The Technomancer

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-12600KF is a 10-core, 16-thread processor from the Alder Lake-S architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz, boosting up to 4.90 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. The processor features a hybrid design typical of Alder Lake, with performance and efficiency cores, though the fact pack does not specify the core type split. The L3 cache is 20 MB shared, with L1 at 80 KB per core and L2 at 1.25 MB per core. Memory support includes both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, and the CPU provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates strong multi-threaded capability. Its 3DMark 16-thread score is 7956, and the max-thread score is 7952, nearly identical. The Cinebench R23 multicore score reaches 23391, while the single-core score is 3302. Geekbench multicore scores 12137, with a single-core score of 2157. The PassMark multithread score is 27575, and single-thread is 3925. The average benchmark score across all tests is 27799, placing it in the 79th percentile among all CPUs.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the i5-12600KF sits in a tight pack. It trails the Intel Core i9-10900K by 0.3%, matches the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D with a 0.3% deficit, and is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800U is also 0.3% behind the i5-12600KF. These deltas are minuscule, indicating that the CPU's performance is essentially on par with those processors in aggregate benchmarks.

For The Technomancer, a 2016 Action RPG, the CPU's role is less about raw thread count and more about sustaining high frame rates at lower resolutions where the GPU is not the bottleneck. The game's engine, typical of that era, may rely on single-thread performance for game logic and physics. The i5-12600KF's single-thread score of 3302 in Cinebench R23 and 1016 in 3DMark single-thread indicates strong per-core capability, which should help maintain consistent frame pacing. At 1080p Low settings, the measured average FPS is 157, which is well above typical display refresh rates, suggesting the CPU is not a limiting factor at that settings level. The 10-core/16-thread configuration provides ample headroom for background tasks and any lightly threaded game workloads.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is based on the TU104 chip, built on TSMC's 12 nm process with 13,600 million transistors. It has a base clock of 1605 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The GPU features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. The shading units number 2560, with 160 texture mapping units and 64 raster output units. Ray tracing cores total 40, and tensor cores number 320. The GPU's FP32 performance is 9.062 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 18.12 TFLOPS (2:1). The pixel rate is 113.3 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 283.2 GTexel/s.

In benchmark tests, the RTX 2070 SUPER achieves a PassMark G3D score of 18169 and a PassMark GPU compute score of 7557. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1651, while Geekbench OpenCL scores 83358 and Vulkan scores 90637. The average benchmark score is 20282, placing it in the 65th percentile among all GPUs.

Against its nearest rivals, the RTX 2070 SUPER trails the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M by 1.0%, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile by 1.2%, the Intel Arc B570 by 1.3%, and the Intel Arc A750 by 1.5%. These deltas are small, but the RTX 2070 SUPER is consistently the lower performer in this group, albeit by a narrow margin.

For The Technomancer, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM is a key factor at higher resolutions. The game's measured FPS drops significantly from 1080p to 4K, which is typical of a GPU-bound scenario. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS falls to 29, which is below playable thresholds for most users. The GPU's memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s and its 2560 shading units are the primary determinants of pixel throughput. The 4K High setting averages 37 FPS, while 4K Medium averages 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS and maximum of 50 FPS. The fact that 4K Low averages 56 FPS suggests that even at the lowest settings, the resolution itself imposes a heavy load on the GPU. The RTX 2070 SUPER is a capable 1440p performer, as evidenced by the 1440p High average of 67 FPS, but it struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 4K on higher presets.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with Ultra settings for this combo?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings is 80 frames per second.

Q: How does the CPU compare to the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-12600KF has an average benchmark score of 27799, which is 0.3% lower than the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D's score of 27896.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded for this combo at any resolution and settings?

A: The lowest average FPS is 29, recorded at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings.

Q: Does the GPU outperform the Intel Arc A750 in average benchmark score?

A: No, the RTX 2070 SUPER has an average score of 20282, which is 1.5% lower than the Intel Arc A750's average score of 20582.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 1440p Medium settings?

A: The minimum FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings is 67 frames per second.

Q: How many shading units does the RTX 2070 SUPER have?

A: The RTX 2070 SUPER has 2560 shading units.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-12600KF and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER ranks 2144 out of 3696 tested combos in The Technomancer. This places the combo in the 58th percentile of all tested combinations, meaning it outperforms roughly 58% of other CPU/GPU pairings tested in this game. The rank is modest, reflecting the fact that the RTX 2070 SUPER, while a solid mid-range card, is not a high-end part by modern standards. The CPU is strong, but the GPU holds the combo back in this game's measured FPS.

The data shows that the combo's ranking is driven primarily by the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the combo delivers playable frame rates across all settings, with even Ultra averaging 80 FPS. At 1440p, the combo remains playable, with High averaging 67 FPS and Medium at 79 FPS. However, at 4K, the combo falls below 60 FPS on all settings, with only Low averaging 56 FPS. The rank of 2144 out of 3696 suggests that many other combos, presumably with more powerful GPUs, achieve higher frame rates in this game, particularly at 4K.

The CPU's percentile rank of 79 versus the GPU's percentile rank of 65 indicates that the processor is relatively stronger compared to its peers than the graphics card. This imbalance suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in most scenarios. The measured FPS data confirms this: at 1080p Low, the average FPS of 157 is well above what most displays can show, indicating the CPU can push frames far beyond the GPU's output at that setting. The bottleneck shifts to the GPU as resolution increases, which is typical for a game like The Technomancer.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers four resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings tiers (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). The data is complete for all combinations, with min and max FPS recorded only for Medium settings.

At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 80 at Ultra to 157 at Low. The Medium setting averages 120 FPS, with a minimum of 102 and maximum of 139. The High setting averages 103 FPS. This resolution shows a clear scaling pattern: moving from Low to Ultra reduces average FPS by 77 frames, a 49% drop. The gap between Low and Medium is 37 FPS, between Medium and High is 17 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 23 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is the largest, suggesting that Medium settings introduce significant graphical effects that tax the GPU.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops to 53 at Ultra, 67 at High, 79 at Medium, and 102 at Low. The Medium setting has a minimum of 67 and maximum of 91 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra results in a 49 FPS drop, a 48% reduction, similar to the 1080p percentage. The differences between settings are 23 FPS from Low to Medium, 12 FPS from Medium to High, and 14 FPS from High to Ultra. The 1440p results are uniformly about 55-64% of the 1080p results at the same settings, indicating a consistent resolution penalty.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS is 29 at Ultra, 37 at High, 43 at Medium, and 56 at Low. The Medium setting has a minimum of 37 and maximum of 50 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra yields a 27 FPS drop, a 48% reduction. The differences are 13 FPS from Low to Medium, 6 FPS from Medium to High, and 8 FPS from High to Ultra. The 4K results are roughly 36-40% of the 1080p results at the same settings, highlighting the heavy load of 4K on the GPU.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For a 60 FPS target, which is common for action games, the data shows the following:

At 1920x1080, all settings exceed 60 FPS. The High setting averages 103 FPS, while Medium averages 120 FPS. Ultra averages 80 FPS. Given that High delivers a comfortable margin above 60 FPS and Ultra only drops to 80 FPS, either setting is viable. The recommendation is High for a balance of visual quality and headroom, as it provides 23 FPS more than Ultra while still maintaining a high frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the situation changes. Low averages 102 FPS, Medium 79 FPS, and High 67 FPS. Ultra drops to 53 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target. For a 60 FPS experience, High is the highest setting that maintains the target, averaging 67 FPS with a minimum not recorded but likely near the 60 FPS threshold. Medium offers a safer margin at 79 FPS, while providing better visuals than Low. The recommendation is Medium for 1440p, as it delivers a 12 FPS buffer over High and stays well above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, no setting reaches 60 FPS. Low averages 56 FPS, which is the closest to the target but still below it. Medium averages 43 FPS, High 37 FPS, and Ultra 29 FPS. The minimum FPS for Medium is 37, indicating potential dips. For 4K, the data suggests that Low is the only playable option, albeit with frame rates below 60. Users seeking a smoother experience would need to consider a lower resolution.

The data also shows that the step from Medium to High at 4K only costs 6 FPS, while the step from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is heavily resource-constrained, and settings changes have diminishing returns in FPS impact. The recommendation is to use Low at 4K for the best playable experience, or to drop to 1440p for a more fluid frame rate.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the combo scales across resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 157 at 1080p to 102 at 1440p to 56 at 4K. This represents a 35% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 45% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 64%, meaning the 4K frame rate is only about 36% of the 1080p frame rate.

At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 120 at 1080p to 79 at 1440p to 43 at 4K. The drops are 34% from 1080p to 1440p and 46% from 1440p to 4K, for a total drop of 64%. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 103 at 1080p to 67 at 1440p to 37 at 4K, with drops of 35% and 45%, respectively, for a total of 64%. At Ultra settings, the average FPS drops from 80 at 1080p to 53 at 1440p to 29 at 4K, with drops of 34% and 45%, for a total of 64%.

The consistency of these percentages across all settings is notable. Each resolution step (1080p to 1440p) reduces FPS by roughly 34-35%, and each step (1440p to 4K) reduces FPS by roughly 45-46%. This uniform scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the limiting component across all settings and resolutions. The CPU's performance, which is strong relative to the GPU, does not become a bottleneck at any tested configuration.

The fact that the drop from 1440p to 4K is larger than the drop from 1080p to 1440p is expected, as 4K has 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p, while 1440p has 1.78 times the pixels of 1080p. However, the measured FPS drops are not proportionally equal to pixel counts, suggesting that memory bandwidth and fill rate constraints become more pronounced at higher resolutions. The RTX 2070 SUPER's 448 GB/s bandwidth and 113.3 GPixel/s pixel rate are likely the limiting factors at 4K, as the GPU's shading units are insufficient to maintain frame rates above 60 FPS at that resolution. The data strongly indicates a GPU-bound scenario at all measured points, with the CPU providing ample headroom.