above 51 FPS and avoids the lowest preset’s visual degradation. At 1080p, the difference between Medium and High is minimal, so going with Medium is a safe call to keep frame times tight. At 4K, Medium is the only way to reach the standard 60 FPS mark, and because the minimum is 51 FPS — though high enough — you are near the edge, but it is playable. Taking all this, strategies prevail: presets may be prescribed, but our recommendation is to stick with Medium, as it offers the most consolidated performance without stepping into settings that drop below common versus levels.