The Technomancer

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT lands at rank 875 out of 3696 tested combos in The Technomancer. That places this configuration in the top 24% of all CPU-GPU pairings measured for this title, a solidly above-average result that reflects the hardware’s balanced capabilities. The combo outperforms roughly three-quarters of the field, though it does not crack the top tier—there are 874 combinations that deliver higher average frame rates in this game.

What is striking about this rank is the delta between the two components’ individual standings. The CPU sits at the 83rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU manages only the 55th percentile among all graphics cards. Yet the combined result is better than either component’s standalone percentile might suggest, indicating that The Technomancer’s performance profile rewards the CPU’s strengths more than it punishes the GPU’s middling percentile. The data implies this is a CPU-sensitive title where the i5-14400F’s architecture compensates for the RX 9070 XT’s modest relative standing.

The nearest rival CPUs tell an interesting story about consistency. The i5-14400F’s average benchmark score of 32279 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32233, deltaPct 0.1), the Intel Core i9-11900 (32226, deltaPct 0.2), and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (32354, deltaPct -0.2). This clustering within 0.5% suggests that in synthetic workloads, the i5-14400F is interchangeable with several other mid-range and older flagship processors. However, in The Technomancer specifically, the rank of 875 indicates the game leverages the i5-14400F’s particular combination of core count and clock speed better than raw benchmarks would predict.

For the GPU, the rival picture is more curious. The RX 9070 XT’s average benchmark score of 13543 sits within 1% of the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (13536, deltaPct 0.1), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (13515, deltaPct 0.2), and NVIDIA P106-090 (13470, deltaPct 0.5). These are all much older or lower-tier cards, which suggests the RX 9070 XT’s raw benchmark average is dragged down by workloads where its modern architecture does not excel. The Technomancer’s measured FPS, however, tells a different story—the actual in-game performance is far stronger than those benchmark scores imply.

FAQ

Q: How does this combo rank overall in The Technomancer?

A: This configuration ranks 875th out of 3696 tested combos, placing it in the top 24% of all CPU-GPU pairings measured for this game.

Q: What is the CPU’s percentile ranking compared to the GPU’s?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F sits at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs. The CPU is substantially better positioned relative to its peers.

Q: How close are the CPU’s nearest rivals in benchmark performance?

A: The i5-14400F’s average benchmark score of 32279 is within 0.5% of four rivals: the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32233), Intel Core i9-11900 (32226), AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (32354), and Intel Core i7-12800H (32121). These are all effectively tied in synthetic tests.

Q: What FPS does the combo achieve at 1080p on High settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with High settings, the combo averages 153 FPS. This is well above the 60 FPS threshold and indicates strong performance for standard-resolution gaming.

Q: How does the GPU’s raw benchmark average compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 9070 XT’s average benchmark score of 13543 is within 1% of the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (13536), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (13515), and NVIDIA P106-090 (13470). This is a much tighter grouping than the CPU’s rivals.

Q: Is the data for this combo measured or estimated?

A: The data is measured. The comboRankInGame field and all measuredFps entries are based on actual testing, not synthetic projections.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data reveals how the frame rate responds to pixel count increases, and the pattern is telling. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on High settings drops the average FPS from 153 to 100—a 34.6% reduction. Scaling further to 3840x2160 at High brings the average down to 55 FPS, another 45% drop from 1440p. The game’s performance curve is steep, with each resolution step exacting a significant toll.

The Low settings row shows the same pattern but at higher absolute numbers. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 233 FPS. Dropping to 1440p Low yields 152 FPS (a 34.8% decline), and 4K Low produces 83 FPS (a 45.4% decline from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings levels suggests that resolution scaling is governed by the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth rather than any CPU limitation.

The Medium settings data includes min and max FPS values, offering a window into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the average is 179 FPS with a minimum of 152 and maximum of 205. At 1440p Medium, the average is 117 with a minimum of 99 and maximum of 134. At 4K Medium, the average is 64 with a minimum of 55 and maximum of 74. The spread between min and max is roughly 30% of the average at each resolution, indicating a consistent frame pacing pattern regardless of pixel count.

The limiting component becomes clear when examining the Ultra settings data. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages only 43 FPS—the lowest measured result in the entire dataset. This dramatic drop from High (55 FPS) to Ultra (43 FPS) at 4K, a 21.8% decline, points to the GPU being the primary bottleneck at extreme settings. The RX 9070 XT’s 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for most scenarios, but The Technomancer’s Ultra preset appears to exceed what the card can comfortably deliver at 4K.

The CPU’s role in resolution scaling is minimal, as evidenced by the relatively uniform percentage drops across all settings tiers. The i5-14400F’s 10 cores and 16 threads provide ample headroom at every resolution, meaning the frame rate declines are almost entirely attributable to GPU workload scaling. This is a classic GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions, with the CPU’s 4.70 GHz boost clock providing enough single-thread performance to avoid becoming the limiting factor.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data offers a clear hierarchy of playable experiences. At 1080p, every settings preset produces playable frame rates, with Low hitting 233 FPS, Medium at 179 FPS, High at 153 FPS, and Ultra at 119 FPS. Even the demanding Ultra preset stays well above 60 FPS, making 1080p the resolution where players have complete freedom to choose their preferred visual quality without worrying about performance.

At 1440p, the picture changes subtly. Low (152 FPS), Medium (117 FPS), and High (100 FPS) all remain comfortably above 60 FPS, but Ultra drops to 78 FPS. While 78 FPS is still playable, it represents a 33.3% reduction from High settings. For players with 144Hz displays, High settings at 1440p (100 FPS) offers the best balance of visual fidelity and smoothness, while Medium (117 FPS) provides additional headroom for frame rate consistency.

The 4K resolution is where the recommendations become more critical. Low settings (83 FPS) and Medium (64 FPS) both exceed the 60 FPS threshold, making them viable options. High (55 FPS) falls just short of 60, and Ultra (43 FPS) is significantly below. For 4K gaming, Medium settings appear to be the sweet spot—it delivers 64 FPS average with a minimum of 55 FPS, which is acceptable for most players, while High’s 55 FPS average may result in noticeable stutter on VRR displays.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is 1440p High settings. This preset delivers 100 FPS average, which is smooth for both 60Hz and 120Hz displays, while maintaining the High visual quality tier. The alternative—1080p Ultra at 119 FPS—offers higher frame rates but at a lower resolution, and the difference between High and Ultra visual quality is often less impactful than the resolution jump from 1080p to 1440p. For players prioritizing frame rate above all else, 1080p Low at 233 FPS is the clear choice, though this sacrifices most visual features.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset provides 12 measured configurations across four settings and three resolutions. At 1920x1080, the results are uniformly strong: Low averages 233 FPS, Medium averages 179 FPS (min 152, max 205), High averages 153 FPS, and Ultra averages 119 FPS. The 1080p results show a clear progression where each settings tier costs roughly 30-50 FPS relative to the tier below.

At 2560x1440, the same progression holds but with compressed absolute numbers. Low averages 152 FPS, Medium averages 117 FPS (min 99, max 134), High averages 100 FPS, and Ultra averages 78 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 74 FPS, compared to 114 FPS at 1080p, illustrating how resolution scaling reduces the relative impact of settings changes.

The 3840x2160 results show the most constrained performance envelope. Low averages 83 FPS, Medium averages 64 FPS (min 55, max 74), High averages 55 FPS, and Ultra averages 43 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 40 FPS, and every settings tier delivers under 90 FPS. The Medium preset’s min FPS of 55 is notable—it is the only measured minimum that falls below 60 FPS, indicating that even Medium settings can experience frame rate dips at 4K.

The min and max values for the Medium preset at each resolution provide additional context. At 1080p, the range is 152-205 FPS, a spread of 53 FPS. At 1440p, the range is 99-134 FPS, a spread of 35 FPS. At 4K, the range is 55-74 FPS, a spread of 19 FPS. This narrowing spread at higher resolutions suggests that as the GPU becomes more fully utilized, frame time variance decreases—the card is consistently working near its limit rather than experiencing occasional load spikes.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F brings 10 cores and 16 threads to this pairing, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. This configuration is typical of Intel’s hybrid approach, combining performance and efficiency cores to balance throughput and power consumption. The 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB L2 per core provide ample data staging for game workloads.

In synthetic benchmarks, the i5-14400F demonstrates strong multi-threaded capabilities. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and single-core score of 3055 show a healthy balance between all-core workloads and single-thread responsiveness. The Geekbench scores (11268 multi-core, 2058 single-core) reinforce this pattern, while the PassMark multi-thread score of 25470 and single-thread score of 3701 confirm the CPU’s ability to handle both parallel and sequential tasks.

The CPU’s percentile ranking of 83rd among all processors places it well above the GPU’s 55th percentile. This disparity suggests that in The Technomancer, the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution or settings level. The game, released in 2016, likely does not heavily utilize more than a few cores, meaning the i5-14400F’s high single-thread performance (evidenced by the 307 Cinebench R15 single-core score) is more relevant than its multi-core throughput.

The nearest rival CPUs are all within 0.5% in average benchmark score, yet they represent different architectures and eras. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U and Ryzen 7 6800HS are mobile processors, while the Intel Core i9-11900 and i7-12800H are desktop and mobile parts respectively. The fact that the i5-14400F matches all of them in synthetic tests suggests that generational improvements have made mid-range desktop parts competitive with older flagship and newer mobile designs. In The Technomancer, this translates to consistent frame delivery without CPU-related stutters or bottlenecks.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a 4 nm process from TSMC. Its 53,900 million transistors and 357 mm² die size represent a substantial physical investment, and the 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs provide the computational foundation for game rendering. The card’s boost clock of 2970 MHz and game clock of 2400 MHz indicate high operating frequencies, while the 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth.

The GPU’s benchmark profile is unusual. Its PassMark G3D score of 26795 is respectable, but the average benchmark score of 13543 is dragged down by lower scores in other tests. The PassMark DirectX 12 score of 78, DirectX 11 score of 292, and DirectX 10 score of 154 are all surprisingly low for a modern card, suggesting that legacy API workloads do not properly utilize the RDNA 4.0 architecture. This explains why the GPU’s nearest rivals are older, less powerful cards like the AMD Radeon HD 7770M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570.

In actual game performance, the RX 9070 XT demonstrates its true capabilities. The measured FPS data shows the card delivering 233 FPS at 1080p Low and 119 FPS at 1080p Ultra, figures that far exceed what its benchmark average would predict. The Technomancer, released in 2016 with presumably DirectX 11-era rendering, appears to be a workload where the card’s raw compute power translates more directly to frame rate than its legacy API benchmark scores suggest.

The GPU’s 64 RT cores and 48.66 TFLOPS FP32 performance are modern features that The Technomancer likely does not utilize, given its 2016 release date. However, the card’s 128 ROPs and 380.2 GPixel/s pixel rate are directly relevant to resolution scaling, explaining the significant frame rate drops at 4K. The 16 GB VRAM capacity is more than sufficient for any settings at any resolution in this game, meaning memory capacity is not a limiting factor. The GPU’s performance at 4K High (55 FPS) and 4K Ultra (43 FPS) suggests that fill rate and memory bandwidth become the primary constraints at extreme resolutions, consistent with the card’s 644.6 GB/s bandwidth and 256-bit bus width.