The Technomancer

The Technomancer is a demanding Action RPG, and the pairing of the Intel Core i5-10400F with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 lands in a very specific performance bracket. This combination ranks 3568 out of 3696 tested combos for this game, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all systems tested. This is not a combo for high-refresh monitors or maximum detail settings; it is a 1080p, low-to-medium settings setup that prioritizes playability over visual fidelity. The data shows a system that is almost entirely GPU-bound, with the GTX 1650 acting as the primary performance limiter across all resolutions and settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The ranking of 3568 out of 3696 combos is a clear indicator of where this hardware sits in the performance hierarchy for The Technomancer. This is a low ranking, signifying that the vast majority of other CPU-GPU pairings tested will deliver a smoother experience. The bottleneck is decisively the graphics card. The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 7472, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, which scores a 0.3% delta, and the Intel UHD Graphics 750, which is 0.4% faster. The Intel Arc A310 is a full 1% ahead. This context is critical: the GTX 1650 is competing with entry-level and integrated graphics solutions in raw compute terms, which explains its struggle with a 2016 game at higher settings.

The CPU, conversely, is not the weak link. The Intel Core i5-10400F sits in the 68th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 14185. Its nearest rivals, the Intel Xeon 6756E and AMD EPYC 7552, are within 0.2% and 0.5% of its score, respectively. This is a solidly mid-range processor with 6 cores and 12 threads. The disparity between the CPU's 68th percentile ranking and the GPU's 40th percentile ranking tells the story. The i5-10400F has ample headroom to feed the GTX 1650; the GPU simply cannot process frames fast enough to keep up. The measured FPS data confirms this, as the performance deltas between settings are driven by the GPU's fill rate and shading power, not by CPU core count or clock speed.

The practical takeaway from this ranking is that you are getting a system that is only suitable for the lowest tiers of graphical demand. With an average FPS of 68 at 1080p Low, it can hit the 60 FPS target, but barely. Any increase in resolution or settings causes a precipitous drop. This is not a combo that will age well with new titles, and even in an older game like The Technomancer, it requires significant compromises to achieve a consistent frame rate. The data suggests that this is a system for playing at 1080p with reduced settings, and it should not be expected to handle higher resolutions or detail levels.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run The Technomancer at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings, where the average FPS is 68. At Medium settings, the average drops to 52 FPS, and at High, it falls to 45 FPS. None of the other tested settings or resolutions reach the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware in this game?

A: The data clearly indicates 1920x1080 is the only viable resolution. At 2560x1440, the average FPS ranges from 23 on Ultra to 44 on Low, which is not smooth enough for consistent play. At 3840x2160, the average FPS is between 13 and 24, which is unplayable.

Q: Is the game more demanding on the CPU or GPU for this setup?

A: The benchmark results indicate the system is overwhelmingly GPU-limited. The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel Core i5-10400F sits in the 68th percentile. The CPU has more relative processing power than the GPU, making the graphics card the primary bottleneck.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 7472. Its closest rival is the Intel Arc A310, which is 1% faster with a score of 7550. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 0.3% slower, and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is 0.4% slower. These are very small differences, meaning the GTX 1650 is at the bottom of its performance class.

Q: What kind of frame rate variation can be expected at Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the average FPS is 52, with a minimum of 44 and a maximum of 60. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average is 34, with a minimum of 29 and a maximum of 39. At 3840x2160 Medium, the average is 19, with a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 22.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-10400F a strong performer for this game?

A: Yes, the CPU is not the limiting factor. With 6 cores and 12 threads, it scores an average benchmark score of 14185, placing it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6756E, is only 0.2% faster, showing the i5-10400F is a capable mid-range processor for this title.

Settings Recommendations

For this specific combo, the choice of settings is a trade-off between image quality and playable frame rates. The measured data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution that provides a consistently playable experience. Within that resolution, the Low preset is the only one that achieves an average FPS above 60, hitting 68 FPS. This is the recommended starting point for a smooth experience. It will provide a stable frame rate with minimal dips, which is crucial for an action RPG where timing matters.

If you can tolerate a lower frame rate for better visuals, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 is a viable option. The average FPS is 52, with a minimum of 44 and a maximum of 60. This is a significant visual upgrade from Low, but it will be less smooth. The frame rate will fluctuate more, and you may notice stutter in busy scenes. The High preset at 1080p drops the average to 45 FPS, which is playable but will feel less responsive. The Ultra preset at 1080p is not recommended, as it only achieves an average of 35 FPS, which will feel sluggish.

For 2560x1440, the data suggests it is not worth the performance hit. Even on Low settings, the average FPS is 44, which is below the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 1440p has an average of 34 FPS. At 3840x2160, the performance is unplayable, with the Low preset only achieving 24 FPS on average. The best experience per the measured rows is unequivocally 1080p with Low settings for a target of 60 FPS, or 1080p with Medium settings if you prioritize image quality over a locked frame rate. The data does not support any other combination for a good experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the resolution most suited to this hardware, the performance scales predictably with settings. The Low preset yields an average of 68 FPS, which is the only tested configuration to exceed the 60 FPS mark. Moving to Medium, the average drops to 52 FPS, with a range of 44 to 60 FPS. The High preset averages 45 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 35 FPS. This shows a clear 33 FPS difference between the lowest and highest settings at this resolution, highlighting the GPU's sensitivity to graphical load.

At 2560x1440, the performance falls below the playable threshold for most users. The Low preset averages 44 FPS, which is a 35% drop from the same settings at 1080p. Medium averages 34 FPS, with a range of 29 to 39 FPS. High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The data shows that this resolution is too demanding for the GTX 1650, and only the Low preset comes close to being acceptable, and even then it's below the ideal 60 FPS target.

At 3840x2160, the performance is severely compromised. The Low preset averages 24 FPS, Medium averages 19 FPS, High averages 16 FPS, and Ultra averages 13 FPS. None of these are playable. The Medium preset has a minimum of 16 FPS and a maximum of 22 FPS, which confirms a stuttery and unresponsive experience. The data indicates that 4K resolution is entirely out of the question for this combo in The Technomancer. The benchmark results across all three resolutions consistently show that the GTX 1650 is the sole performance bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 and then to 3840x2160 reveals a clear and predictable pattern of performance degradation, confirming the GPU-bound nature of this system. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 68 at 1080p to 44 at 1440p, a 35% decrease. Moving from 1440p to 4K, the average drops from 44 to 24 FPS, a further 45% decrease. This scaling is much steeper than what would be seen if the CPU were a limiting factor, as the resolution increase directly multiplies the pixel fill rate demand on the GPU.

At Medium settings, the same trend is visible. The average FPS is 52 at 1080p, 34 at 1440p, and 19 at 4K. This represents a 65% total drop from 1080p to 4K. The High and Ultra presets show similar, if not steeper, declines. This behavior is characteristic of a system where the graphics card's memory bandwidth and shading units are overwhelmed. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. This is simply insufficient for the data throughput required at higher resolutions.

The data points to a system that is heavily dependent on the GPU. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, are more than capable of handling the game's logic at all tested resolutions. The fact that the frame rate drops so drastically with resolution scaling is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions. Instead, the FPS is almost entirely dictated by the resolution and settings, which are direct stressors on the GTX 1650.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Comet Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, and it supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration. Its benchmark scores are respectable, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 10283 and a single-core score of 1451. The Geekbench multicore score is 6257, and the single-core score is 1420. These results place it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, showing it is a competent processor for gaming.

In The Technomancer, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU. The game's performance is not limited by the number of cores or the clock speed of the i5-10400F. The data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck, as the FPS scales dramatically with resolution and settings, while the CPU has ample headroom. The 12 threads are more than enough for this 2016 title, which is not known for being heavily multithreaded. The CPU's single-thread performance is also sufficient, as the game's main thread is unlikely to be a limiting factor.

The comparison with its nearest rivals reinforces the CPU's mid-range standing. It is 0.2% slower than the Intel Xeon 6756E and 0.5% faster than the AMD EPYC 7552, based on average benchmark scores. These are enterprise-class processors, which highlights that the i5-10400F's performance is in a similar ballpark for this type of workload. The key takeaway is that the i5-10400F is not holding back the GTX 1650. The system's performance ceiling is defined by the graphics card, and any upgrade path for this combo would need to start with a more powerful GPU. The CPU is ready to support a much faster graphics card.