The Technomancer

The Technomancer is a 2016 action RPG that still sees widespread benchmark use, and the pairing of the Intel Core i5-14400F with the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT puts this system firmly in a specific performance envelope. Measured framerates are available across three resolutions and four quality presets, and the data shows a system that handles 1080p and 1440p with ease but clearly struggles at 4K. This analysis details exactly where this combo stands, what the GPU and CPU contribute, and which settings are the pragmatic choice for each resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured data places this combination at rank 2741 out of 3696 tested combos in this game. That means it outperforms only about 955 other configurations (a quick reverse calculation: 3696 minus 2741 gives 955), roughly the 26th percentile of all tested systems. In other words, it sits near the lower half of the field, which makes sense given the mix of a modern 14th-gen CPU and a 2019-era graphics card. The RX 5700 XT’s overall GPU percentile is 59, while the i5-14400F’s percentile across all CPUs is 83. Despite the CPU being well ahead of most, the GPU drags the combo down when the resolution climbs toward 4K.

When compared to its closest rivals, the CPU is effectively a hair’s breadth from certain competitors. The i5-14400F’s average benchmark score of 32279 places it within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32233), within 0.2% of the Intel Core i9-11900 (32226), and 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (32354). In the same vein, the RX 5700 XT’s average score of 16361 sits within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16351) and is a 0.3% behind the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16408) and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (16415). These margins are negligible in practical terms, and they indicate that this combo’s rank comes down to actual in-game performance rather than raw benchmark point differences.

The rank is also influenced by the fact that the measured FPS at 4K High is 33 and 4K Ultra is 26 — well below the 60-fps threshold most users consider comfortable. Aggregating all the measured combinations, this system cannot consistently deliver a smooth 60+ experience at 1440p High even, though it does reach 60 exactly. The overall position is thus a function of the GPU’s mid-range memory bandwidth and core configuration colliding with a game that appears to be heavy on GPU usage.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. That memory subsystem is the most critical factor for The Technomancer because this title appears to demand a minimum of VRAM and bandwidth to keep framerates stable across resolutions. At 4K Ultra the average FPS is 26, while 4K Medium doubles to 38 and 4K Low reaches 50. The memory capacity is not exhausted at any preset — the game would likely still hit VRAM limits only if settings were pushed beyond the measured set. That the 4K Medium row has a min of 33 and max of 44 suggests occasional VRAM pressure, but the average of 38 is not terrible.

The GPU’s boost clock of 1905 MHz and game clock of 1755 MHz are relevant when comparing framerates between presets. Dropping from High to Medium or Low reduces the load on the shader units, and the measured 4K averages climb from 33 to 50 as a result. The pixel fill rate is 121.9 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 304.8 GTexel/s, both figures that explain why the card handles 1440p far better than 4. For example, at 1440p High the average is 60, but at 4K High it is 33 — essentially a halving of framerate for a pixel count increase of roughly 2.2. That linear scaling points to the GPU being the primary limiter in this configuration.

Also, note that the RX 5700 XT supports DX12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The Technomancer is a 2016 DX11 era title, so it runs in DirectX 11 mode. The card still handles that fine, but the headline numbers here show that VRAM amount and memory clock are the binding constraints at 4K. The GPU’s process is 7 nm, TSMC, but that is not itself a performance driver.

Resolution Scaling

The framerate drops from 1080p to 4K are consistent across all four settings. Looking at the High preset: 1920×1080 gives 91 fps, 2560×1440 gives 60 fps, and 3840×2160 gives 33 fps. That is a drop of 34% going from 1080p to 1440p (91 → 60) and a further 45% going from 1440p to 4K (60 → 33). In Low, the numbers are 139 at 1080p, 91 at 1440p, and 50 at 4K, so the percentage drops are 34% and 45% as well. Medium yields 107 → 70 → 38 for about 35% and 46% losses, and Ultra goes 71 → 47 → 26 with 34% and 46%.

The regularity of those percentages — roughly 34% from 1080p to 1440p and 45% from 1440p to 4K — is a telltale sign that the GPU is the limiting component. The game’s GPU workload scales closely with pixel count, while the CPU is fast enough to not add a bottleneck. Even at 1080p Low, the GPU delivers 139 fps, which is below the CPU potential. If the CPU were the limiter, we would see a plateau in FPS at lower resolutions. Instead, every measure of FPS scales inversely with resolution in a predictable manner.

What does this mean in practice? For a 60 fps target, the combo can reach that at 1440p High or 1080p Medium/High. At 4K, it never does. The 4K Medium average is 38, which is about one third of the 1080p Medium’s 107. So the scaling is harsh when resolution goes to 4K, and the game will feel sluggish beyond 1440p.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows give clear guidance for each resolution.

• At 1920×1080, even the Ultra preset delivers an average 71 fps, with High at 91 and Medium at 107. Low is 139. This system can comfortably run Ultra at 1080p and stay far above 60. The ideal balance for smoothness would be Ultra or High, since the GPU has enough headroom to push beyond the threshold. If a user prefers highest visual quality, Ultra is safe.
• Moving to 2560×1440 (1440p), Ultra falls to 47 fps — below the 60 target. However, High hits exactly 60 fps, also for an exact 60 average. Medium is at 70. A 60 Hz panel will be close, but some users might prefer Medium with 70 to give headroom for stutters. The 1440p High row has an average of 60, which is passable but any heavy enemy cluster could drive it below 60.
• At 4K 3840×2160, no setting reaches 60. Low gets 50, Medium 38, High 33, Ultra 26. Even the lowest setting is not hitting a stable 60. If a user must play at 4K, Low is the only option that keeps the average above 30, and even then it hovers 20–40. The minimum values for Medium is 33, so it is borderline. Therefore the recommendation is to stick with 1080p for a rock-solid 60–plus experience, or 1440p High/Medium if acceptable to have some dips.

In short, the data points to 1080p as the sweet spot where the RX 5700 XT can push all presets above 60. At 1440p, High is the best compromise, with Medium offering more headroom. At 4K, the results are insufficient to hit 60 fps under any setting, and only Low yields an average of 50.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest FPS this combination reaches at 1080p?

A: The fastest measured row is 1080p Low with an average of 139 fps. High gives 91, Medium 107, Ultra 71.

Q: Can this system play The Technomancer at 4K at a fluid 60 fps?

A: No. The highest 4K average is 50 fps on Low; Medium is 38, High 33, Ultra 26. None reaches the 60 target.

Q: Which preset at 1440p gives the best balance of quality and smoothness?

A: High delivers an average of 60 fps exactly. Medium is 70 fps with a min of 59 and max of 80, so Medium provides slightly more headroom. Ultra falls to 47 fps.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 4K?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The framerate drops proportionally with resolution increase (from 1080p to 4K), which is the signature of a GPU-bound workload. The CPU’s high single- and multi-core scores (e.g., Cinebench R23 single 3055, multi 21645) and high overall percentile support that it is not the constraint.

Q: Does the 8 GB of VRAM cause issues at Ultra settings?

A: The 8 GB GDDR6 with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth does not prevent playable by at any setting, but at 4K Ultra the average is only 26 fps, so it is not a memory capacity issue but overall GPU performance. The drop from High to Ultra is only 7 fps (33 to 26) at 4K, which is larger than the difference at 1080p (91 to 71), indicating the GPU shader load matters more than VRAM size.

Q: When comparing to rival systems, how does the Intel CPU perform relative to its nearest listed competitors?

A: The i5-14400F’s average benchmark score 32279 is within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32233) and within 0.2% of the Intel Core i9-11900 (32226), and 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (32354). These delta are essentially negligible, so CPU performance is not a differentiator in this combo.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F is a 14th-generation Raptor Lake Refresh part with 10 cores and 16 threads, base clock 2.50 GHz and boost up to 4.70 GHz. It has a 30 MB L3 cache (shared) and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 32279 corresponds to a percentile of 83 across all CPUs, places it in the top fifth of all processors measured. That is matched by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and a single-core of 3055, which is a solid result for a desktop chip. Its nearest rivals list includes the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (score 32233) and the Intel Core i9-11900 (32226) whose scores are within a hair — less than 0.2 percentages.

In the context of The Technomancer, the CPU is not the hindrance. The measured FPS scaling with resolution shows the renderer is GPU-work intensive. At 1080p Low, the GPU (the RX 5700 XT) manages to produce 139 frames per second on average — a high number that would easily outstrip many CPUs. The i5-14400F clearly can feed the GPU fast enough to reach that level. Also, the network of the CPU’s high single-thread performance (Cinebench R15 single-core 307, R23 single 3055) means that single-threaded game logic is handled comfortably.

Interestingly, the CPU carries an integrated graphics of N/A, which is fine as it is an F-series chip with no iGPU. It relies on the discrete GPU. The CPU slot is an Intel Socket 1700, with a 65 W TDP, which is low for such a multi-threaded small. Its L2 cache per core is 1.25 MB. All of that combines to a processor that has plenty of headroom relative to the GPU for this 2016 title, and the benchmark delta comparisons to the Ryzen 7 PRO and Core i7 series confirm its performance standing is at the mainstream high end.

Thus the CPU’s role in this combo is to provide a stable, high-frequency baseline that never becomes the bottleneck. The only way the CPU could limit the system is if the game had heavy NPC AI or physics, but the resolution for frame scaling suggests not.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following are the exact average frames per second (with min and max where recorded) for each combination of resolution and quality preset.

1920×1080

• Low: 139 fps average
• Medium: 107 fps (min 91, max 123)
• High: 91 fps
• Ultra: 71 fps

2560×1440

• Low: 91 fps
• Medium: 70 fps (min 59, max 80)
• High: 60 fps
• Ultra: 47 fps

3840×2160

• Low: 50 fps
• Medium: 38 fps (min 33, max 44)
• High: 33 fps
• Ultra: 26 fps

These numbers illustrate that the system’s averages steadily decline as resolution climbs, with the biggest relative jump from 1440p to 4K. The only rows that include min and max values are the Medium settings, and those consistently show a variance of about 10–15 frames, which indicates the GPU’s memory bandwidth causes occasional drops. At 1080p Medium, the range is 91–123, at 1440p Medium it is 59–80, and at 4K Medium it is 33–44. So the minimums at all these are always roughly 20% below the average, meaning that 1% lows will feel stuttery, but the average remains stable.

Summarizing the measured data: the combo can handle 1080p Ultra at 71, and 1440p High at 60, but 4K is unusable above low. The data is measured and be considered representative of how this pairing performs with The Technomaner under its default settings catalogue.