The Technomancer

# The Technomancer with Intel Core i5-11400F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti ranks 486th out of 1,656 tested combos in The Technomancer, placing it in the 71st percentile of all tested systems. This is a strong position for a 2016 Action RPG, indicating that the combination delivers well above-average performance for this title. The CPU sits at the 75th percentile among all processors with an average benchmark score of 17,181, while the GPU holds the 83rd percentile among all graphics cards with an average score of 41,224 — both components are clearly above the median, and their pairing shows no obvious bottleneck at the measured settings.

How This Combo Ranks

With a combo rank of 486 out of 1,656 tested combinations, this system places in the top 29% of all configurations evaluated in The Technomancer. The raw ranking reflects a balanced partnership: the i5-11400F's 6-core, 12-thread Rocket Lake architecture with a 2.60 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost clock provides sufficient instruction throughput, while the RTX 3080 Ti's Ampere architecture with 10,240 shading units handles the graphical workload. The CPU's performance relative to its nearest rivals shows it is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (0% delta), Intel Core i7-1260P (-0.2%), and Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (-0.2%), while edging the Intel Core i5-1240U by 0.2%. This suggests the processor is not a limiting factor; its multithreaded scores — Cinebench R23 multi-core at 14,372 and Geekbench multi-core at 7,579 — are competitive for a desktop part of this generation. The GPU, meanwhile, sits within 1.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (-0.5%), AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (-0.9%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (-1.1%), and NVIDIA Tesla M40 (-1.6%) in average benchmark score, confirming it operates in flagship territory. For a game released in 2016, this rank of 486 suggests the combo is overkill for most scenarios, yet the measured FPS data reveals that even this hardware encounters challenges at the highest settings and resolution.

GPU Role

The RTX 3080 Ti brings 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 912.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock runs at 1,365 MHz with a boost of 1,665 MHz, and memory operates at 19 Gbps effective. These specifications are critical for The Technomancer's texture-heavy environments; the 12 GB frame buffer ensures that even 4K Ultra settings do not exceed VRAM capacity, which is why the measured results show a smooth degradation rather than a sudden collapse. The GPU's pixel rate of 186.5 GPixel/s and texture rate of 532.8 GTexel/s provide ample fill rate for the game's action sequences. At 1080p Ultra, the combo delivers 119.9 FPS average, which indicates the GPU is not fully saturated — the CPU's single-thread score of 868 in 3DMark and 2,029 in Cinebench R23 becomes the more relevant constraint at lower resolutions. Conversely, at 4K Ultra, the average drops to 39.5 FPS, where the GPU's 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is clearly the dominant factor. The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) aligns with the game's rendering requirements, though The Technomancer's 2016 release predates some modern optimizations. The 8 nm Samsung process and 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die contribute to the card's 350 W TDP, but the measured FPS shows the architecture handles the workload without thermal throttling artifacts at these settings.

Settings Recommendations

The data indicates that the Ultra preset is only playable at 1080p, where 119.9 FPS average is smooth, but at 1440p the average drops to 76.5 FPS, which remains acceptable for action RPG gameplay, and at 4K it falls to 39.5 FPS — below the 60 FPS threshold that most players prefer. The High preset offers a better balance: 151.7 FPS at 1080p, 102.1 FPS at 1440p, and 54.5 FPS at 4K. For 4K users, High is the recommended preset because it maintains an average above 50 FPS, whereas Medium at 4K yields 62.9 FPS and Low at 4K reaches 85.8 FPS. At 1440p, Medium provides 118 FPS, which exceeds High by 15.9 FPS, but High's visual quality improvement is worth the modest frame rate cost. For 1080p, even Ultra delivers 119.9 FPS, so players with 60 Hz displays can use the highest settings without concern. The Low preset at 1080p produces 212 FPS, which is useful only for high-refresh-rate competitive play — a scenario where this game's genre does not typically demand such extremes. The optimal experience per the measured rows is High at 1440p, which balances the 102.1 FPS average with the GPU's capabilities, or Ultra at 1080p for maximum visual fidelity at 119.9 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo starts at 212 FPS on Low, 177.6 FPS on Medium, 151.7 FPS on High, and 119.9 FPS on Ultra. These numbers show a linear degradation pattern: each preset step costs roughly 30-40 FPS, with the largest drop from Medium to High at 25.9 FPS. The 1080p results indicate the CPU's 6 cores are sufficient to feed the GPU at these frame rates, as the i5-11400F's 3DMark single-thread score of 868 and 2-thread score of 1,691 demonstrate adequate per-core performance for a 2016 title. At 2560x1440, the measured FPS are 153.2 on Low, 118 on Medium, 102.1 on High, and 76.5 on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 35.2 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 25.6 FPS, showing that the GPU begins to assert its influence at this resolution. The 1440p Medium result of 118 FPS is particularly notable — it is only 1.7 FPS lower than the 1080p Ultra result, which suggests that resolution scaling is more efficient than setting scaling in this title. At 3840x2160, the averages are 85.8 on Low, 62.9 on Medium, 54.5 on High, and 39.5 on Ultra. The 4K Ultra result of 39.5 FPS is the only measured value below 40 FPS, and it represents a 67.1% reduction from the 1080p Ultra score. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 46.3 FPS, nearly double the 32.1 FPS gap at 1080p, confirming that the GPU's 912.4 GB/s bandwidth and 12 GB VRAM become fully utilized only at this resolution.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K varies significantly by preset, revealing the limiting component. On Low settings, the average falls from 212 FPS at 1080p to 153.2 FPS at 1440p (a 27.7% reduction) and then to 85.8 FPS at 4K (a 44.0% reduction from 1440p). On Ultra, the progression is 119.9 FPS at 1080p, 76.5 FPS at 1440p (36.2% drop), and 39.5 FPS at 4K (48.4% drop from 1440p). The percentage losses are steeper at higher settings, which is typical for a GPU-bound scenario. However, the absolute frame rate at 4K Low (85.8 FPS) versus 4K Ultra (39.5 FPS) indicates that the GPU has substantial headroom when visual effects are reduced. The 1080p Low result of 212 FPS suggests the CPU's 12 threads are not a bottleneck at this resolution, as the i5-11400F's Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 6,036 provides ample processing power. The scaling pattern — where 1440p High (102.1 FPS) is nearly identical to 1080p Ultra (119.9 FPS) in relative terms — points to the GPU being the primary limiter starting at 1440p. At 4K, the GPU's FP32 throughput of 34.10 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 186.5 GPixel/s are stretched thin by the 8.3 million pixels per frame, explaining why the Ultra preset falls below 40 FPS. Conversely, the CPU's 14 nm process and 65 W TDP do not show signs of thermal throttling in these results, as the frame rates scale predictably with resolution rather than showing erratic drops. The data supports a conclusion that this combo is GPU-limited at 4K for all presets, CPU-limited at 1080p Low (where 212 FPS approaches the processor's practical ceiling), and balanced at 1440p Medium through High.