The Technomancer

The Technomancer, a 2016 Action RPG, pairs Intel's six-core Core i5-12400 with AMD's Radeon RX 6650 XT. This combination lands at rank 2400 out of 3696 tested combos, placing it in the lower-mid pack of the database. The data shows a firmly GPU-bound title: at 1080p and 1440p the part closes out respectable frame rates, but 4K performance falls below 60 FPS across the board. The i5-12400’s multicore throughput and the RX 6650 XT’s 8GB of GDDR6 memory combine to make the GPU the decisive factor in every measured scenario.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s overall in-game rank is 2400 out of 3696 tested configurations. That puts it in the bottom 35% of the field – only 1296 combos fall below this pairing, while 2399 configurations perform better. In percentile terms, the combo sits comfortably on the lower rungs of the rankings, which is striking because both the CPU and GPU individually show decent standalone percentiles. The Core i5-12400 reaches the 72nd percentile among all processors, and the RX 6650 XT lands at the 65th percentile among all GPUs. The two parts together, however, only manage to clear the 65th percentile of in-game combos. This suggests that the game’s performance is shaped more by its GPU load than by the raw synthetic strength of either piece, or that the combination under-performs relative to what each part can do alone in this title. The nearest GPU rivals to the 6650 XT – NVIDIA Tesla K40m, AMD FirePro D300, AMD FirePro W7000, and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 – all fall within 0.7% of its GPU synthetic score (19765), yet none of them appear in tested combos for this game. That gap between raw compute and actual in-game rank underscores how game load can overshadow component specifications.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a measured 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. Its clock speeds are notable: a base of 2055 MHz, a game clock of 2410 MHz, and a boost of 2635 MHz, with memory running at 17.5 Gbps effective. These numbers correlate with the FPS scaling seen in the measurements. At 1080p, the GPU’s memory bus and bandwidth are more than sufficient; the 8GB VRAM does not seem to bottleneck the game even at Ultra settings, judging by the plateau in performance. At 1440p, the card holds its own, with the bandwidth per pixel becoming tighter as the resolution increases. By 4K, the GPU’s limits are clear – the bandwidth per pixel drops further, and the measured average FPS falls to the 27–53 range, well below the 60 FPS target.

The GPU’s 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs, combined with a FP32 throughput of 10.79 TFLOPS, deliver solid 1080p and 2K performance. The bus width and bandwidth numbers reveal why the RX 6650 XT scales poorly into 4K: the memory subsystem cannot keep pace. Despite having 8GB of VRAM – enough for most game assets at 4K Ultra given the age of the title – the actual framerates show that the card's compute output is the limit. For instance, at 1080p Ultra the card produces 76 FPS on average, while turning the settings to 1440p Ultra drops it to 54 FPS, and 4K Ultra leaves it at 27 FPS. That steep drop indicates that the GPU's raw rasterization power degrades quickly with higher resolutions.

H The resolution also exposes the GPU's memory-bandwidth ceiling. The 60GB/s of sustained bandwidth looks healthy for a 128-bit bus, but at 4K the pixel count is 2.25x that of 2560x1440. The card falls from 97 FPS (1080p High) to 63 (1440p High) to 35 (4K High). The percentage of the drop is consistent across setting presets, which implies that the GPU is the dominant constraint; the CPU does not noticeably interfere.

Measured FPS Table

Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS

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

3840x2160 | High | 35 | – | –

3840x2160 | Low | 53 | – | –

3840x2160 | Medium | 41 | 35 | 47

3840x2160 | Ultra | 27 | – | –

2560x1440 | High | 63 | – | –

2560x1440 | Low | 97 | – | –

2560x1440 | Medium | 74 | 63 | 85

2560x1440 | Ultra | 50 | – | –

1920x1080 | High | 97 | – | –

1920x1080 | Low | 148| – | –

1920x1080 | Medium | 114| 97 | 131

1920x1080 | Ultra | 76 | – |

Every row above is a measured result from the database. The combination of resolution and quality toggles shows the GPU's behavior clearly. At 1920x1080, the CPU-fed pipeline is fast enough that even Low gives a 148 FPS average, with Medium at 114 FPS and a 97 FPS minimum. High yields 97 FPS, which matches that same 97 number as a floor, showing that the Medium preset delivers 114 average with a 97 min – the same as High's average. Ultra pulls only 76 FPS, meaning that for those chasing highest settings the performance penalty is an 11% drop from High.

At 2560x1440, the same settings list shrinks the spread. Low yields a 97 FPS average, but Medium runs at 74 with a 63 FPS minimum. High sits at exactly 63, meaning that the Medium preset’s minimum matches the High average, while the max 85 outperforms High. Ultra – 50 FPS – but having that doubling the settings cost of the same 1440p High. The pattern is consistent: each setting tier at 1440p reduces the average by roughly 12-15 FPS, with the min FPS of Medium being the only reported sub-60 value.

4K is a different story. At 3840x2160, the highest FPS measured is on Low settings, which produces 53 average. Medium runs at 41 (min 35 – which happens to match the exact High average of 35), and High yields 35. Ultra drops to 27. The gap between Low and Ultra is 26 FPS, meaning the GPU is extremely sensitive to settings at this resolution.

SettingsmtSetup Recommendations

Given the measured rows, the best experience by resolution is as follows.

1920x1080: The Medium preset delivers the ideal balance: 114 average and a 97 FPS minimum, with a max of 131. This keeps the game above the 90 FPS threshold while avoiding the minimal of the /High settings (76 FPS, no min) . Lower (148 avg) has no minimum reported, but its average is above the refresh rate of most monitors. If a player prefers to maximize FPS, Low offers a 148 average, which is higher than any other resolution/settings combination. But the 97 minimum from Medium is identical to the average of High, showing that Medium still provides a consistent floor. High or Ultra at 1080p are less attractive; High’s 97 average is exactly the same as the Medium minimum, and the Ultra 76 likely one step down.

2560x1440: The Medium preset stands out again: 74 average, 63 minimum, max 85. The 63-min is the same value as the High average, meaning it can have drops (and peak into the 85s) without deviating below the High's sustained performance. For players who need a fixed 60Hz monitor, Medium is the only setting that guarantees a 63 FPS worst case. Low of 97 is faster but exposes no minimum, but the title also a 90-100 average for 1440. High at 63 average, and the min not reported; given the three pillars of settings, High’s performance is slightly lower than Medium’s minute, so it is not a sufficient upgrade.

4K: The Low preset (53 FPS) is the only one above 50 FPS. Medium gives 41 (with a 35 min), High 35, Ultra 27. If a 60Hz display is used, none of these reach the cap, but Low is the only one that averages over 50 FPS. For the more common 45 FPS or lower target, Medium at 41 may be acceptable, but it comes with a 35-min. The peak 47 from Medium is still under the Low average, so the Low setting is clearly the best for visual fluidity at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 brings six cores and twelve threads, base clock at 2.50 GHz and a boost up to 4.40 GHz, an L3 cache of 18 MB (shared), and a 65W TDP-class package. It supports DDR4 or DDR5 memory and integrates UHD Graphics 730. These specifications, especially the boost clock and moderate thread count, appear sufficient to steer frame pacing in this game.

The CPU’s benchmark suite reinforces its strength. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 15989; single-core scores 2257. The Geekbench multicore is 8564 and single-core 1848. The Passmark multithread result is 18747, with single thread at 3456. When placed next to its nearest rivals, the i5-12400 trails the AMD EPYC 7643 by 0.1% (score 18683 vs 18697), trails the Intel Core i7-1355U by 0.3% (vs 18730), trails the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 by 0.7% (vs 18811), but it leads over the Intel Core i3-14100F by 0.9% (vs 18519). This puts the i5 in a very narrow performance window around the 0.7% mark, with a 0.9% margin of defeat to i3. Such margins indicate that the CPU is capable of fulfilling the game’s single-thread and multithread demands without lifting a bottleneck—the drop in FPS seen at higher resolutions aligns with the GPU’s limits, not the CPU’s.

The in-game data supports this CPU sufficiency. At 1080p Low, the combination hits 148 FPS, the highest averaged in any row; this means the CPU has headroom to issue frames beyond 140. At 4Kp Ultra, where the GPU is heavily stressed, the CPU’s role diminishes to just 27 FPS, showing that the GPU is indeed the limiting component. The i5’s L3 cache depth (18 MB) and high IPC from the Alder Lake architecture also correlate with the way the frame rate scales evenly with presets, not succumbing to single-thread stall penalties. Given the 72nd percentile standing among CPUs, it clearly has performance to spare, so the final ranking of 2400th is driven by the GPU’s 4.9K limitations rather than CPU shortage.

In summary, for The Technomancer, this pairing delivers competent 1080p and 1440p performance with mercy for the CPU. It excels on Medium presets, where the GPU yields excellent happiness at 108/144p. At 4K, only the Low preset shows a playable result. The combination is well balanced at the mid-high range, but the RX 6650 XT proves to be the bottleneck once resolution hits higher pixels.