The Technomancer

The Technomancer, a 2016 action RPG from Spiders, runs on a combination of an Intel Core i5-12400 and an AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT. The measured data set covers three resolutions and four quality presets with average frame rates, plus marginal minimum and maximum values for the Medium preset. The results show a CPU that can push the GPU in the lightest scenes and a GPU that becomes the decisive factor as resolution climbs. At 1080p the pair delivers extremely high frame rates across the board, while 4K requires strict settings management to remain playable. The following analysis breaks down scaling, component roles, ranking, and the most practical settings for each resolution.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS tables show how quickly frame rates erode as pixel count increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. Every preset drops noticeably, but the magnitude of that drop tells a story about which component limits performance in each regime.

At the Low preset, the i5-12400 and RX 7800 XT start at 210 FPS in 1080p. That number is exceptionally high, indicating that the GPU is not the constraint at this low workload; the CPU and the game's engine are basically running at a high sustained rate. Moving to 1440p Low drops the average to 137 FPS, a reduction of 73 frames per second, which is a large absolute decrease. At 4K Low the average falls further to 76 FPS. So from 1080p to 4K, the Low preset loses approximately 64% of its raw frame rate, though the specific numbers are 210 versus 76.

The Medium preset starts at 162 FPS at 1080p, falls to 106 at 1440p, and then to 58 at 4K. The drop from 1440p to 4K is 48 FPS, a significant loss, while the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 56 FPS. The High preset yields 138 FPS at 1080p, 90 at 1440p, and 50 at 4K. Ultra shows the most severe scaling: 108 at 1080p, 70 at 1440p, and 39 at 4K.

The pattern is clear: at 1080p the RX 7800 XT is not being saturated, as evidenced by the 210 FPS on Low and 138 FPS on High. That suggests the CPU is capable of pushing more frames than the GPU can render only at the highest settings. As the resolution increases, the GPU's shader work expands, and the frame rate drops rapidly. The hierarchy among settings is preserved at every resolution: Low > Medium > High > Ultra, as expected.

The limiting component shifts from CPU at 1080p Low to GPU at higher resolutions. The 6-core, 12-thread i5-12400 has a single-thread Passmark score of 3456, which confirms a strong single-core performance, and when combined with the RX 7800 XT's raw power, the system is well balanced for a title from 2016. But at 4K the GPU is the bottleneck – the RX 7800 XT can only produce 50 FPS on High settings, requiring the user to lower settings to keep the experience smooth.

For those wanting a summary: scaling from 1080p to 4K reduces all averages to about half or less. The biggest absolute loss occurs on the Low preset: 134 FPS of headroom disappears. In practice, The Technomancer on this combo means that 1440p remains an excellent target with High settings, but 4K demands compromise.

FAQ

Q: What is the average frame rate at 1080p with High settings?

The pair reaches an average of 138 FPS at 1920x1080 with High quality. The minimum recorded value for Medium settings is 137 FPS, so High is still well above.

Q: Can I run the game at 4K with the Ultra preset?

The Ultra preset at 3840x2160 averages only 39 FPS, which is below typical smoothness thresholds. It works but will be visibly stuttery. The 4K High average of 50 FPS is closer to 60 FPS, while Medium at 58 FPS gets very close, and Low achieves 76 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at any resolution?

A: The data shows a CPU-supported scenario. At 1080p Low, the average is 210 FPS, which exceeds the GPU's rendering capability at higher resolutions. This indicates the CPU can deliver frame rates beyond what the GPU can produce, so the CPU is not a bottleneck. At 4K, the GPU is the limiting component for all presets.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested combos in The Technomancer?

The exact ranking is position 1228 out of 3696, which places it in the top-half of all combos, specifically the top 33.2%, but we can only state the rank exactly as provided.

Q: How does the i5-12400 compare to its nearest rival in CPU benchmarks?

The i5-12400 has an average score of 18683 across a suite of benchmarks. Its closest relative is the AMD EPYC 7643, which scores 18697, giving a delta of -0.1% – essentially a tie. The Intel i7-1355U scores 18730, a -0.3% difference.

Q: Does the RX 7800 XT have a high average benchmark score?

Its average score from the specified benchmarks is 11627, with a percentile of only 51 among all GPUs. That puts it mid-pack, but the game’s measured frame rates are respectable, showing that the actual performance depends heavily on resolution and settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 sits in the 16th generation of Intel processors, using the Alder Lake architecture on the Alder Lake-S die, manufactured on a 10 nm process with a die size of 163 mm². It has 6 physical cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost of 4.40 GHz, and a TDP of 65 W. The CPU is equipped with 18 MB of shared L3 cache and maintains a dual-channel memory bus supporting both DDR4 and DDR5 memory.

In The Technomancer, the CPU’s role is to keep the action flowing. The 1080p Low preset hitting an average of 210 FPS is direct evidence that the processor is not the bottleneck at lower resolutions. The above-face-level scores from the benchmark suite reinforce that: the i5-12400 achieves a 3DMark 8-thread score of 4745, a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15989, and a geekbench single-core score of 1848. Its multi-threaded Cinebench R20 score of 6715 points to enough parallel processing for a mid-2010s title.

The game is not a heavy multithreaded title; it’s an action RPG from 2016 that likely benefits more from raw single-core than from 1296 cores. The 3445 passmark single-thread score puts it ahead of many contemporaries. In practice, the CPU + GPU pairing gives the engine the headroom to push 210 FPS on total low settings, indicating the CPU is far enough ahead to enable high FPS at 1080p. At 4K, the CPU no longer generates a bottleneck because the GPU is the limiting factor, which is exactly the correct behavior for a balanced system.

Compared to its nearest CPU rivals, the i5-12400 is essentially equal to the AMD EPYC 7643 (delta -0.1%) and the Intel Core i7-1355U (delta -0.3%), yet it is also close to the Core i3-14100F (a delta of +0.9%, meaning the i5-12400 is slightly faster). These similarities in average benchmark scores suggest that the i5-12400's performance is typical for its class, but The Technomancer’s 1080p Low result shows it can exceed expectations.

The CPU’s 6-core/12-thread layout is generous for a game from 2016, which was originally optimized for 2-4 cores/threads in many cases. This means the game will run on a fraction of the available threads, leaving the rest to the operating system and background tasks. This is healthy. The lack of ECC support and the inclusion of Intel UHD Graphics 730 are irrelevant to the performance of this discrete GPU setup.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the entire database of tested CPU and GPU combinations in The Technomancer, the i5-12400 + RX 7800 XT achieves a rank of 1228 out of 3696 combos. That places it in the top 33% of all systems tested. The rank is likely based on an aggregate of all measurement data points, which in this case include the 13 FPS measurements from the provided pack.

To understand the context, the GPU alone has a percentile of 51 (per the GPU's benchmark suite) and the CPU has a 72nd percentile among all CPUs. The GPU's nominal score is not exceptional (11627 average), but its game performance is much better than that category. The CPU is stronger in relative terms, placing in the upper 30% range, and its 5864 average score.

The rank of 1228 of 3696 means that a large number of combos (the other 2468) fall behind it has only ~33% of the total are better. The combination is therefore far from the top tier, but for a game released in 2016, it offers more than enough performance for a good experience. The specific score counterpart from the nearest rivals for each piece: the CPU's nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7643, has a delta of -0.1%, essentially equal, while the GPU's nearest rival (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660) shows a -0.5% delta, again near-equal. This means that the components are not extremes, but the pairing works well for this game's engine.

The combo stands in the high midrange of the test matrix. For those checking performance, the flipped point is 4K, where only the Medium preset comes close to 60 FPS (58). At lower resolutions, the system exceeds the typical 60 FPS target on most settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full set of measured averages is as follows. At 1920x1080, the values are:

• Low: 210 FPS average
• Medium: 162 FPS (minimum 137, maximum 186)
• High: 138 FPS
• Ultra: 108 FPS

At 2560x1440:

• Low: 137 FPS
• Medium: 106 FPS (minimum 90, maximum 121)
• High: 90 FPS
• Ultra: 70 FPS

At 3840x2160:

• Low: 76 FPS
• Medium: 58 FPS (minimum 49, maximum 67)
• High: 50 FPS
• Ultra: 39 FPS

These numbers show a progressive decline in average frames as resolution increases. The Medium preset provides minimums that are relatively close to the averages, with the differences being 25 FPS at 1080p (137 min vs 137 max of 186), 16 FPS at 1440p (90 vs 121), and 9 FPS at 4K (49 vs 67). The min and max for Medium indicate some inconsistency in scene loads, but the average is the best indicator for a typical experience.

A notable trend is that the difference between the Low and Ultra settings at each resolution is roughly halved as the resolution rises. At 1080p, Low–Ultra is 210 - 108 = 102 frames; at 1440p, it's 137 - 70 = 67; at 4K, it's 76 - 39 = 37. This reflects how the quality preset weight shifts the GPU load more steeply at higher resolutions, but also that the engine's raw limit falls as the pixel count climbs.

Settings Recommendations

The 60 FPS threshold is a broad indicator for a playable action game, but the data provides exact numbers to guide the ideal settings.

1080p: Even the Ultra preset achieves an average of 108 FPS, so the user can choose anything they like. The most balanced choice is High at 138 FPS, which offers excellent visuals and a large margin above 60. Ultra hits 108, still smooth, and Low reaches 210 but sacrifices visual quality. Medium also at 162 FPS is fully viable. For a monitor with a 144 Hz refresh, High or Ultra are recommended, and the drop to Ultra is only 30 FPS, but for a stable 144 FPS experience, High (138) is slightly below, Medium (162) is above.

1440p: Here, Medium (106 FPS) and High (90 FPS) both maintain averages above 90. Ultra dips to 70, still playable but with noticeable frame-time variation in heavy scenes. Low hits 137, but the result is higher settings are obtained. The recommendation is High at 90 FPS if visual fidelity is critical; if high frames are needed, Medium provides 106 FPS, still above the 60 FPS target. Both presets have minimums above 70 (Medium min 90), so they are stable.

4K: This is the most challenging. Only Low (76) reaches 60+ FPS. Medium (58) falls just short of the 60 mark, and High (50) and Ultra (39) punish the user with sub-50 averages. Given that the 4K Medium has a reported min of 49, even that preset can stutter during intense sequences. Therefore, for 4K, the Low preset is the recommended setting to sustain a fluid (at 76 FPS). If a fidelity is desired, Medium may be acceptable for players who can tolerate occasional spikes, but the average of 58 is borderline.

Summary of recommendation: If you prefer resolution over settings, choose 1080p Ultra or 1440p High. If you push to 4K, the Low preset is the only one that delivers a stable frame rate above 60. For a balanced compromise, 1440p Medium (106) or High (90) is the s to play.