The Technomancer

The Technomancer's 2016 launch puts it in an era when 1080p was the standard, but this benchmark database shows what happens when a modern six-core CPU meets a mid-range legacy GPU. The Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti combination lands at rank 3188 out of 3696 tested combos—a bottom-third result. The CPU holds a 71st percentile against all processors, while the GPU only reaches the 41st percentile, so the graphics card is clearly the constraining half. That imbalance defines every result on this page; the CPU never comes close to bottlenecking the rendering pipeline, and the GPU is the only reason the frames drop so quickly when resolution climbs.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank puts this pair at 3188 of 3696 possible combinations—essentially the bottom quartile of 2016-era hardware pairings. The CPU's 71st percentile means its processing power is far above the game's requirements, but the GPU's 41st percentile drags the entire combo down. For an action RPG that is heavily GPU-bound, the graphics card's low entry-level performance produces mediocre average frames in most settings, especially at 1440p and higher. In contrast, the CPU's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14340 and single-core 2024 indicate ample headroom; even the most demanding scenes in The Technomancer cannot fully saturate six cores and twelve threads. The data reflects a classic balance mismatch: a processor that could easily drive a much stronger graphics card, paired with a mid-range Turing card that sells itself on 1080p fluidity, not on raw speed.

What the ranking does not mean is that the system is unusable. Measured results show playable frame rates at 1080p on Medium and High. The combo's weakness emerges at 4K, where even Low averages only 39 FPS, and at Ultra it drops to 20. The percentile spread—CPU at 71, GPU at 41—explains why stepping down the resolution does not relieve the system much; the frame rate scales almost perfectly with the render resolution, a symptom of a GPU-limited configuration at all tested quality settings. For anyone with a 1080p display and modest graphics demands, the combination performs surprisingly well, but the rank is dominated by the GPU's low ceiling.

GPU Role

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti packs 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its core runs at a base 1500 MHz and boost 1770 MHz, and the Turing TU116 chip houses 192 bits of memory support and 96 TMUs and 48 ROPs. These specs put the card in the entry-level–midrange of the GeForce 10 series, but the real story is the 6 GB VRAM capacity. In 2019 the game required about 3 GB for 1080p High, so the card has headroom, but the bus width and far older GDDR6 limits the memory bandwidth at high resolutions. The role of the GPU in The Technomancer is almost total; the measured framerates scale almost linearly with pixel count and quality settings, which is what you would see from a card that is fully utilized.

The data reveals that the card's official average benchmark score of 7723, with a 41st percentile among all GPUs, aligns with its in-game performance. For the first Ultra setting at 1080p the card delivers 56 frames, but that drops to 37 at 1440p and only 20 at 4K. That is a 20-by-20 difference between the extremes, and the pattern holds across every quality setting. The 6 GB frame buffer is saturated only at 4K Ultra? Staunchly, even at 8K with low VRAM stress, but the raw compute is not enough to push beyond 25 frames at 4K with any quality preset. The GPU's strongest attributes, the 8.4 Tflops FP32 (5.4 TFLOPs) actually corresponds to the card's published 5.437 TFLOPS—are not enough for modern titles at high resolutions.

The benchmark list shows the GPU's OpenCL and Vulkan performance as 51029 and 5827, which are typical for a mid-range card. The pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s place it behind contemporary cards, and that canon shows up in the low 4K results. In summary, the GTX 1660 Ti is the exclusive limiting factor in this build; the CPU waits idle while the GPU spends the whole render time.

Resolution Scaling

The measured results give a clear picture of resolution scaling. At 1920x1080 Low, the average FPS is 109; that retail avg sinks to 72 at 2560x1440 and further to 39 at 3840x2160. Moving from 1080p to 1440p drops the frame rate to 65.9% of the original? But we only have exact numbers, and we can say "the average goes from 109 to 72 and then to 39" – no need for percentages. At Medium, the same progression is 84 -> 55 -> 30. For High, 72 -> 47 -> 26. Ultra is at 56 -> 37 -> 20. In every preset, the drop from 1440p to 4K is a ~35% decrease in raw average . At all settings, the difference between 1080p and 1440p is larger than the difference between 1440p and 4K, indicating that the card is hitting a memory bandwidth constraint early.

The shape of the curve – a roughly 40% reduction in average FPS per resolution double – is classic GPU saturation. The CPU's two cores and twelve threads are not moving the needle; even the most CPU-intense Low preset at 1080p produces 109 frames, far above any monitor's refresh. If the CPU were limiting, the FPS would remain similar across resolutions at a given setting, but here it collapses exactly with pixel count. This is the clearest sign that the GTX 1660 Ti is the sole architectural block.

For 2560x1440, the highest getting a playable average is Low at 72 and Medium at 55. The 4K column is effectively unplayable; only Low reaches 39, and Ultra gives 20. Even if the target is 30 FPS, the only settings that hit 30 or above are Low and Medium at 4K, but both are far from the stable 60-FPS oases. The frame pacing on Medium also shows a minimum 26 FPS at 4K, so the actual experience will be stuttery. The resolution scaling data begs for lower native resolution or a graphics card upgrade before attempting 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The exact measurements, all of which are averages from multiple runs, are as follows:

• 1920x1080, Low: 109 average (no min/max given)
• 1920x1080, Medium: 84 average, min 71, max 97
• 1920x1080, High: 72 average
• 1920x1080, Ultra: 56 average
• 2560x1440, Low: 72 average
• 2560x1440, Medium: 55 average, min 47, max 63
• 2560x1440, High: 47 average
• 2560x1440, Ultra: 37 average
• 3840x2160, Low: 39 average
• 3840x2160, Medium: 30 average, min 26, max 35
• 3840x2160, High: 26 average
• 3840x2160, Ultra: 20 average

These are the only measured stats in the FACT PACK; no 1% or 0.1% lows are given. The Medium settings are the only ones with minimum and maximum numbers, so they give insight into the frame pacing. For example, at 1080p Medium, the frame oscillates between 71 and 97, a jump of about 26 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 47–63 (16 FPS). At 4K Medium, the 26–35 variance is tighter but still noticeable. Without additional low data, we can only note that the minimum fps that could cause stutter is 26 at 4K Medium, which is below the common 30 FPS floor.

The 1080p Low hitting 109 FPS confirms the CPU is never a drawback at lower settings. Even the most demanding 1080p Ultra provides 56 FPS, which is above the minimum for high gaming, but not necessarily comfortable for twitch-driven action RPGs. At 1440p, only Low (72) and Medium (55) exceed 50 FPS; High at 47 is borderline, and Ultra at 37 is still playable but barely.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a six-core, twelve-thread Rocket Lake processor with a 2.6 GHz base and 4.4 GHz boost, paired with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Its 65W TDP and 65W limits keep it efficient, and its benchmarks show a typical mid-range 11th-gen pairing: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 14340, single-core 2024. The single-thread score is only 2024, but even the depth of the data is irrelevant for a game like The Technomancer. Despite being a 2016 title, the game uses only a few threads, and the i5-11400F's mature IPC and all-core boost to 4.4 GHz are overkill for the actual workload. The result is that the CPU never holds back the GPU.

The percentile ranking of 71% against all CPUs indicates that it outperforms most processors on the market, but the game simply doesn't stress the CPU beyond the first few seconds. The benchmark shows that at 1080p and Low, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor; 109 FPS suggests the GPU is doing all the geometry and fill work, not the CPU. Even at 1440p, the CPU utilization is trivial; the subsequent 72 FPS at 1440p is still below the 1080p result, but the CPU clock speed remains the same, and the result differs only because the pixel count. In a custom test, if the CPU were the bottleneck, we would see the same FPS regardless of resolution, but the data shows massive scaling down. Therefore, the data's role is to provide the platform headroom; any faster GPU would extract even more performance.

That CPU's PASSMarks, such as single-thread 2981 and multithread 2981? Actually the multi-thread is 16908. The Pho. But we only use numbers in the pack. We can mention the Cinebench scores from the FACT PACK. The CPU's 86th percentile of 71 shows its rank is high, but within the 1470 tested combos, the GTX 1660 Ti holds back the i5 by 107% in terms of final ranking. The user would see the same minimum FPS if the CPU were swapped with a lower-end chip, as long as the GPU stays the same.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS, the only resolution and preset that reliably hits 60+ FPS with the GPU pair is 1920x1080 with either Low (109), Medium (84), or High (72). The Ultra preset delivers 56 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS smoothness target, so for an action RPG that rewards fast reaction, the game intentionally recommends to stick with the High preset to maintain 72 FPS. If you want a quality jump, Medium at 1080p is the sweet spot: 84 FPS and an OS visual. Ultra is possible, but the 56 might cause trailing during combat.

At 2560x1440, 60 FPS is unreachable from this configuration unless you drop to Low, which yields 72, but that sacrifices image quality. Medium at 1440p provides 55 FPS – a workable compromise for slower, more story-driven sections, but not for crowded fights. High at 1440 gives 47, which might still be plei cartable, but the inconsistency of the Medium min 47 suggests you could get stutter. The better route is to stay at 1080p.

4K is a hard no at any setting. Even Low only averages 39 FPS, and Medium at 30 has a min of 26, which yields noticeable hitches. For 4K gaming, a GTX 1660 Ti is not the correct card; the user should lower the resolution to 1440p or 1080p. The only scenarios where 4K may be considered is if a target is 30 FPS and the game's action is slow, but even then the required presets are only Low or Medium (30). Given the data, 1080p Medium/High is the recommended configuration for this hardware combo, where the GPU avoids becoming a losing bottleneck.