The Technomancer

The Technomancer, an Action RPG from 2016, presents an interesting scalability study for the Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 combination. The measured data reveals a configuration that is heavily influenced by resolution and graphics settings, with performance deltas that clearly define where the bottleneck shifts between the CPU and GPU. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across three resolutions and four quality presets, interpreting what those numbers mean for the system's overall capability in this specific title.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data shows a classic pattern of GPU-bound scaling as resolution increases, but with notable anomalies at lower settings. At 1080p, the frame rates are exceptionally high, ranging from 114.3 FPS at Ultra to 221.1 FPS at Low. Moving to 1440p, the averages drop to 75.5 FPS at Ultra and 147.2 FPS at Low, representing a decrease of 34% and 33% respectively. This consistent proportional drop indicates that the RTX 3080 is still the primary limiting factor at these settings, though the sheer magnitude of the frame rates suggests the CPU is keeping pace without issue.

The transition to 4K reveals a different story. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS falls to 43.6, a 42% reduction from the 1440p Ultra result. However, at 4K Low, the average is 80.1 FPS, which is a 46% drop from 1440p Low. The fact that the percentage drop is larger at Low settings than at Ultra settings across these resolutions is counterintuitive if the GPU were the sole bottleneck. This suggests that at lower settings, the CPU is starting to become more relevant, as the reduced graphical load allows the processor to influence the final frame rate more significantly. The data indicates that the RTX 3080 is the dominant constraint in most scenarios, but the i5-13400F is not entirely idle, particularly when the graphics workload is light.

The scaling from Medium to High settings also provides insight. At 1080p, the difference between Medium (169.9 FPS) and High (147.4 FPS) is 13%, while at 4K, the difference is 15% (60.9 FPS vs 51.5 FPS). This relatively stable gap across resolutions suggests that the performance cost of these specific settings is primarily on the GPU, which scales its workload consistently regardless of resolution. The most significant performance cliff appears between High and Ultra settings, where the 4K average drops from 51.5 FPS to 43.6 FPS, a 15% penalty, and at 1080p from 147.4 FPS to 114.3 FPS, a 22% penalty. This indicates that the Ultra preset introduces a disproportionately heavy load, likely through effects like volumetric lighting or shadow quality, which taxes the GPU heavily.

FAQ

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

A: The benchmark data shows an average of 147.4 FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings. This is a very high frame rate, indicating that the combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is more than capable of delivering a smooth experience at this resolution and quality level.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1440p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 75.5. When moving to 3840x2160 with the same Ultra settings, the average drops to 43.6 FPS. This represents a 42% reduction in frame rate, showing that the 4K Ultra preset is a significant stress test for the GPU.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the limiting factor in this game for this combo?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary limiting factor in most configurations. For instance, at 4K Low, the average is 80.1 FPS, while at 4K Ultra, it is 43.6 FPS. This large performance swing based on graphics settings indicates that the RTX 3080 is the component being saturated. The CPU, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, appears to provide sufficient headroom at lower resolutions, evidenced by the 221.1 FPS result at 1080p Low.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Medium and High settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Medium preset yields an average of 114.2 FPS, while the High preset yields an average of 98.2 FPS. The difference is 16 FPS, or roughly 14%, indicating a moderate performance cost for the visual upgrades offered by the High preset.

Q: How does the combo rank among other tested combinations?

A: For The Technomancer, this specific combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 ranks 503rd out of 1656 tested combinations. This places it in the top 30% of all tested systems, showing it is a strong performer for this title.

Q: What is the lowest average frame rate recorded in the entire dataset?

A: The lowest average frame rate recorded is 43.6 FPS, which occurs at 3840x2160 resolution with the Ultra settings preset. This is the only configuration in the dataset that dips below the 45 FPS mark.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 plays a central role in determining the performance envelope for The Technomancer. Its 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 760.3 GB/s, which is sufficient for the game's data demands at 4K, as evidenced by the playable, albeit demanding, results. The GPU's core configuration, with 8704 shading units and 96 ROPs, is heavily exercised by the game's rendering pipeline. The boost clock of 1710 MHz is a key factor in the raw compute throughput, contributing to the high frame rates seen at lower resolutions.

The data shows that the GPU's performance scaling is consistent with its specifications. At 1080p Low, the 221.1 FPS result suggests that the GPU is not the bottleneck, as the frame rate is likely capped or limited by the CPU's ability to issue draw calls. However, as the resolution increases to 4K, the GPU's fill rate and shading capabilities are pushed to their limits. The drop from 80.1 FPS at 4K Low to 43.6 FPS at 4K Ultra represents a 45% reduction in performance, which aligns with the increased pixel count and the more complex shader work required by the Ultra preset. The GPU's performance percentile of 80 versus all GPUs indicates that it is a high-end part, and its behavior in this game is consistent with that positioning.

The RTX 3080's architecture, Ampere, with its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, allows for modern rendering features. The game, released in 2016, likely does not utilize ray tracing, but the GPU's raw rasterization performance is what drives these results. The measured data points to a component that is well-balanced for this title, providing excellent performance at 1080p and 1440p, while requiring adjustments to settings for a stable 4K experience. The 29.77 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is a theoretical peak, and the real-world results show that the card can deliver a significant portion of that potential.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 combination holds a rank of 503 out of 1656 tested combos in The Technomancer. This places it in the 70th percentile of all tested configurations, indicating a solid, above-average performance for this game. The ranking reflects the combined capability of the CPU and GPU, but the measured FPS data suggests that the GPU is doing the heavy lifting in this title. The CPU's average benchmark score of 25236 places it near rivals like the Intel Core i7-13620H, which has a delta of 0.1%, and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D, with a delta of -0.5%. This shows that the i5-13400F is a competitive processor, but its performance in this game is likely secondary to the GPU.

The GPU's average benchmark score of 35787 places it near the AMD Radeon Pro Duo (delta -0.2%) and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (delta -0.9%). This indicates that the RTX 3080 is a high-performing graphics card, and its ranking within the combo is a direct result of that strength. The fact that the combo ranks 503rd out of 1656 suggests that many other combinations, likely with more powerful GPUs, can outperform it. However, the data indicates that this specific pairing is well-matched, as the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at lower resolutions without creating a significant bottleneck. The rank is a holistic measure, and the component-level rival data confirms that both parts are in the upper echelon of their respective categories.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across the three standard resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are exceptionally high. With Low settings, the average is 221.1 FPS, which is the highest in the dataset. This drops to 169.9 FPS at Medium, 147.4 FPS at High, and 114.3 FPS at Ultra. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 48% reduction in frame rate, which is a substantial performance cost for the highest visual quality.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are 147.2 FPS at Low, 114.2 FPS at Medium, 98.2 FPS at High, and 75.5 FPS at Ultra. The difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 49%, which is a similar proportional drop to that seen at 1080p. At 3840x2160, the performance is more demanding. The Low preset averages 80.1 FPS, Medium drops to 60.9 FPS, High further reduces to 51.5 FPS, and Ultra is the most demanding, with an average of 43.6 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 4K is a 46% reduction, showing that the Ultra preset is consistently the most expensive across all resolutions.

The data reveals that the most significant performance jumps occur between the Low and Medium presets, and between the High and Ultra presets. At 1440p, moving from Low to Medium reduces the average from 147.2 FPS to 114.2 FPS, a 22% drop, while moving from High to Ultra reduces it from 98.2 FPS to 75.5 FPS, a 23% drop. This pattern is consistent at 1080p and 4K, suggesting that these preset levels introduce new rendering features that have a fixed performance cost, regardless of resolution. The results indicate that for a 60 FPS target, the High preset is viable at 4K with an average of 51.5 FPS, but the Medium preset, with an average of 60.9 FPS, is the safer choice for that resolution. For higher refresh rate monitors, the 1440p High preset, with its 98.2 FPS average, provides an excellent balance of visual fidelity and smoothness.