The Technomancer

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for The Technomancer with the Intel Core i5-14400F and Intel Arc B390 reveals a GPU-bound scenario at every resolution, with the steepest performance cliff appearing between 1080p and 1440p. At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 52 FPS at 1920x1080 to 34 FPS at 2560x1440, a 34.6% reduction, and then falls further to 19 FPS at 3840x2160, representing a 44.1% drop from the 1440p result. This pattern of diminishing returns as resolution increases strongly indicates that the Intel Arc B390's rendering pipeline is the limiting component, not the CPU.

The scaling behavior across all four presets tells a consistent story. At Low settings, the transition from 1080p to 1440p costs 27 FPS (from 79 to 52), and the move to 4K costs another 24 FPS (down to 28). The Arc B390's pixel throughput — rated at 60.00 GPixel/s — is simply insufficient to maintain playable rates at higher resolutions even with reduced graphical fidelity. The fact that Low settings at 4K (28 FPS) barely outperform High settings at 1080p (52 FPS) in absolute terms underscores how heavily the GPU's fill rate constraints dominate the experience.

Interestingly, the resolution scaling curve is not linear. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS loss across all settings is roughly 35-40%, while the 1440p to 4K transition costs another 40-45%. This accelerating degradation suggests that the Arc B390's 24 ROPs become a bottleneck as pixel count increases, consistent with its 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs. The data shows that 1080p is the only resolution where the combination achieves average frame rates above 40 FPS on any preset, making it the only viable target for this hardware pairing.

# FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combination in The Technomancer?

A: Based on the measured FPS data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the average frame rate exceeds 40 FPS on any preset. At 1080p, the Low preset achieves 79 FPS, Medium hits 61 FPS, High reaches 52 FPS, and even Ultra maintains 40 FPS. At 1440p, the highest average across any setting is 52 FPS on Low, while 4K tops out at just 28 FPS on Low.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in this context?

A: The Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it just 1.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% above the GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% above the GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% above the GT 710 (1443). This positions it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, indicating very low absolute performance relative to the broader market.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-14400F holding back performance in this game?

A: No. The benchmark data shows a clear GPU bottleneck. The i5-14400F ranks in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs with 10 cores and 16 threads, and its nearest rivals — the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (0.1% ahead), Intel Core i9-11900 (0.2% ahead), and AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (0.2% behind) — all perform within a fraction of a percent. The FPS scaling pattern across resolutions is entirely consistent with GPU limitation.

Q: What is the difference between High and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, High settings produce an average of 52 FPS, while Ultra drops to 40 FPS. This 12 FPS difference represents a 23.1% performance penalty for the Ultra preset. Given that the Arc B390's performance percentile is only 9, the visual gains from Ultra may not justify the substantial frame rate cost.

Q: What are the minimum FPS values recorded for Medium settings?

A: The measured data includes min FPS only for Medium settings. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 52 FPS with a maximum of 70. At 1440p Medium, the minimum drops to 34 FPS with a maximum of 46. At 4K Medium, the minimum falls to 19 FPS with a maximum of 25.

Q: How does this system rank among all tested combinations for The Technomancer?

A: The combination of Intel Core i5-14400F and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2500 out of 2825 total tested combinations for this game. This places it in the bottom 11.5% of all system pairings, reflecting the GPU's low absolute performance despite the CPU's strong showing.

# GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is decisively the limiting factor in The Technomancer. With a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of just 1482 and a percentile ranking of 9 among all GPUs, the data positions this part in the entry-level segment. Its nearest rivals — the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% slower), GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% slower), GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% slower), and GT 710 (1443, 2.7% slower) — all represent legacy or ultra-low-end hardware, confirming the B390's modest capabilities.

The GPU's memory configuration is "System Shared" with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," meaning performance varies with the host system's memory subsystem. The clock speeds — 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost — are wide-ranging, but the effective throughput is constrained by the 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and just 24 ROPs. The pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are the hardware ceilings that directly explain the measured FPS data.

In The Technomancer specifically, the impact of these specifications is evident in the resolution scaling. At 1080p, the GPU can sustain 52 FPS on High settings, but doubling the pixel count to 1440p reduces that to 34 FPS — a 34.6% penalty that aligns with the 24 ROPs struggling to fill additional pixels. At 4K, the 19 FPS average on High settings demonstrates that the GPU is overwhelmed, with the pixel fill rate being the primary constraint. The 12 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support suggest modern feature compatibility, but raw rasterization performance is what matters here, and the data shows it is insufficient for higher resolutions.

The GPU's 80W TDP and IGP form factor (with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs) indicate this is an integrated-class solution. The 3 nm process node from Intel is modern, but architecture alone cannot compensate for the limited execution resources. The FP32 throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS — while respectable on paper — is hampered by the memory bandwidth bottleneck inherent to shared system memory. This explains why even Low settings at 4K (28 FPS) fail to approach playable thresholds.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this hardware combination is the Low preset at 1920x1080, which delivers 79 FPS average. This is the only setting and resolution pairing that approaches high-refresh territory, and it provides a 29.5% performance uplift over Medium at the same resolution (61 FPS). For users prioritizing smoothness over visual fidelity, this is the clear choice.

At 1080p, the Medium preset at 61 FPS offers a reasonable middle ground — the data shows a minimum of 52 FPS, meaning the experience stays above 50 FPS throughout. This is the highest preset that maintains a minimum above 50 FPS. High settings at 1080p (52 FPS average) are also playable, but the lack of min FPS data means stutter potential is unknown. Ultra at 1080p (40 FPS average) is borderline, and given the GPU's 9th percentile ranking, the visual uplift from Ultra is unlikely to justify the 23.1% frame rate loss compared to High.

For 1440p, the Low preset (52 FPS) is the only viable option, matching the 1080p High experience in frame rate. However, given that 1080p Low achieves 79 FPS, users with 1440p monitors should strongly consider running at 1080p Low instead. At 4K, no preset delivers acceptable performance — the best case is Low at 28 FPS, which is below playable thresholds for an action RPG requiring responsive combat.

The data's Medium preset min FPS values provide useful guidance: at 1080p Medium (min 52, max 70), the experience is consistent; at 1440p Medium (min 34, max 46), drops below 40 FPS will be noticeable; at 4K Medium (min 19, max 25), the game becomes effectively unplayable. The recommendation is to prioritize resolution over settings: 1080p with Medium or High offers the best balance, while any attempt to push 1440p or 4K sacrifices too much frame rate.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full preset range was measured with complete data for all four settings. Low delivers an average of 79 FPS, the highest figure recorded for this system in any configuration. Medium produces 61 FPS average with a measured minimum of 52 and maximum of 70, indicating tight frame pacing. High achieves 52 FPS average, and Ultra drops to 40 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 39 FPS, representing a 49.4% performance range across presets.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages compress significantly. Low yields 52 FPS, Medium averages 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 and maximum of 46, High reaches 34 FPS, and Ultra falls to 26 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 26 FPS, exactly half the absolute spread seen at 1080p. Notably, 1440p Low (52 FPS) matches 1080p High (52 FPS), while 1440p High (34 FPS) is 18 FPS slower than its 1080p counterpart.

At 3840x2160, performance collapses across all presets. Low averages 28 FPS, Medium averages 22 FPS with a minimum of 19 and maximum of 25, High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 15 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 15 FPS is the lowest recorded average for this system, and even the best 4K result (Low at 28 FPS) falls below what is generally considered playable. The entire 4K envelope spans just 13 FPS from best to worst preset, highlighting how the GPU's fill rate limits all settings equally at high pixel counts.

The Medium preset is the only one with min/max data across all three resolutions, providing insight into frame consistency. At 1080p, the 52-70 FPS range shows 18 FPS of variance. At 1440p, the 34-46 FPS range narrows to 12 FPS. At 4K, the 19-25 FPS range tightens further to 6 FPS. This pattern — decreasing variance as resolution increases — is counterintuitive but consistent with a GPU that is uniformly saturated at high pixel counts, leaving little headroom for frame time spikes.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F is far from the bottleneck in this configuration. With 10 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.70 GHz, this Raptor Lake-R architecture processor delivers benchmark scores that place it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and single-core score of 3055 demonstrate strong computational capability, while the Geekbench multi-core score of 11268 (single-core 2058) confirms balanced performance.

The CPU's nearest rivals — AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (avg score 32233, 0.1% ahead), Intel Core i9-11900 (32226, 0.2% ahead), AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (32354, 0.2% behind), and Intel Core i7-12800H (32121, 0.5% ahead) — all cluster within a 0.7% band around the i5-14400F's average score of 32279. This tight grouping indicates that the i5-14400F is competitively positioned in its segment, and any performance differences among these CPUs would be imperceptible in gaming workloads.

The evidence that the CPU is not limiting comes from the FPS scaling data. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect similar FPS across resolutions at a given preset — the CPU work per frame is roughly constant regardless of pixel count. Instead, the data shows dramatic FPS drops with each resolution increase: at High settings, 52 FPS at 1080p falls to 34 FPS at 1440p and 19 FPS at 4K. This pattern is the definitive signature of GPU limitation.

The PassMark results further contextualize the CPU's capability. Multi-thread score of 25470, integer math at 81524, floating-point math at 61319, and data compression at 315521 all indicate strong throughput for physics, AI, and game logic tasks. The 20 MB L3 cache (shared) and 1.25 MB L2 per core provide ample fast storage for game assets, while the dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 memory support (ECC-capable) ensures the CPU can feed data to the GPU without starving it.

For The Technomancer, an Action RPG from 2016, the CPU requirements are modest by modern standards. The i5-14400F's single-thread performance (Cinebench R20 single-core 1283, PassMark single-thread 3701) is more than adequate for the game's AI and scripting workloads. The combination rank of 2500 out of 2825 in this game reflects the GPU's poor showing, not the CPU's — the i5-14400F is performing its role without constraint, as evidenced by the resolution-dependent FPS pattern that points squarely at the Arc B390 as the performance ceiling.